Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Response to Professor Feser

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Edward FeserProfessor Edward Feser is an intrepid philosopher, who is not afraid to confront error head-on and expose it for what it is. That is an admirable trait. He is also a former atheist, who now defends religion from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective. In his book The Last Superstition (St. Augustine’s Press, 2008; available here ), Professor Feser takes on all four of the “New Atheists” – Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. David Oderberg, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading, England, and a former atheist himself, was highly impressed by Professor Feser’s robust defense of the rationality of belief in God:

Anyone who comes away from The Last Superstition thinking that potboiler atheism has anything to recommend it, or that belief in God is irrational, will not be convinced by anything. For the rest of us, the book is, to use an apposite term, a godsend. And the caustic humour peppering the book adds just the sort of spice this fraught subject needs. If the Faithless Foursome were at all interested in a serious rebuttal, they now have it.

Professor Feser is a very insightful metaphysician, and I have been struck by his perspicacity more than a few times, while reading his blogs. His ability to articulate and defend Aquinas’ Five Ways to a 21st century audience is matchless. It is therefore a great pity, in my opinion, that he perceives ID as antithetical to Aquinas’ philosophy, and as an obstacle to his intellectual endeavor of convincing skeptics that the existence of God can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

What is Professor Feser’s beef with ID, you may ask? Actually, he has a few objections to ID, but his principal complaint is that it is tied to a mechanistic conception of life. Here is his argument, taken from his recent post, “Intelligent Design” theory and mechanism (10 April 2010):

Take Dembski’s discussion of Aristotle at pp. 132-3 of The Design Revolution (which, if you don’t have a copy of the book, you can read for yourself here via Google Books). Dembski here identifies “design” with what Aristotle called techne or “art.” As Dembski correctly says, “the essential idea behind these terms is that information is conferred on an object from outside the object and that the material constituting the object, apart from that outside information, does not have the power to assume the form it does. For instance, raw pieces of wood do not by themselves have the power to form a ship.” This contrasts with what Aristotle called “nature,” which (to quote Dembski quoting Aristotle) “is a principle in the thing itself.” For example (again to quote Dembski’s own exposition of Aristotle), “the acorn assumes the shape it does through powers internal to it: the acorn is a seed programmed to produce an oak tree” – in contrast to the way the “ship assumes the shape it does through powers external to it,” via a “designing intelligence” which “imposes” this form on it from outside.

Now, having made this distinction, Dembski goes on explicitly to acknowledge that just as “the art of shipbuilding is not in the wood that constitutes the ship” and “the art of making statues is not in the stone out of which statues are made,” “so too, the theory of intelligent design contends that the art of building life is not in the physical stuff that constitutes life but requires a designer” (emphasis added). And there you have it: Living things are for ID theory to be modeled on ships and statues, the products of techne or “art,” whose characteristic “information” is not “internal” to them but must be “imposed” from “outside.” And that just is what A-T [Aristotelian-Thomistic – VJT] philosophers mean by a “mechanistic” conception of life.

Remember, this does not mean that A-T [Aristotelian Thomism] denies that living things are created by God; far from it. The point is rather that for A-T, the way God creates a natural substance is not to be understood on the model of a shipbuilder or sculptor who takes pre-existing bits of matter and rearranges them to serve an end they have no tendency otherwise to serve. For A-T, a natural substance is a composite of “prime matter” (matter having no form at all) and substantial form, rather than a piece of “second matter” (matter already having some substantial form or other) which has acquired some accidental form from outside it. And a natural substance’s causal tendencies, including biological functions in the case of living things, are inherent to it, a reflection of its essence or nature; it simply could not possibly exist as the kind of thing it is in the first place if it did not have those tendencies… The way God creates living things, then, is the same way He creates everything else, viz. by conjoining an essence to an act of existence…

With the greatest respect, I think that Professor Feser is misconstruing Professor Dembski’s argument. I consider myself an ID proponent, and I would be the first to affirm that living organisms have built-in ends, and that their biological functions are inherent to them. Nowhere in Professor Dembski’s book, The Design Revolution, does he deny these obvious facts. Let’s go back to Dembski’s exposition of Aristotle on acorns: “the acorn assumes the shape it does through powers internal to it: the acorn is a seed programmed to produce an oak tree.” Far from denying this observation, ID theory endorses and welcomes it. An acorn can produce an oak tree, precisely because its DNA is packed with functional complex specified information.

But where did the first acorn come from? More generally, where did the first life come from? It is all well and good to say that living things have inherent tendencies; but where did these tendencies first originate? Professor Feser’s response is that God breathed existence into an essence, as it were. Fine; but what about the essence of the first life form? Did it spring fully-fledged from the brow of the Almighty, as a Divine idea that God suddenly endowed with concrete existence, or was it “educed” from pre-existing powers lying latent in non-living matter?

The point that Professor Dembski was making in The Design Revolution was simply this: that the inherent tendencies which define living organisms and make them what they are, do not in any way explain how the first living organism came to be. To explain this occurrence, an act of external agency is required: in other words, a Designer who created the first life. Neither chance nor the laws of nature can explain the emergence of life, because they are unable to generate the functional complex specified information which characterizes life.

Now, Aristotle never addressed the question of how life on Earth originated, because he believed the world was eternal, and that the various species of living things had always existed. Aquinas, writing as a Christian theologian in the 13th century, rejected the view that the world was eternal, but he had the honesty to admit that Aristotle’s view was rationally consistent. We now know, however, that the Earth has not always existed. Additionally, there is very strong observational evidence that our Universe began in a Big Bang, approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We therefore have to confront the question: where did life come from?

Professor Feser would have us believe that this question is secondary. Even if there are some unknown laws of nature which explain the emergence of life, it does not matter; the really surprising thing is that there are laws of nature at all. To account for this striking fact, one must suppose that the various kinds of things we observe in the natural world (even things as simple as hydrogen atoms) have built-in tendencies to produce certain kinds of effects, under the right circumstances. But to say that a thing has a tendency towards a certain effect is tantamount to saying that producing that effect is not merely what is does, but what it ought to do. Laws of nature, then, are prescriptive as well as descriptive. Things have an “aboutness” built into them: what they are about is the effect they tend towards. But things lacking intelligence (such as hydrogen atoms) are not capable of being about anything unless an Intelligent Creator makes them to be that way. Likewise, things can only behave as they ought to behave if they were designed to behave in a certain way. That, in a nutshell, is Aquinas’ Fifth Way, the best exposition of which is actually to be found not in Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Part I, question 2, article 3, but in his Questiones Disputatae De Veritate, Question 5, Article 2.

However, what Professor Feser appears not to realize is that there is very good evidence, from Aquinas’ own writings, that he would have warmly supported Professor Dembski’s contention that the first life could not have originated by natural processes, had he known what we know today about biology. This is a bold claim to make, and I am of course perfectly aware that for Aquinas and his contemporaries, spontaneous generation was an unquestioned fact of life, owing to the defective biology of that time. What Professor Feser overlooks, though, is that Aquinas also expressly taught that at least some kinds of creatures could not be generated from non-living matter by natural processes, as too many conditions would need to be satisfied in order to produce creatures of such perfection. In ID parlance, these creatures contain too much functional complex specified information (FCSI). I will produce “chapter and verse” to support this assertion in a forthcoming post, and I will also explain why I believe that had Aquinas known what we now know about DNA, he would have held that even a bacterium could not have originated from non-living matter by natural processes. For now, all I will say is that evidence for these assertions may be found in both the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. I am surprised that Professor Feser is unaware of this evidence.

Now, I happen to know that Professor Feser is a big fan of Aquinas’ First Way – the argument from motion. Why does he especially like this argument in particular, rather than, say, the argument that things require a first cause of their being (the Second Way)? I shall answer by quoting from an article he recommends in his post, Go to Thomas! (28 January 2010): Michael Augros’s article responding to “Ten Objections to the Prima Via”. On pages 85-86 of his article, Augros writes:

The Second, Third, and Fourth ways do not begin from motion, which most manifestly needs a cause. Aquinas says that “Everything which was not always manifestly has a cause; whereas this is not so manifest of what always was.” But in all motion there is something which was not always. Motion itself, because of the novelty in it, gets our attention – we wave our hands to be seen, and sit still to avoid being noticed. And once we notice something new, something changed, we spontaneously seek a cause, much more convinced that there must be one than when there is no change. It is a rare soul who wonders why a house that has long been in existence now continues to exist in its same accustomed condition – unless it was on fire the last time he saw it. But no one fails to see that a new house going up in the neighborhood is due to a productive cause, even if neither he nor anyone else among his neighbors has seen the work being done.

Life on Earth had a beginning, and it also exhibits motion. It therefore had a cause. The movements that we can observe, under the microscope, in even the simplest living cells make a deep impression on most people. Intuitively, they immediately grasp that these movements exhibit a kind of complexity that is the hallmark of intelligence. Since cells themselves are not intelligent, they must have been designed. Thus ID’s argument for a Designer is thus a modern-day via manifestor for John and Jane Citizen. Even without the benefit of Aristotle’s philosophy, they can readily grasp that the first living things must have been designed, if life on Earth had a beginning.

As for Professor Feser’s claim that Aquinas did not liken God the Creator to a shipbuilder, sculptor or artificer, allow me to quote from the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas himself:

For when we call the builder the principle of the house, in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art; and it would be included in the idea of the first principle were the builder the first principle of the house. God, Who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed.
Summa Theologica, Vol. I, q. 27, article 1, reply to objection 3.

Although creatures do not attain to a natural likeness to God according to similitude of species, as a man begotten is like to the man begetting, still they do attain to likeness to Him, forasmuch as they represent the divine idea, as a material house is like to the house in the architect’s mind.
Summa Theologica, Vol. I, q. 44, article 3, reply to objection 1.

For just as an architect, without injustice, places stones of the same kind in different parts of a building, not on account of any antecedent difference in the stones, but with a view to securing that perfection of the entire building, which could not be obtained except by the different positions of the stones; even so, God from the beginning, to secure perfection in the universe, has set therein creatures of various and unequal natures, according to His wisdom, and without injustice, since no diversity of merit is presupposed.
Summa Theologica, Vol. I, q. 65, article 2, reply to objection 3.

But should we speak here of life imitating art, or of art imitating life? Professor Feser contends that because the finality found in works of art is extrinsic, being imposed on a lump of lifeless matter by an external agent (e.g. a sculptor), we should think of art as a pale imitation of the intrinsic finality (or built-in teleology) found in all living things.

Again, this is perfectly correct if we are comparing the being of a living thing to that of a work of art. However, the intrinsic finality we find in all living things cannot account for the coming-to-be of the first living things. To explain this, we do need an artificer.

Now ID says nothing about the modus operandi of the Creator. An ID theorist is perfectly free to posit an act of Divine intervention at the dawn of life, or alternatively, a universe exquisitely fine-tuned by the Designer in its initial conditions as well as its laws, so that the subsequent emergence of life was inevitable. ID is a “big tent.” Theistic evolution, on the other hand, is not. Almost invariably, theistic evolutionists find the notion of God intervening in nature uncongenial. To them, it smacks of Divine tinkering, or of a “God-of-the gaps”; hence their visceral dislike of ID. It is particularly interesting, then, to discover that St. Thomas Aquinas did not share this dislike at all. On the contrary, he considered it perfectly appropriate for God, as a Divine artist, to intervene in nature whenever He pleased, even if He acts in a manner contrary to the normal course of natural occurrences:

[A]ll creatures are related to God as art products are to an artist, as is clear from the foregoing. Consequently, the whole of nature is like an artifact of the divine artistic mind. But it is not contrary to the essential character of an artist if he should work in a different way on his product, even after he has given it its first form. Neither, then, is it against nature if God does something to natural things in a different way from that to which the course of nature is accustomed.

Hence, Augustine says: “God, the creator and founder of all natures, does nothing contrary to nature; for what the source of all measure, number and order in nature does, is natural to each thing” [Contra Faustum, XXVI, 3].
Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, chapter 100, paragraphs 6 and 7, available online at http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#100

That sure sounds like an artificer to me.

Before concluding this post, I will briefly respond to Professor Feser’s second substantive charge against Professor Dembski, which is that he prevaricates on the nature of the Designer:

In some places he insists that the “designer” that ID posits could in theory itself be something in the natural order, such as an extraterrestrial, so that there is no truth to the charge that ID has an essentially theological agenda. But elsewhere he insists that “specified complexity” cannot be given a naturalistic explanation, and even allows that positing a designer who is part of the natural order would only initiate an explanatory regress – which would imply that a genuine explanation would require an appeal to the supernatural.

Is there an inconsistency here? Not at all. We need to distinguish between what can be established by a scientific argument, from what can only be established by a metaphysical argument. The scientific case for biological ID is built on the fact that the emergence of even the simplest living cell through low-specificity processes, such as the laws of nature, would be an astronomically improbable event, over the time period available (say, the first billion years after the Earth formed). The laws of nature, by themselves, are too blunt an instrument to generate the amount of functional complex specified information (FCSI) found in even the simplest living cell over that time period, and chance won’t do the job either. Intelligent beings, on the other hand, create FCSI all the time. Ergo, the most rational inference is that life on Earth was intelligently designed. This is a scientific argument which makes use of abductive reasoning but makes no controversial metaphysical assumptions.

By contrast, the argument that the Designer transcends the cosmos is far trickier to formulate, and does require certain metaphysical premises to yield its conclusion. One needs to show either that the cosmos had a beginning (as the kalam cosmological argument attempts to prove), which means that the first life-forms in the cosmos must have been created by a supernatural Being, if one rejects abiogenesis on probabilistic grounds, as ID proponents do; or that the laws of the cosmos must be designed by an Intelligent Being, who therefore transcends the cosmos (the fine-tuning argument and Aquinas’ Fifth Way can both be used to demonstrate this). Some metaphysical premises – very rational ones, I might add – are required to make these arguments work. Hence on purely scientific grounds we cannot show that the Designer of life on Earth is not an extraterrestrial, but on metaphysical grounds we can.

The value of ID for most people is that it “breaks the spell” of the scientific materialist mindset, which says that mind emerged naturally from matter, through an argument which is evident to most people and that practically anyone can grasp, even if their philosophical background is very limited. The specified complexity of life speaks for itself. Have a look here if you don’t believe me. And then read this and this. Whoever designed life is smarter than we are.

That doesn’t take us to an Infinite Being, but it’s a big step in the right direction. Someone who comes to recognize that life on Earth was designed by a superior Intelligence will then be much more receptive to the idea that the Designer is transcendent and not limited by anything else.

Professor Feser is an astute metaphysician, and I suspect he will ask: why take this roundabout route to God, when a good metaphysical argument will get you there? The short answer is: most people don’t trust metaphysical arguments which purport to prove conclusions which they find repugnant to their way of thinking. They tend to reject such arguments as “armchair metaphysics” – which is an unfair prejudice, but a sad fact of life. The value of ID is that it helps to break down this repugnance. Once people are persuaded that life on Earth had a Designer, the idea of God no longer seems so intellectually uncongenial.

Comments
Dr. Torley: I was intrigued by your comment that it’s actually not that hard to to argue from “There are laws of nature” to “There is a Deity.” I tried composing a fairly rigorous argument this morning, and it took me about 20 steps, as I was trying to argue for a Deity and not just a Superior Intelligence. But if you’ve got a shorter argument, then I’d love to see it.
Each of Aquinas' five ways are argued from (largely) undisputed empirical premises - the fifth way being my favorite. It is basically this: 1) There are objects in nature which, having no intellect of their own, consistently and predictably act towards an end as if it was their 'goal' to do so. 2) Goal-seeking is exclusively the product of intellect. 3) Therefore, all of these objects must be directed by an intellect capable of such a feat. 4) An intellect capable of such a feat would be equivalent to what most of us on this planet would call "God". There it is. The other four ways are just as short and each ends at what we would call "God".Chucky Darwin
April 17, 2010
April
04
Apr
17
17
2010
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
---vjtorley: "Defining life in terms of finality alone would make it impossible for scientists to reliably identify life. However, defining life in terms of form alone would be to overlook the distinguishing feature of living things, which is that they have a good of their own. You can’t boil that down to structure." This is what Einstein meant when he said, "I wouldn't give a nickel for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity." The above represents the latter.StephenB
April 16, 2010
April
04
Apr
16
16
2010
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Dr Torley, That reduces life to mere structure, which is the mistake made by mechanism. An unproven assertion. I admit to being ignorant of vast swaths of philosophy, Aristotelian or not. What is a "good of its own", that distinguishes living things? Thinking of things such as a salt crystal, a forest fire, a prion, a virus, a short RNA, a long RNA - which of these has a good of its own? Sorry for being clueless.Nakashima
April 16, 2010
April
04
Apr
16
16
2010
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Chucky Darwin (#54) I was intrigued by your comment that it's actually not that hard to to argue from “There are laws of nature” to “There is a Deity.” I tried composing a fairly rigorous argument this morning, and it took me about 20 steps, as I was trying to argue for a Deity and not just a Superior Intelligence. But if you've got a shorter argument, then I'd love to see it.vjtorley
April 16, 2010
April
04
Apr
16
16
2010
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill (#55) Thank you for your post. I'd like to address your comment on what life is:
Atmospheric nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water (plus small amounts of minerals eroded out of rocks) are biochemically transformed into living organisms who, when they die are decomposed back into those non-living materials by bacteria and fungi. That this is clearly the case has not been a matter of serious dispute for over a century. However, I have many times had discussions with creationists and ID supporters who deny that this is the case, and assert some updated version of Bergsonian vitalism. They believe that some kind of “magical force” (shades of Obi-Wan Kenobi) infuses living things and “makes” them alive, and somehow departs from them when they cease living. This is one of those inferences that seems staggeringly obvious to almost everyone (i.e. it is one of the strongest “intuitions” to which we are prone), and it is just as clearly false. There is absolutely no detectable difference between the non-living components of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and crust and those same materials in living organisms. The components – the materials – are exactly the same. What is different is the way they are arranged. Life, in other words, is an emergent property of the organization of the materials of which living organisms are composed.
That living things are made of the same chemicals as non-living things is something which nobody would now deny, although some vitalists held this bizarre view between the seventeenth century and the mid-nineteenth century. However, Aristotle would have readily acknowledged that living things were made of the same elements as non-living matter, as would Aquinas, even though both of them believed in final causes. The fact that living things have the same material constituents as non-living things, however, does not imply that living and non-living things differ only in their organization. That reduces life to mere structure, which is the mistake made by mechanism. On the other hand, it would also be wrong to say that living things have some kind of some kind of “magical force” that “makes” them alive (where "makes" is construed as some kind of mysterious activity performed by some spooky agent). That's animism - a folk philosophy which has no place in the 21st century. Is there a via media? I would argue that there is. You might like to re-read my comment #32, where I discuss the characteristics of a master program, nested hierarchy of organization and dedicated functionality, which (I would suggest) characterize life (subject to the conditions I laid down in that post). The first two conditions are more "formalistic", while the third is more "finalistic." What is important, however, is that the formal and final characteristics of life, while mutually irreducible, nevertheless go hand-in-hand. Defining life in terms of finality alone would make it impossible for scientists to reliably identify life. However, defining life in terms of form alone would be to overlook the distinguishing feature of living things, which is that they have a good of their own. You can't boil that down to structure.vjtorley
April 16, 2010
April
04
Apr
16
16
2010
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
---Allen Quoting Dembski: “As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering." What exactly are you trying to prove here? ID paradigms do not deal with mechanisms, they merely detect the presence of intelligence. Isn't it good science to know the limits of one's paradigm? Shouldn't one know what he/she can and cannot demonstrate with it? I am not getting your point at all.StephenB
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
---Allen, you normally write with admirable clarity, however, I have no idea how your links and quotes justify this earlier claim: ---"They are absolutely confident (on the basis of “first principles”) that no such mechanism can possibly exist, and that therefore trying to determine if one does exist is a waste of time (and perhaps potentially dangerous).” What is the connection between [a] first principles and [b] a waste of time. On the matter of the mechanism, Behe is simply saying that the burden of proof for proving what evolutionary biologists claim is on them. Why should he have to chase it down? He is not the one making the claim. Have you had your coffee today?StephenB
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
MacNeill lets see how many "concrete" words we got in your reference: 1, is thought to be an example 2. This coupling must have occurred early in the evolution of life (Why not a actual demonstration Allen?) 3. The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests (Again why a suggestion and not a actual demonstration?) 4 This could later evolve to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase. Ok Allen I know you probably think this storytelling qualifies as science, and can probably give me 10 references as to why the storytelling you presented is science, but if you don't mind could you please evolve a ATP synthase from scratch, I know that is probably too much to ask, so how about evolving just one of the sub-unit modules that was "borrowed" in the "modular evolution theory" from material processes. Or if that is to tough, (I know I am being pushy ain't I?) could you just evolve one functional protein from purely material processes found in nature. Not tell me a story of how it might have evolved mind you,,, but an actual demonstration.bornagain77
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
"Writing critiques of the published works of evolutionary biologists, even if those critiques contain complex mathematical analyses of theoretical models, is not empirical science." I am not sure you want to go to the wall on this. If someone takes a data set that exists and analyzes it in a new way that provides different insights into the processes of nature, everyone on the planet would be applauding it as great science. I think there was a patent clerk who did similar things.jerry
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Allen, You have not provided anything of consequence for your argument. In two of your comments you have taken snippets of remarks from Behe and Dembski which are not relevant to your point and then you used two anti ID sources to express opinions, one of which has no relevance to the point you made. If you want to have a discussion on this then we can and maybe searches of the literature might show a few instances to support your claim. People write a lot of stuff and Behe and Dembski have written a lot of stuff so if they are absolute as you say they are there should be whole discussions on this. My recollection of Behe's Edge of Evolution is that he said it is extremely unlikely that Darwinian processes could hurdle the obstacles faced in creating novel complex capabilities not that it was impossible. All of ID is based on probability arguments which are not absolutes. The probabilities may get so low that the only logical conclusion is that it did not happen that way but there is always the possibility some unknown process will show up. ID would give up its quest if only main stream science would admit that but they don't and imply the evidence has already shown the way to how it was done.jerry
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Re bornagain77 in comment #70: Happy to oblige: Rotary DNA motors. C. Doering, B. Ermentrout and G. Oster. Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico 87545, USA:
"The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution, where two subunits with their own functions have become associated and gained new functionality. This coupling must have occurred early in the evolution of life as evidenced by essentially the same structure and processes of ATP synthase enzymes conserved in all kingdoms of life. The F-ATP synthase shows large amounts of similarity both functionally and mechanically to the V-ATPase.[1] However whilst the F-ATP synthase generates ATP by utilising a proton gradient the V-ATPase is responsible for generating a proton gradient at the expense of ATP, generating pH values as low as 1. The F1 particle also shows significant similarity to hexameric DNA helicases and the FO particle shows some similarity to H+ powered flagellar motor complexes. [1] The ?3?3 hexamer of the F1 particle shows significant structural similarity to hexameric DNA helicases; both form a ring with 3 fold rotational symmetry with a central pore. Both also have roles dependent on the relative rotation of a macromolecule within the pore; the DNA helicases use the helical shape of DNA to drive their motion along the DNA molecule and to detect supercoiling whilst the ?3?3 hexamer uses the conformational changes due rotation of the ? subunit to drive an enzymatic reaction.[2] The H+ motor of the FO particle shows great functional similarity to the H+ motors seen in flagellar motors.[1] Both feature a ring of many small alpha helical proteins which rotate relative to nearby stationary proteins using a H+ potential gradient as an energy source. This is, however, a fairly tenuous link - the overall structure of flagellar motors is far more complex than the FO particle and the ring of rotating proteins is far larger, with around 30 compared to the 10, 11 or 14 known in the FO complex. The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drive the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.[2] This would then evolve to become more efficient, and eventually develop into the complex ATP synthases seen today. Alternatively the DNA helicase/H+ motor complex may have had H+ pump activity, the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+ motor in reverse. This could later evolve to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase.
[1] http://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro/potm/2005_12/Page2.htm [2] Laurent O. Martinez, Sébastien Jacquet, Jean-Pierre Esteve, Corinne Rolland, Elena Cabezón, Eric Champagne, Thierry Pineau, Valérie Georgeaud, John E. Walker, François Tercé, Xavier Collet, Bertrand Perret and Ronald Barbaras (2003) Ectopic bold beta-chain of ATP synthase is an apolipoprotein A-I receptor in hepatic HDL endocytosis. Nature 421, 75-79 (2 January 2003)|doi:10.1038/nature01250 [ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/abs/nature01250.html?lang=en ]Allen_MacNeill
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
MacNeil as I said I am sorry for derailing you in your belittling of Dembski Behe Wells etc,,,, I am just patiently waiting for you to get a break in your busy schedule of railing against them so as to actually provide a detailed molecular pathway for ATP Synthase,,, I know you will probably have to scrounge around to find the evidence for it so it may take you a while to find it. But I will wait,,, though I may need to remind you again and again,,, Hey I have an idea MacNeill, could you give me some search words to google under to look for it? Perhaps we can search under panspermia for a viable solution? Richard Dawkins Vs. Ben Stein - The UFO Interview - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4134259bornagain77
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Personally, I don't accuse ID supporters of doing shoddy science, as they generally don't do any science at all, if by "science" one means "empirical primary research published in the peer-reviewed primary literature". None of the four ID supporters listed in comment #56 has published any empirical research in the peer-reviewed literature either falsifying hypotheses formulated by evolutionary biologists nor supporting hypotheses formulated by ID supporters. Writing critiques of the published works of evolutionary biologists, even if those critiques contain complex mathematical analyses of theoretical models, is not empirical science. Furthermore, your characterization of falsified hypotheses as "shoddy science" indicates to me that you don't understand the basic principles of empirical science. Hypotheses, such as Ford and Kettlewell's hypothesis about the color variation exhibited by peppered moths, are not "wrong" if they are later contradicted by empirical evidence, nor are they "right" if they are not contradicted by empirical evidence. Hypotheses that are eventually falsified by empirical research are just as useful (indeed, perhaps more useful) than hypotheses that are not falsified by empirical research.Allen_MacNeill
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
MacNeill I am sorry to derail you in the middle of you slandering ID advocates, that was so rude of me; So I will just ask you, whenever you get a chance after you are through with your busy work of belittling Dembski, Wells, Behe etc.., to provide a detailed Darwinian account for a much simpler machine than the Flagellum,,, ATP Synthase: Evolution Vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706 Molecular Machine - The ATP Synthase Enzyme - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4380205 Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity - Donald E. Johnson Excerpt: "one should not be able to get away with stating “it is possible that life arose from non-life by ...” or “it’s possible that a different form of life exists elsewhere in the universe” without first demonstrating that it is indeed possible (non-zero probability) using known science. One could, of course, state “it may be speculated that ... ,” but such a statement wouldn’t have the believability that its author intends to convey by the pseudo-scientific pronouncement." http://www.amazon.com/Probabilitys-Nature-Natures-Probability-Scientific/dp/1439228620bornagain77
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Re comment #67 by bornagain77: You have attempted to rebut my argument using a tu quoque diversion, a logical fallacy and evidence that you do not have a legitimate rebuttal.Allen_MacNeill
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Re bornagain77 in comment #65: Defending Haeckel's drawings of embryos and using color variations in peppered moths as proof of macroevolution were not the point of my comments. Rather, I indicated in my comments that the attitude toward scientific (i.e. empirical) research of the four ID supporters cited was not to present empirical research supporting an alternative viewpoint, but rather to dismiss scientific research as misleading or a waste of time. I have posted citations supporting this argument. If you wish to rebut, then post citations to the contrary (i.e. don't try to derail the argument by changing the subject). If you are genuinely interested in Haeckel's illustrations or color variation in peppered moths, I recommend the primary references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature from which Dr. Wells lifted his deliberately misleading quote-mines: Re Haeckel's drawings of embryos: Richardson, M. K., J. Hanken, M. L. Gooneratne, C. Pieau, A. Raymond, L. Selwood, and G.M. Wright. 1997. There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology 196:91-106. Richardson, M. K., J. Hanken, L. Selwood, G. M. Wright, R. J. Richards, and C. Pieau. 1998. Haeckel, embryos, and evolution. Science 280:983-984. Re peppered moth (Biston betularia) color variation: Coyne, J.A. 1998. Not black and white. Nature 396:35-36.Allen_MacNeill
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Frankly MacNeill, I find it hilarious that a evolutionist would accuse a ID advocates of shoddy science, especially since evolutionists are continually being falsified in their foundational premises, such as most recently Junk DNA; Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said, speaking of the notion that gene regulation was a straightforward, linear process – genes coding for regulator proteins that control transcription. “Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA – what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA – has been fascinating and befuddling.” If it’s junk, why would the human body decode 74% to 93% of it? The plethora of small RNAs produced by these non-coding regions, and how they interact with each other and with DNA, was completely unexpected when the project began. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201004.htm#20100405abornagain77
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Source for the quote in comment #64: National Center for Science Education, (November 23rd, 2006) [ http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution-conclusion ]Allen_MacNeill
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
So MacNeill, do you care to defend the fraudulent drawings of Haeckels embryos, or the peppered moth cyclical variations as proof of macro-evolution?bornagain77
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Quote from a review by Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education, of Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells:
"...the scholarship of Icons is substandard and the conclusions of the book are unsupported. In fact, despite his touted scientific credentials, Wells doesn't produce a single piece of original research to support his position. Instead, Wells parasitizes on other scientists' legitimate work. He could not have written the "Haeckel's embryos" chapter without the work of Richardson et al. (1997, 1998), or the "peppered moths" chapter without Coyne (1998) and Majerus (1998), or the "Archaeopteryx" chapter without Shipman (1998). Even then, Wells's discussions are rife with inaccuracies and out-of-date information. Wells seems to think that scientific theories are supported by certain "keystone" pieces of evidence, removal of which causes the theory to collapse. Paradigms in science work when they provide solutions and further research; their health is not tied to single examples. The paradigm of evolution is not tied to a single piece of evidence."
Allen_MacNeill
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
MacNeill do you care to be the first to provide a detailed molecular pathway? "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." - James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design and Unfalsifiable Darwinian Evolution - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630 Genetic Entropy Refutation of Nick Matzke's TTSS (type III secretion system) to Flagellum Evolutionary Narrative: excerpt: .....Comparative genomic analysis show that flagellar genes have been differentially lost in endosymbiotic bacteria of insects. Only proteins involved in protein export within the flagella assembly pathway (type III secretion system and the basal-body) have been kept... http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/msn153v1 "One fact in favour of the flagellum-first view is that bacteria would have needed propulsion before they needed T3SSs, which are used to attack cells that evolved later than bacteria. Also, flagella are found in a more diverse range of bacterial species than T3SSs. The most parsimonious explanation is that the T3SS arose later," Howard Ochman - Biochemist - New Scientist (Feb 16, 2008)bornagain77
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Quote from review by Darrel Falk, co-president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, of Dr. Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell:
"There is no question that large amounts information have been created by materialistic forces over the past several hundred million years. Meyer dismisses this without discussing it. What about at the very beginning, 3.5 billion years ago? Everyone doing the science, Meyer notwithstanding, would say the jury is still out. There are some very elegant feasibility experiments going on at the present time. However, it is far too early for a philosopher to jump into the fray and declare no further progress will be made and that this science is now dead. If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public. With all due respect for the very fine people associated with the ID movement, many of whom I have met personally and whose sincerity I greatly appreciate, our hopes and dreams need to be much bigger than this. The science of origins is not the failure it is purported to be. It is just science moving along as science does—one step at a time. Let it be."
Source: The BioLogos Foundation (December 28, 2009) [ http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-cell/ ]Allen_MacNeill
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
Dr.William Dembski:
"As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
Source: ISCID Forums, 18 September 2002 09:01 [ http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000152;p=3 ]Allen_MacNeill
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Sworn testimony by Dr. Michael Behe at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, cross examination, day 12 (October 19, 2005), PM Session [ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html ]. Q=Eric Rothschild, attorney for plaintiff; A=Dr. Michael Behe, witness for defense: Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed? A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions. Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those? A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful. Q. It would be a waste of time? A. It would not be fruitful.Allen_MacNeill
April 15, 2010
April
04
Apr
15
15
2010
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
--Allen: "But that’s not the approach suggested by Drs. Behe, Dembski, Meyer, and Wells. They are absolutely confident (on the basis of “first principles”) that no such mechanism can possibly exist, and that therefore trying to determine if one does exist is a waste of time (and perhaps potentially dangerous)." Allen, Please tell me this is a typo.StephenB
April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
"They are absolutely confident (on the basis of “first principles”) that no such mechanism can possibly exist, and that therefore trying to determine if one does exist is a waste of time (and perhaps potentially dangerous)" That is nonsense.jerry
April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Allen, No one in the ID camp is making absolute claims based on the science. It is always a probabilistic one. There is always the possibility of a naturalistic explanation for anything. ID is accused of absolute claims all the time and my guess is the reason this is done is to pigeon hole ID supporters as not logical or scientific. ID is very reasonable and accepts nearly everything that most scientists accept. When people go to explanations beyond science, they are basing these conclusions on something that is non-scientific but is faith based. These faith based conclusions could be very rational but the empirical content does not reach the level of modern science. If someone postulates a vitalism they are leaving ID and entering some speculative area. We all do this but when we do it is no longer ID or science. I have specific religious beliefs but ID does not affect those beliefs nor do my religious beliefs affect my understanding of ID. They are separate and also no way in conflict with each other. I might go to something beyond science to understand the implications of ID but that is not ID and not science. What I find is that many people in this game let what is not in science determine what they believe is science or has been shown by science. And when they are arguing science what they are really arguing is this other belief system. The one obvious example is that whatever is the current evolutionary synthesis, many claim it explains all of life's transitions since the first life appeared 3.5 billion years ago. A lot of people hold this but this is not based on science. Also if a biologist wants to postulate that there are other not verified naturalistic processes that explain the current gaps, that is fine but it also is not science. What really is happening is that this "other" unspecified set of faith based beliefs is impinging on what they claim is science. But the curriculum never teaches this and the student is then led to believe that certain issues are settled science when what is taught is a belief system in the guise of science.jerry
April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Therefore, the real question becomes, what kind of research program is most likely to elucidate the mechanisms by which the genetic information that organizes non-living materials into living beings itself came into being? To me, the answer seems obvious: a research program that actually tries to figure out what those mechanisms are, and how they work, and why they work. This is what biologists have been doing for the last century and a half: investigating the mechanisms by means of which living organisms come into existence, do the things they do to stay alive and to reproduce, and then how they go out of existence. Yes, this means that one of the foundational metaphysical assumptions of biologists is that life is a mechanism and as such it is not "magic", nor is it incomprehensible. Do we know to some reasonable degree of certainty that there cannot be a purely "natural" mechanism by which the genetic machinery came into being? No, we do not. Ergo, would it make sense to see if one exists? Yes, it would. But that's not the approach suggested by Drs. Behe, Dembski, Meyer, and Wells. They are absolutely confident (on the basis of "first principles") that no such mechanism can possibly exist, and that therefore trying to determine if one does exist is a waste of time (and perhaps potentially dangerous). Which of these two approaches looks more like science?Allen_MacNeill
April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
In comment #53 chucky darwin wrote:
"...Aquinas’ distinction between living and non-living matter was one of form (i.e. “soul”). Thus, by making that distinction, it would be impossible for non-living matter to become living matter."
Non-living matter becomes living matter all the time, everywhere, under virtually all conditions currently pertaining in the biosphere. And, of course, the same thing happens in reverse all the time, everywhere, etc. Atmospheric nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water (plus small amounts of minerals eroded out of rocks) are biochemically transformed into living organisms who, when they die are decomposed back into those non-living materials by bacteria and fungi. That this is clearly the case has not been a matter of serious dispute for over a century. However, I have many times had discussions with creationists and ID supporters who deny that this is the case, and assert some updated version of Bergsonian vitalism. They believe that some kind of "magical force" (shades of Obi-Wan Kenobi) infuses living things and "makes" them alive, and somehow departs from them when they cease living. This is one of those inferences that seems staggeringly obvious to almost everyone (i.e. it is one of the strongest "intuitions" to which we are prone), and it is just as clearly false. There is absolutely no detectable difference between the non-living components of the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, and crust and those same materials in living organisms. The components – the materials – are exactly the same. What is different is the way they are arranged. Life, in other words, is an emergent property of the organization of the materials of which living organisms are composed. So, as Watson and Crick both quipped back in April of 1953, the "secret of life" that they had discovered is the organization that the genetic material imposes on the materials of which living organisms are composed. Despite the tremendous advances in our understanding of molecular genetics and development since April of 1953, we are still in the earliest stages of understanding how the genetic information is made manifest in the organization (i.e. the "life") of living organisms. To me, it seems highly presumptuous to assert (as do partisans on both sides of the EB/ID divide) that we know how the genetic information is made manifest in living things, and that it must/can't be explained by purely natural laws.Allen_MacNeill
April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
VJ Torley:
The point I wish to make here is that it is not easy to argue from “There are laws of nature” to “There is a Deity.”
It's actually not that hard - since it necessarily follows. The difficulty I'm sensing is more that atheists find such arguments unconvincing. No surprises there. We all find arguments we don't agree with "unconvincing". I wouldn't judge the validity of an argument by assertions leveled against it, but rather by the substance of the arguments raised. In my brief history of arguing for Thomism, the substance of the arguments raised against it has been minimal and easily answered.
St. Thomas did in fact argue for the existence of a dividing line. He just placed it at a different point from the boundary between life and non-life
Actually, by my understanding (which may very well be wrong), Aquinas' distinction between living and non-living matter was one of form (i.e. "soul"). Thus, by making that distinction, it would be impossible for non-living matter to become living matter. This has nothing to do with complexity, information, or probability. It has to do with formal and final causes.Chucky Darwin
April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply