Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Coming Soon-‘Design Disquisitions’ A New ID Blog

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Despite being an ID advocate for several years now (and having an authors account on this forum), I haven’t really taken the time to put pen to paper and write about it, apart from a few lengthy exchanges I had with a close friend and critic of ID. He has since stepped away from the online world, and so the exchange has ended. You can still view my responses to him here, here, herehere, and here. I also published one article where I highlighted various atheists and agnostics who are critical of neo-Darwinism and supportive of ID here.

The last thing I wrote on the subject was two years ago now, however this last year I’ve been wishing to start up a new ID blog. I made this decision for several reasons. One reason is that I simply want a place where I can write and consolidate my thoughts on the matter. I’ve also been meaning to get back into writing in general, and of course, I need a specific topic to focus on. Having said all this, I’m genuinely fascinated with this whole topic, particularly philosophy of science and biology. Yes, there are already plenty of good, active blogs and websites that cover this area so it isn’t as if another one is necessary, but I do think I can add something to the discussion.

There are other factors that make this new blog slightly different to ones already out there. I’m from the UK and not officially affiliated with other ID organisations like the Discovery Institute and so really, mine is an independent one. There have been some pro-design UK blogs in the past but they are now in stasis and as far as I’m aware there isn’t much other commentary coming from my neck of the woods. Of course, I’m fully aware of the excellent work that Centre for Intelligent Design have and are still doing (and I hear they’ll be launching a brand new website in the new year). I have contacts with many involved with C4ID and have taken part in some of their events. But I still feel that there needs to be a little more activity coming from us Brits so hopefully I can help to fill that gap.

To give a few more concrete details about this blog, it’s provisional title is ‘Design Disquisitions’, as I think it accurately captures my intentions behind this endeavour. I intend to use it to explore all aspects of the ID conversation, documenting different perspectives in the debate and turning a critical eye to both sides (even though I do side with the design view). I’ll also be defending ID by responding to critics and documenting the powerful, positive arguments in its favour. I have little interest in the political culture wars that often get dragged in to this issue and I want to focus on the science and philosophy. I love places like Uncommon Descent and Evolution News and Views, yet I think perhaps conservative ethical, political and and other extra-scientific issues get mixed in too much, which distorts the corpus. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with conservative views on those issues, and of course, ID may have many extra-scientific implications, but for me they are not relevant to ID as a scientific theory.

I’ve already been working hard on this blog throughout the year, so I have quite a bit of material stocked up. I’ve also worked hard at just gathering resources and it’ll be the most thorough storehouse of ID material on the web. As for when it will be online, I’m aiming for January in the new year. Until then I’ve got a lot of work to do!

Stay tuned!

Joshua

Comments
RVB8, you may wish to ponder the OP and discussion thread here, as drawing out the significance of DNA as text, which was highlighted by Crick on March 19, 1953 as demonstrated in the OP: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/crick-on-dna-as-text/ KFkairosfocus
December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
RVB8, we are still waiting for you to cogently address the issue of text being observed in the heart of cell based life [particularly, machine code], and in so doing to correct your blunder regarding base chaining in D/RNA in 43 above. This, on pain of being exposed as not only demonstrably ill-informed on wider worldviews issues but also of having falsely claimed a focal interest on matters of science connected to the design inference controversy (by implied sharp contrast with ID supporters here at UD). KFkairosfocus
November 29, 2016
November
11
Nov
29
29
2016
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
RVB8, we are waiting -- right here. KFkairosfocus
November 28, 2016
November
11
Nov
28
28
2016
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT
UB, we wait. KFkairosfocus
November 26, 2016
November
11
Nov
26
26
2016
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm expecting rv to bust through the door and admit to the established scientific facts at any moment now. :)Upright BiPed
November 26, 2016
November
11
Nov
26
26
2016
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
GP@ 17, now that I have skimmed back above -- spot on. This is already one of the pivotal threads in UD's saga, where the issues are plainly put on the table. Notice, onlooker, where the balance on merits lies. KFkairosfocus
November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
RVB8, it is fair and appropriate comment to say that we await your response and explanation of yourself, especially after months of sneering about UD as anti-science, ignorant, failing to deal with science and the like. KFkairosfocus
November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
rv, you may want to start here HERE
AMINOACYL-tRNA SYNTHETASES (aaRS) Aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases ensure that the proper amino acids are used to build proteins When a ribosome pairs a "CGC" tRNA with "GCG" codon, it expects to find an alanine carried by the tRNA. It has no way of checking; each tRNA is matched with its amino acid long before it reaches the ribosome. The match is made by a collection of remarkable enzymes, the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. These enzymes charge each tRNA with the proper amino acid, thus allowing each tRNA to make the proper translation from the genetic code of DNA into the amino acid code of proteins. -- RCSB PDB Protein Data Bank
You can now answer the question which (by direct osmosis at this point) you should have the answer for:
Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be “about” an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the association?
Upright BiPed
November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Good grief rv, all the intolerance and self-certainty you've posted on this blog is based on misunderstanding your high school biology? Now that you know that the symbolic code in DNA isn't established by A-T C-G, you can go ahead and answer the previous question:
My question to you is: Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be “about” an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the systematic association?
Feel free to Google anything you want confirmed.Upright BiPed
November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Is the confusing and senseless post @43 supposed to be understood as the response to the excellent commentary @31? By the way, at the end of that post @43 one reads what apparently was supposed to be "gnashing of teeth" (show of anger, dismay, discontent), but grossly misspelled (teath in lieu of teeth). It almost seem like it was done purposely for mocking, because the spellchecker of the editor would have autocorrected the misspelling. The only value of the mumbo-jumbo written in post @43 is that it triggered the instructive posts @44 and @45 by gpuccio and KF respectively. It's sad to see someone wasting the opportunity to learn the interesting things explained @31. Simply pathetic. Oh, well. What else is new?Dionisio
November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
RVB8, you are confusing cross-links between the two complementary strands of DNA with chaining down the length of the string; which is telling. Without the freedom to have AGCT follow in the chain in any order, DNA could not store the information to assemble proteins specified by the genetic code. Your onward refusal to address functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, reducing to a strawman "Look how complicated it all is," is further revealing as to determined mindset not to face sober evidence. And, the FIRST context is Darwin's warm pond of chemicals or the like pre-life environment, the root of the tree of life in OOL, where yes, there is no reproductive mechanism based on genetic code so there is no basis for chance variation and genetically linked natural selection. Then, at body plan origin level you have dodged the issue of need for many closely matched and correctly arranged, properly coupled parts to achieve function i.e. deeply isolated islands of function in vast config spaces; yet another strawman tactic dismissal. The rest of your objections collapse in the wake of that basic, disqualifying confusion and resort to strawman tactics backed up by sneers. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus
November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
rvb8: I appreciate that you have tried, but listen to me: if you really don't understand the basics of biology, why do you keep discussing it? The AT - CG binding is obviously a biochemical connection, and is the foundation of all procedures to duplicate DNA and to copy information form DNA to mRNA. As all high school students,including you, should know. But that has nothing to do with the genetic code, as all good high school students should know. The genetic code is the symbolic correspondence of the 64 codons with the 20 aminoacids (and stop signals). It is a redundant code, which is not based an anyb biochemical affinity. IOWs, the linear sequence CCA in DNA is translated to Proline when a protein is synthesized in the ribosome. That mapping is completely symbolic, because CCA, as a sequence of three nucleotides, has no biochemical connection at all with Proline. To understand what DNA translation is, see for example this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(biology) It's called translation exactly because it transforms a symbolic information (the sequence of codons in the DNA protein coding gene) into a final outcome (the sequence of aminoacids in the protein). The code is symbolic, as everyone knows (except maybe you). That's why it is called a code. The key actors in the translation process are the aminoacyl RNA synthetases, 20 complex proteins which can couple the correct codon to the correct aminoacid. Please, review points 5-7 in my post #31. Is that clear enough for you?gpuccio
November 25, 2016
November
11
Nov
25
25
2016
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
gpuccio, I know from high school that Adenine only bonds with Thymine, and Cytosine only bonds with Guanine. Where is the 'symbolism' exactly? These are chemicals These bases are further made up of hydrogen,oxygen, nitrogen,carbon and phosphorous; still not 'symbolism', much better; facts! When I read your 'unanswerable' facts all I see is one theme: “Look how complicated it all is. This simply can't arise from RM+NS." This is known as the, 'argument from increduility,' and is a staple of IDers and also, the only argument ID ever makes. Irreducible Complexity is derived from this arguent as is FSCM/UFO, or whatever letters Kairos grab bags. The Design Inferrance is also another, 'wow it's complex, must be designed,' cannard. I can't follow your science, could you please post these facts at a proper science site, I am not remotely qualified to address these.Suffice to say I think the scientists would say; 'What the hell is the word 'symbolism' doing here?' I do suspect groans and, 'nashing of teath' however.rvb8
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
D, 33 too indeed. Let us hear the response to one of our resident physicians on the science of ID. You come in as biologically very literate indeed. (I guess I can say, I sign up as applied physicist who has worked with info systems and takes the bridge to the informational view of stat mech seriously.) KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
KF @40: Please, let me add this: GP @ 33, also spot on - as usual! BTW, has rvb8 commented on gpuccio @31 yet? Can somebody please let rvb8 know some folks are anxious to read his take on gpuccio's comment @31? Rvb8 could reveal scientific discoveries no one is aware of! :) Has anybody seen rvb8 posting any comments after 3am* today? (*) Denver, CO time stamp.Dionisio
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
GP @ 31, spot on -- as usual! KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Harry, I am a Hardy Boy, and just the thought of the old Tektronix 465 fed with those old x10 clip on attenuator probes warms the cockles of my heart. My fingers still remember the comfortable, just right firm clicks of the rotary switches, that nothing else since then has ever duplicated. I have developed micro based systems and have come to the point where I began to read some of the machine code. (Long gone now! Motorola is gone, too -- incredible! [And when I have seen some of the old names recently, that just means some firm in China has bought the rights; likely working with Walmart.]) So, yes, we are looking at this as people familiar with the class of tech with a far more sophisticated version in front of us. One, in the context of Von Neumann kinematic self replicating automata using molecular nanotech . . . we can describe this but nigh on seventy years later, we cannot build them yet. And Crick knew that from the first, as his $6 mn letter to his son of March 19, 1953 directly states: "Now we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another)." This is past sixty years ago now, and in the context of winning a Nobel Prize. It is long past high time we faced the implications! KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
harry: "History will record that the science of our times — perverted by atheism as it was — became a joke, a very bad and stupid joke that temporarily ruined true, relentlessly objective, genuine science that follows the evidence wherever it leads." Very well said. A very sad example of cognitive bias at world level.gpuccio
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
kairofocus @36, I worked with technology most of my adult life, both hardware and software -- mostly software, but I have done troubleshooting of electronic hardware with an oscilloscope. This was back in the days when you could actually put your finger on the bad component. Today diodes, transistors and so on are most often microscopic sized. ;o) I have written software to simulate the instruction set of a CPU, software to communicate with robotic equipment on the factory floor, software to manage digital telephony switches, and much, much more. I am not looking for a job. ;o) I mention all of this just to make a point: You are absolutely right. It is laughably, ridiculously and utterly stupid to even momentarily entertain the notion that the self-replicating, digital-information-based nanotechnology we find in the cell is a mindless accident. History will record that the science of our times -- perverted by atheism as it was -- became a joke, a very bad and stupid joke that temporarily ruined true, relentlessly objective, genuine science that follows the evidence wherever it leads.harry
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
UB, the pivotal fact is there is TEXT in the heart of life, specifically algorithm effecting machine code. Oodles of it. Plus NC machinery for that code -- in D/RNA -- to work on. Code and text plus processing machinery do not come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity, period. No reasonable search challenge analysis will allow anyone to escape that point. So, we all have to come to terms with LANGUAGE and messages in the form of molecular technology computing machinery in the heart of life. language and the related stuff are as strong signs of design as one could ask for, just ask the SETI people what they would do if they ran across something that was doing this stuff. Game over, we have to deal with life as a designed entity, if we are at all to be coherent. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
rv, everything I said in my question is easily fact-checked in a matter of moments. Did Crick predict a set of adapter molecules? Of course he did. Did Zamecnik and Hoagland find those molecules and the set of complex aaRS proteins that charge them? Of course they did. Are these things part of the history record of science? Of course they are. Is it also an accepted truth throughout empirical science that no material object has any inherent semantic quality? Of course it is. As I said, nothing of this is even the slightest bit conttroversial. The one and only reason you don't address the question, choosing instead to run from it like the plague, is because the facts and history of empirical science support ID in a completely unambiguous fashion. Why does it take two objects to specify an amino acid during protein synthesis? Because no physical object specifies anything at all, so it requires a particular organization where one object serves as a representation (i.e. DNA) and another object establishes what is being represented (i.e. aaRS). This has been recorded knowledge for more than half a century. Attacking the people who point this out to you is not going to change the facts in any way whatsoever. It only demonstrates that you've given up on science, and are prepared to be an anti-intellectual in the service of your faith.Upright BiPed
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
gpuccio, Recently you also pointed to another "it is generally accepted" related to identical twins having separate minds. :)Dionisio
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Dionisio: Yes, it seems to be correct. And yes, it's a very big chicken-egg problem (not the only one, but a very good one indeed!). Of course, "it is generally assumed" that the genetic code was at first implemented in some other way. As "it is generally assumed" that the genetic code was at first simpler. As "it is generally assumed" that sometime in the past there was some biochemical connection between codons and aminoacids, that became mysteriously symbolic "as time goes by". Many things "are generally assumed". None of them with any support from observable facts. You know, those little things upon which science should be built. However, rvb8 and friends are certainly "groaning" at this point, so out of compassion I will stop here. :)gpuccio
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
gpuccio: Thank you for the very comprehensive comment. Please, let me take side with your politely dissenting interlocutor and point to item 7. Do you realize that what you wrote implies a "chicken-egg" conundrum? Do you realize the magnitude of the problem your statement 7 generates? Would you mind reviewing that statement to ensure it is correct indeed? :)Dionisio
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
rvb8: Try to comment on these simple arguments: 1) The genetic code is symbolic, because there is no direct biochemical connection between codons and aminoacids. This is a fact. 2) Symbolic systems are known only in designed artifacts (or in biology). 3) Being a symbolic system, it cannot work without a translation apparatus. 4) The biological translation apparatus is extremely complex, including the ribosome, mRNAs, tRNAs, the 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, and much more. 5) However, the part of the apparatus where the symbolic connection is established are the 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. It's them that bind, separately, the correct tRNA and the correct aminoacid, according to the genetic code. 6) The 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are very complex proteins, each of them made of hundreds of aminoacids, with a length ranging from about 200 to more than 1200 AAs. 7) The 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are obviously synthesized using the information in their DNA genes. That specific information is obviously written in codons, using the DNA code. Therefore, the 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, which are the only known repository of the DNA code, need the DNA code to exist. 8) There is absolutely no real theory of how such a complex symbolic system, with all the inherent functional information and irreducible complexity, could have originated in a non design way. These are scientific facts. I would appreciated your comments about them, if they are understandable enough to you. Or, if you prefer, you can "just groan", which is probably what you do best.gpuccio
November 24, 2016
November
11
Nov
24
24
2016
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
'You are surely a canary for the next person, perhaps someone who hasn't sold themselves out.' 'canary'? What does this reference mean? Like the canary in the coal mine? Why am I like that? What, 'next person'? Sold myself out? To what? To whom? And that is just the last sentence. 'My question to you is: Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be 'about' an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the systematic association?' Can't answer, sorry far too sciencey for me. I do have several questions about the question however. 1.) "a codon cannot be 'about' an amino acid." Is this acceptable biological termanology? 2.) If you gave this question to Nick Matzke or other biologists, would it be taken seriously, or would they, as I suspect, just groan? 3.) You connect 'tRNA adapter' to 'systematic association'. Again, is that acceptable use of biological terms? Would a biologist say, 'good question', or would, as I suspect, they too, grind their teeth? All the posts that are here use the same language. And not being a scientist, and being suspicious of anyone here claiming to be, I simply can't answer until you frame your question so that an interested lay person could answer. Scientists frame these sorts of questions all the time, why can ID folk, never ask an actually interesting question? P.S. I don't, 'spit and hiss', nor do I 'sneer', that is strictly you people. I do mock occasionally, but that's only because you make it so easy. Mostly I'm simply exasperated. But IDs constant efforts to say the same thing again, and again, in different ways, is also fascinating.rvb8
November 23, 2016
November
11
Nov
23
23
2016
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
A shocking surprise, rv. You spit and hiss about science discussions, but when asked if a universally-accepted pillar of science is correct, you throw your hands in the air and flail them about. You're then forced to peddle the preposterous excuse that you don't understand the question, and wouldn't be qualified to answer it anyway. If your excuse is to be believed, then universal observations (which have spanned the entire history of science) are apparently among those things that you are (by your own estimation) not intellectually fit to discuss. Normally, I might ask you to take note of just how weak and silly your position is, but in your case it's probably best to just let you resume your charade. You are surely a canary for the next person, perhaps someone who hasn't sold themselves out.Upright BiPed
November 23, 2016
November
11
Nov
23
23
2016
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
ba77, You kick butt! You need to assemble all your vast knowledge into a book. Or create some kind of ID reference web site with a topical index so ID supporters can quickly find the documentation they need to make a point regarding one of the many aspects of the debate. God bless you, ba77!harry
November 23, 2016
November
11
Nov
23
23
2016
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Joshua, "not just classicical ID, vs old fashioned Darwinism." And your entire purpose, blog, and intentions, are laid bare. What is, 'old fashioned Darwinism' exactly? Do you mean Evolutionary Biology? You see, your new take, is actually, not! When you said this was going to be a fresh approach, and would concentrate on the science (good), and philosophy of science, (bad; how this helps investigation elludes me, despite the many words wasted in attempting to justify it), I thought, 'okay, I'll give this a whirl'. And now, in your postings here you have shown your true intentions; just another poorly thought out hit job on science.rvb8
November 23, 2016
November
11
Nov
23
23
2016
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
I'm sorry Upright I can't answer your question for two reasons; 1, I'm not a scientist and am unqualified, and 2, what the hell are you talking about? Try this; when I read Coyne, Shubin, Dawkins, Hawking etcetera, I can follow their evidence and argument with ease. I hope I'm not a fool, but your several hundred word question is simply beyond me; unless of course it is a pure mish-mash of psudo-scientific babble, with a few referances to real scientists and sciency acronyms. Could you make your future questions less than one thousand words and not interpret that which you clearly understand poorly? This is my main criticism of all ID writing, it is so vague, and unclear. "Your Inner Fish", was a masterpiece of a science writer, writing and explaining a discovery. You may not agree with "The Selfish Gene", but its ideas are clearly presented. Please, please, try to do the same!rvb8
November 23, 2016
November
11
Nov
23
23
2016
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply