Disagreeably agreeing?

REC Becomes a Design Proponent
November 16, 2015 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design

In the comment thread to a recent post we were discussing the following biological design inference Dr. Moran had made:

Moran:

Craig Venter and his colleagues constructed a synthetic genome and inserted it into a cell. The DNA determined the structure and properties of the organism that grew and after many subsequent generations we have a new species that behaves exactly like it was supposed to based on the genes that the scientists built.

Barry:

Now Dr. Moran, suppose that new species escaped the lab and was captured by a researcher who had no idea about Venter’s work.  Suppose further that researcher concluded that the genome of the creature had been intelligently designed.  Would that researcher’s design inference be the true and best explanation of the creature’s genome’s provenance?

Moran:

The answer is “yes,” the researcher correctly observed that the genome of the synthetic organism is nothing like the genomes of real species. It lacks pseudogenes, transposons, and any trace of junk DNA and the sequence of its genes and regulatory regions is far too perfect to have evolved naturally.

Long time ID critic REC joined the discussion.  REC agreed that Dr. Moran’s design inference was valid.  I decided to take this opportunity to ask REC how he would respond to many of the typical objections to biological design inferences, and I asked him this series of questions:

Suppose someone pushed back at you and said, “REC, your design inference is a scientific show stopper. You have committed the designer-of-the-gaps fallacy. All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology. Besides all that, it all just a cop out unless you can tell me who designed the designer.”  What would you say?

REC responded that the objections could be valid against certain design inferences, but for reasons he did not explain they were “obviously invalid” against his design inference (which he had made based on the scenario provided by Dr. Moran).

I thought this was more than a little hypocritical and thought that he would back off this line if I pointed the hypocrisy out to him, so I provided a summary of his argument that I thought would have made the hypocrisy obvious:

Barry:

Translation: I accept the indicia of design that I accept and I reject those I reject, for my own idiosyncratic reasons. Therefore, the objections are invalid with respect to my design inference, because my design inference is a good one, and yours is not.  Does that pretty much capture it REC?

I was wrong when I assumed REC would walk back his hypocrisy when it was pointed out to him.  Instead, he doubled down:

REC:

“Therefore, the objections are invalid with respect to my design inference, because my design inference is a good one, and yours is not.”

Correct, except that you haven’t even stated your design inference in this thread. I do feel my statements regarding the human-designed synthetic genome are valid and well evidenced. I don’t think any ID inference comes even close.

Shouldn’t we evaluate design inferences based on their validity and the evidence supporting them? Isn’t it illogical and absurd to say ALL design inferences are valid because ONE design inference is?

Let’s explore what is going on here.  First, we have made significant progress.  Notice what Dr. Moran did:

He identified certain indicia of design in the genome of an organism.

He stated that when these indicia of design are present, “design” is the best explanation of the provenance of the features of the genome under consideration.

He went one step further and excluded natural causes as a likely cause.

This is the general approach to biological design detection advocated by ID proponents for the last two decades.  In other words, Dr. Moran admitted that the general approach and methodology of biological design detection advocated by proponents of ID theory is valid.

THIS IS HUGE!

Professor of biochemistry Dr. Laurence A. Moran is an arch-atheist, materialist, super-advocate of modern evolutionary theory and one of the most prominent critics of design theory on the planet.  If even he agrees that the general methodology advocated by ID proponents can lead to a valid design inference, the matter seems to be settled.

We have come to the point where even our most vociferous critics agree that ID proponents’ general methodology is valid.  The dispute is no longer whether ID theory generally is valid; the only dispute is whether particular design inferences are valid.

Which brings us to REC.  The point of the “typical objections” I brought to REC’s attention is that if they are valid with respect to any design inference, they are just as valid against his particular design inference.

For example, consider this typical objection:  “All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology.”

If that objection is valid (it is not, but set that aside for now), it is just as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s design inferences as it is against any other design inference.

The point sailed right over REC’s head.  He responded that the objections were not valid as to his design inference, because his design inference (opposed to ID’s design inferences) was “valid and well evidenced.”

But that is exactly what ID proponents have been saying for decades REC!  We have been saying all along that the various “typical objections” are invalid if the evidence leads to a design inference.

REC, the only difference between you and us is that you are persuaded by the evidence in a particular case and not in our case.  But you are missing the point.  If what is important is the EVIDENCE, then th “typical objections” lose all force all the time.

In other words, the objection “all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism” is invalid in principle, not in application, if it is even possible to make a valid design inference based on the EVIDENCE.

You agree with us that it is the EVIDENCE that is important, and objections thrown up for the purpose of ruling that evidence out of court before it is even considered are invalid.

REC, welcome to the design movement.

Teliophobia?

Fear of Intelligent Design Prevents Some Biologists from Accepting ENCODE's Results
Casey Luskin November 16, 2015 3:11 AM

Evolutionists who accept ENCODE's results have tried to comprehend why other biologists steadfastly challenge the project's experimentally demonstrated conclusions. Many have suggested that a major force driving anti-ENCODE attitudes is fear of lending credence to intelligent design.

In his retrospective on ENCODE in Nature, Philip Ball acknowledges that there is an "anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it."1 Likewise, pro-ENCODE biochemists John Mattick and Marcel Dinger observe that "resistance to [ENCODE's] findings is further motivated in some quarters by the use of the dubious concept of junk DNA as evidence against intelligent design."2 Writing in a slightly different context, eight biologists published a Nature article in 2014 recognizing that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism because, "haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front."3

It's disturbing that scientists oppose empirically based research results or suppress their own doubts about the neo-Darwinian paradigm simply because they don't like the perceived alternative -- ID. These admissions show that evolutionary biology is in an incredibly unhealthy state, where devotion to the paradigm trumps the evidence. A 2003 paper in Science observed that "the term 'junk DNA' for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA,"4 but even now that junk DNA has finally been overturned, evolutionary dogmatism still hinders scientific advancement.

In fact, ENCODE proponents aren't the only ones to have acknowledged how ID phobia plays a role in scientists' responses. Even ENCODE-critics have admitted it. The journal Science explained how University of Houston biologist Dan Graur opposes ENCODE because he doesn't like its ID-friendly implications:

Graur's atheism inflamed his anger at ENCODE. He perceives an echo of intelligent design in the consortium's "80% [of the genome is functional] claim," which he takes to imply that most of the genome exists because it serves a purpose.5
But the bluntest summary of why scientists oppose ENCODE came when Graur declared: "If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong."6 With ENCODE's empirical data now showing that the vast bulk of the genome has an important purpose, we can safely say that the fears of ENCODE critics are entirely justified.
Future Forecast

Since 2012, research has continued to uncover specific functions for non-coding DNA, and the case for ENCODE grows stronger and stronger with each passing month.7 Eventually, even the evolutionary holdouts will be unable to deny that virtually our entire genome is functional. Or so you'd like to think.

Evolutionists who believe their paradigm stands only if ENCODE falls have careers, reputations, and deeply held worldviews invested in the view that humans were created by purposeless processes that filled our genomes with useless DNA. Thus, after famously saying, "If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong," Dan Graur's action plan was, in his own words: "Kill ENCODE."8 Human nature may never allow such critics to concede defeat. For them, too much is on the line. Win or lose, they're going down fighting.

The good news is that most scientists aren't evolutionary ideologues. Rank-and-file biologists know compelling empirically based experimental data when they see it. Because they see it in ENCODE, they will build (and may have already built) a new consensus that rejects "junk DNA" and views ENCODE-critics as a footnote -- perhaps one that cautions against putting the paradigm before the evidence.

Some of these biologists are now exploring what they call "post-Darwinian"9 models of evolution, often adopting the same critiques of Darwinism that ID proponents offer. They still seek unguided material evolutionary explanations of life and are resistant to design. But that resistance is weakening. Indeed, widespread fears about aiding intelligent design show that many biologists understand how ENCODE's results represent a major breakthrough for ID. As William Dembski eloquently put it some 14 years pre-ENCODE:

[D]esign is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. ... Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.10
Imagine if scientists had embraced an ID paradigm when Dembski wrote those words in 1998, how much more advanced would molecular biology -- unhindered by evolutionary assumptions -- be today? This much is clear: ID boldly predicted ENCODE's results, and evolutionary biology didn't. This puts ID in a strong position to lead science forward into a post-Darwinian world.
References:

[1.] Philip Ball, "Celebrate the Unknowns," Nature, 496:419-420 (April 25, 2013).

[2.] John Mattick and Marcel Dinger, "The extent of functionality in the human genome," The HUGO Journal, 7:2 (2013).

[3.] Laland et al., "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014).

[4.] Wojciech Makalowski, "Not Junk After All," Science, 300:1246-1247 (May 23, 2003).

[5.] Yudhit Bhattercharjee, "The Vigilante," Science, 343:1306-1309 (March 21, 2014).

[6.] Dan Graur, "How To Assemble a Human Genome?" (2013).

[7.] The website www.lncrnablog.com documents scientific papers showing function for non-coding DNA.

[8.] Dan Graur, "How To Assemble a Human Genome?" (2013).

[9.] For example, see Simon Conway Morris, "Walcott, the Burgess Shale and rumours of a post-Darwinian world," Current Biology, 19:R927-R931 (2009).


[10.] William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, 86: 21-27 (October, 1998).

Our creator is a God of order :The Watchtower Society's commentary.

We Need Jehovah’s Organization:
HAVE you ever heard someone say, “I believe in God but not in organized religion”? Similar viewpoints are often expressed by individuals who were once enthusiastic churchgoers but who became disillusioned by the failure of their religion to meet their spiritual needs. Although disappointed by religious organizations in general, many insist that they still want to worship God. They believe, however, that it is better to worship him in their own way than to do so in association with a church or other organization.


What does the Bible say? Does God want Christians to be associated with an organization?

Early Christians Benefited by Being Organized:
At Pentecost 33 C.E., Jehovah poured out his holy spirit, not upon a few isolated believers, but upon a group of men and women who came together “at the same place,” namely, in an upper room in the city of Jerusalem. (Acts 2:1) At that time, the Christian congregation, which became an international organization, was formed. This proved to be a real blessing for those early disciples. Why? For one thing, they had been given an important assignment—that of preaching the good news of God’s Kingdom eventually “in all the inhabited earth.” (Matthew 24:14) In the congregation new converts could learn from experienced fellow believers how to carry on the preaching work.

Soon the Kingdom message spread far beyond the walls of Jerusalem. Between 62 and 64 C.E., the apostle Peter wrote his first letter to Christians who were “scattered about in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” all in modern-day Turkey. (1 Peter 1:1) There were also believers in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, Greece, Crete, and Italy. As Paul wrote to the Colossians in 60-61 C.E., the good news had been “preached in all creation that is under heaven.”—Colossians 1:23.

A second benefit of associating with an organization was the encouragement Christians could give to one another. In association with the congregation, Christians could hear inspiring discourses, study the Sacred Scriptures together, share faith-strengthening experiences, and join fellow believers in prayer. (1 Corinthians, chapter 14) And mature men could “shepherd the flock of God.”—1 Peter 5:2.

As members of the congregation, Christians also got to know one another and came to love one another. Far from feeling burdened by their association with the congregation, the early Christians were built up and strengthened by it.—Acts 2:42; 14:27; 1 Corinthians 14:26; Colossians 4:15, 16.

Another reason that the united worldwide congregation, or organization, was needed was to promote unity. Christians learned to “speak in agreement.” (1 Corinthians 1:10) This was vital. Members of the congregation came from a variety of educational and social backgrounds. They spoke different languages, and they had obvious differences in personality. (Acts 2:1-11) At times, there were honest differences of opinion. However, Christians were helped to resolve such differences within the congregation.—Acts 15:1, 2; Philippians 4:2, 3.

Serious questions that could not be handled by local elders were referred to mature traveling overseers, such as Paul. Vital doctrinal matters were referred to a central governing body located in Jerusalem. The governing body was initially made up of the apostles of Jesus Christ but was later extended to include older men of the congregation in Jerusalem. Each congregation recognized the God-given authority of the governing body and its representatives to organize the ministry, appoint men to positions of service, and make decisions on doctrinal matters. When an issue was settled by the governing body, the congregations accepted the decision and “rejoiced over the encouragement.”—Acts 15:1, 2, 28, 30, 31.


Yes, Jehovah used an organization in the first century. But what about today?

We Need an Organization Today:
Like their first-century counterparts, Jehovah’s Witnesses today take seriously the commission to preach the good news of the Kingdom. One way they carry out this work is by distributing Bibles and Bible study aids, which calls for organization.

Christian publications must be carefully prepared, checked for accuracy, printed, and then shipped to the congregations. In turn, individual Christians must volunteer to bring the literature to those who want to read it. The Kingdom message has reached millions in this way. Publishers of the good news endeavor to carry out their preaching activity in an orderly fashion, ensuring that no part of the territory is overworked while other parts are neglected. All of this calls for organization.

Since “God is not partial,” Bibles and Bible literature must be translated. (Acts 10:34) Currently, this magazine is available in 132 languages, and its companion, Awake!, is published in 83 languages. That requires well-organized teams of translators around the world.

Members of the congregation receive encouragement when they attend Christian meetings and assemblies. There they hear stimulating Bible discourses, study the Scriptures together, share upbuilding experiences, and join with fellow worshipers in prayer. And as their brothers in the first century, they enjoy faith-strengthening visits from loving traveling overseers. Thus, Christians today form “one flock, one shepherd.”—John 10:16.


Of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not perfect, any more than were their early counterparts. Still, they work together in unity. As a result, the Kingdom-preaching work is being accomplished throughout the earth.—Acts 15:36-40; Ephesians 4:13.