Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Intelligent Design and GM Crops

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I posted this news item about GM crops on the Science and Values blog and would be interested in starting a discussion about how intelligent design proponents view genetically modified crops. If design in nature is ‘optimal’ then can that be improved through human intervention? What does ID predict, perhaps that GM crops will always be sub-optimal?

What is happening with Monsanto these days? A recent report by Navdanya in India has noted that Bt Cotton is damaging the soil in parts of India by reducing the number of bacteria that perform vital ecological roles. Monsanto’s policy appears to be to make farmers around the world dependent upon their own GM modified seeds and pesticides, that they have patented, in order to make a profit for shareholders.

Read more at the Institute of Science and Society website Institute of Science and Society

Meanwhile, in America there is concern about a Food Safety Modernization Act 2009 that seeks to extend food safety laws to seeds that are to be grown for food. The concern centres around possible dependency on GM crops by small farmer’s who fear they will be forced into the arms of big multinationals when unnecessary health and safety legislation becomes too costly petition comments

The pressure from secular science to extend ethically questionable practices has recently been shown by Obama’s determination to push through embryonic stem cell research, a technology that can lead to tumours and is less stable than adult stem cells, together with being ethically questionable because it leads to the destruction of the embryo.

In the same way the idea that it is acceptable to modify seeds and patent crops for profit, and thus make small farmers dependent upon big business for seeds, also goes against the grain of creation, and against the idea of equality in the global economy.

Comments
The quote is Laplace, explaining to the Emperor Napoleon where God fits in to the motion of the planets. Wiki the name Laplace, they have a good version of the story. This is the paper I was thinking of: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3697 which arrives at the conclusion that roughly 25% of the parameter space studied allows the formation of stars burning by nuclear fusion. Such stars will last long enough to cook up the elements required for life as we know it. A particularly, shall we say, incendiary sentence: We stress that the Hydrogen burning temperature in our universe is much smaller than the value required for no range of stellar masses to exist — in this sense, our universe is not finetuned to have special values of the constants to allow the existence of stars. (Not emphasised in the original.) I don't consider the idea that humanity cannot create a pocket universe (yet) particularly argument stopping. Its pretty awe inspiring that we can even talk about modeling different universes! I'm not going to criticise the Creator for taking so long make Jack Daniels and NASCAR, I'm just glad they both happened on the same planet. Now that's fine tuning!Pendulum
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Pendulum @32
Since the Discovery Institute has been pushing for ID to be included in science curricula, it is for them to explain why, when someone raises Gen 3;17, they can say confidently “I have no need for that hypothesis.”
Do you have a reference or a link for that quote? Simply reciting that one sentence doesn't get me anywhere, I need to read the context in which it was used including surrounding text and the overall message, preferrably from the source.
I think that some researchers into cosmological fine tuning have done pretty much that, looking for sets of physical laws that allow a universe to last a long time. “Use your own dirt”, indeed!
I highly doubt they've done anything to the extent Davem specified, that is, starting from nothing, or in other words, having no prior knowledge of an existing universe or laws in which to govern it, and creating it from scratch (starting from alpha particles and assigning their mathematical relationships with one another:angular momentum, magnetism, and the rest of what we see in quantum mechanics etc... and moving up from there such that you'll create an entirely finely tuned and stable universe), such as what Christian theology proposes for God.PaulN
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Davem @ 33, I think that some researchers into cosmological fine tuning have done pretty much that, looking for sets of physical laws that allow a universe to last a long time. "Use your own dirt", indeed!Pendulum
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
When people criticize what the Creator has designed, I wonder what they could come up with starting from absolutely nothing. That is, no electrons, protons, nuetrons, eyes, membranes, blood vessels, planets, seasons, rain, etc. etc.Davem
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Yes, I understood that you were trying to say that this particular "design flaw" might actually be a beneficial design. I was just pointing out that whether you accept common descent or baraminology, that line of reasoning doesn't work for fishes. Sorry, I won't be educating you in what ID is as a science. I'll have to leave that to others better educated in the theory than I am. Since the Discovery Institute has been pushing for ID to be included in science curricula, it is for them to explain why, when someone raises Gen 3;17, they can say confidently "I have no need for that hypothesis."Pendulum
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Pendulum @30, Obviously I was responding in light of Christian theology and how the testable material claims therein reconcile with certain considerable scientific observations (One example being genetic entropy mentioned above). Also I noted how our perceived "design flaws" might not actually be flaws to begin with when you take other things into consideration instead of analyzing the design at face value. But even that being said, you're begging to be put through the ringer by first explaining to me what ID is, and using your obviously advanced understanding of the theory to explain to me how it is not science(At least that's what I gather you're implying from your contextual tone.) Also you might want to let me know how design is not observable, testable, and repeatable, alongside intelligent agency, and then describe how biological systems do not meet the key identifiers(i.e. complex specified information:DNA, functional complex specified structures:Endoplasmic Reticulum, Goal oriented compilers:Ribosomes, and irreducibly complex mechanisms:Bacterial flagellum) for intelligently designed systems. So by implying that ID is not science even in the face of proof, the burden is now on you.PaulN
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
PaulN @26, UV protection is not such a great explanation for fishes. This whole Gen 3:17 discussion might be satisfying to a number of people personally, but it is completely unhelpful to the "ID is a science, to be taught in science classes" agenda.Pendulum
March 24, 2009
March
03
Mar
24
24
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
AmericaninKansas: "Still not seeing it. If you mean that it has a relation to genetics, sure. But that doesn’t mean “loss of info”." Well what else would you call mutations that increase the risk of cancer by destroying growth factor control systems?tragic mishap
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Deciding if something optimal depends on what the design goals are. Something thermodynamically optimal (like a train) might not be speed optimal (like an airplane). A supersonic airplane is unlikely to be as thermodynamically fuel efficient as a slow moving train, but a train is unlikely to be as speed optimal as a supersonic airplane. With respect to "sub otimal design" and GMO's, Monsanto is deliberately engineering self destruct mechanism into their GMO's. They reprogrammed the genomes so that they could turn off certain traits at will (via triggering chemical sprays that the genomes react to). They also programmed some seed to not allow reproduction of viable seeds, thus preventing farmers from distributing and replanting GMOs. Thus they have to keep buying Monsanto products. So these are examples of "bad design" being deliberate.scordova
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Oh, by the way here's a link to an article explaining in detail what I mentioned previously. There's also a couple of links at the bottom for those who are interested: http://www.catalase.com/retina.htmPaulN
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
I actually remember hearing somewhere that if we had eyes such as the octopus then we'd go blind due to lack of protective features blocking UV rays. The blood vessels and such that protect our eyes are actually crucial to having vision at all in our openly UV-exposed environment, on top of that the blood vessels themselves do little if anything at all to negatively affect our sight.PaulN
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
OK, perhaps the ‘all’ in my original post (#14) was an oversimplification. When we use words like ‘optimal’ or ’suboptimal’ in design (and this applies to engineering just as much as in biology), we imply that there is a specification to which the design has been made: the design is optimal if it represents the most efficient way of meeting the specification in the context of whatever constraints apply. Hence, for the case of the vertebrate retina or the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve, we cannot really comment whether the design is optimal or not unless we know the specifications and the constraints in detail.
Okay, so your argument is basically that "all instances of apparent suboptimal design that are not compatible with my Biblical theory are not actually suboptimal design"? Look, the LRLN takes a circuitous and unnecessary route. Connecting A->B is better than connecting A->X->B when there's nothing happening at X and no reason (other than developmental constraints) that A->B wouldn't be feasible. Frequently said by Darwinists, but octopuses have right-side-around eyes. Had we been designed "optimally", we would too. My own view is that the suboptimal features are in fact the ones that were designed. Natural selection and mutation takes care of the rest in producing adaptive complexity. But we were assigned constraints and imperfections to help guide evolution and increase diversity.AmerikanInKananaskis
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Furthermore from a theological point of view, I have no problem believing that original sin could have set genetic entropy into motion. After all even Adam and eve didn't die the day they fell from grace, but they did certainly die- After aging and decay were ran its course, I think genetic entropy followed and is basically the same effect on DNA extrapolated over generations and generations. So mysterious morphological changes and accumulative negative/neutral mutations occurring overnight I believe is a misrepresentation of the creationist view.PaulN
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
I planted some lilies for my mother-in-law, and after a typical winter, one spring they didn't come up, so I assumed that they had died. That summer we had a drought. To my surprise, they came up the following spring. How did they know ahead of time that we were going to have a drought?Davem
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
BTW, I'm not sure that I agree that all things are optimally designed. They may have been at one point, but I see genetic entropy as at least part of a contributing factor within organisms which shaped them into their present forms. They might have been optimally designed initially, but it doesn't follow that they still maintain that efficiency. So whether GM crops can be better or not than ID, I don't see it poses a threat to the credibility behind IDs position: mainly that things look designed because they were designed, and furthermore, that this can be detected. Besides, it's not like we've created and designed plants from scratch. We're quite literally modifying, hence the name, crops and plants. We didn't make the original poly-functional and advanced coding within DNA for instance.Domoman
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
I really do not see GM crops as being bad, unless they are not created and used properly. Make sure to use them in the right fashions and that they do not pose health threats, and then use them. If they can help the poor, why not use them? I mean, if they ended up killing the poor or created some sort of disease, that'd be a bad thing, but that should be watched out for. If GM crops can truly support the starving, go for it! We just need to be careful, I think.Domoman
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
AmerikanInKananaskis @ 19
This is bad theology and bad ID. Did the retinas of all the vertebrates suddenly flip backwards when Eve ate the apple? Did the left recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe grow meters longer and wrap around its aorta overnight?
OK, perhaps the 'all' in my original post (#14) was an oversimplification. When we use words like 'optimal' or 'suboptimal' in design (and this applies to engineering just as much as in biology), we imply that there is a specification to which the design has been made: the design is optimal if it represents the most efficient way of meeting the specification in the context of whatever constraints apply. Hence, for the case of the vertebrate retina or the giraffe's laryngeal nerve, we cannot really comment whether the design is optimal or not unless we know the specifications and the constraints in detail. With respect to the current discussion, the contexts of wild plant varieties and cultivated varieties represent different specifications and different constraints, so that a design which is optimal for the wild will not be optimal for cultivation. GM seems to me like a good way to address this in order to achieve better optimization. But so far I'm just repeating vjtorley at #1! My comment regarding Gen 3:17 was addressing the belief held by some that all of the things that make life 'difficult' (including susceptibility to disease, for example) are due to sub-optimality in nature, and therefore incompatible with the idea of an intelligent designer per se. It is a matter of historical record that Darwin held this view and that it motivated him to develop his alternative theory, and the same idea is regularly trotted out in the UK media by the likes of Dawkins and Attenborough. The reason I think it's worth saying all of this here is that we in the ID field (and in particular that subset of ID that represents YEC) are often accused of being somehow "anti science" (whatever that means). Yet in this context, my perception at least is that most ID/YEC people would be in favour of using science to solve real contemporary issues in this way, whereas opposition to GM comes mainly from those who subscribe to the prevalent European materialist and environmentalist worldview of which Darwinism is a part.Stephen Morris
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Gen 3:17 that is the origin of all the apparent ’sub-optimal design’ we see in nature This is bad theology and bad ID. Did the retinas of all the vertebrates suddenly flip backwards when Eve at the apple? Did the left recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe grow meters longer and wrap around its aorta overnight?AmerikanInKananaskis
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
>http://www.cancer.org/docroot/.....Cancer.asp Still not seeing it. If you mean that it has a relation to genetics, sure. But that doesn't mean "loss of info". Besides, when we're talking about suboptimal design, the things that usually come to mind are the left recurrent laryngeal nerve, the retina being attached "backwards", etc. How could those be due to loss of info?AmerikanInKananaskis
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
I think GM crops are no help to the ID agenda. It just puts into people's heads how simple it is to modify plants and animals. That is why Darwin started OoS with a discussion of artificial selection, to say that what Man can do quickly, Nature can do slowly.Pendulum
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Dr Simoncini argues that cancer is caused by the invasive fungi candida. http://www.cancerisafungus.com/ I think an invasion of an information carrying pathogen into the cell may have some bearing on ID and the bypassing of the Krebs cycle, but cannot find any research that discusses this in depth. Anyone have any ideas on this?Andrew Sibley
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
In an attempt to keep this forum on-topic and answer Andrew's original question: as an ID proponent (and for what it's worth, a YEC) I can see nothing objectionable in GM crops. Though the process of developing them involves a novel technique that we have only recently learned, I cannot see how the concept is qualitatively different from the process of hybridization and selective breeding that has gone on for centuries. In particular, it seems that all of the objections I have heard to GM crops could just as well be made to conventionally-developed hybrid varieties. On an ethical level, I see this as all part of carrying out the command of Gen 1:28 to 'subdue the earth', and to use God-given intelligence and diligence to mitigate the effects of the curse in Gen 3:17 that is the origin of all the apparent 'sub-optimal design' we see in nature.Stephen Morris
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Heredity_and_Cancer.asptragic mishap
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
I don't get it. What does cancer have to do with information?AmerikanInKananaskis
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
Denyse: "I did not think its fruit would be edible anyway, but when its no-fruit tendency became evident beyond reasonable doubt, I tore it to pieces and composted it around a vicious Northern rose bush." I never took you for a Biblical literalist! ;)tragic mishap
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
Well, I suggest visiting the cancer ward of your local hospital. It's remarkable how much information has stayed with us, regardless of how old the universe is or how old life is, but God did not create this world to last forever. The signs of that are obvious.tragic mishap
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
Sure, but you said we see suboptimality today because "information has been lost from the original design". How could the info that has been lost in extinct species explain the info loss in species that AREN'T extinct? I'm an IDist too, but I'm not blinkered enough to think that natural selection doesn't happen. Any "information loss" would probably be selected against, so I don't expect that information loss really occurs to any appreciable extent.AmerikanInKananaskis
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
I'm not going to discuss theodicy on this forum. I've already made one comment on this website that I think was too close to religion (which I guess is not really the topic to be discussed here). I will merely say that any true believer has an easy answer to things like natural disasters, etc.AmerikanInKananaskis
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
That's a good point and I've never thought of it precisely that way, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm a creationist btw, so don't get your dander up. So if you are right, and all of biological life is optimally designed for maximum diversity, than what are we to make of all the species that have gone extinct? Even in your scenario, which I find plausible and interesting, that would constitute information loss, would it not?tragic mishap
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
AmerikanInKananaskis: "This is the best of all possible worlds." You might like to have a look at the following article by David Hart, entitled "Tsunami and Theodicy": http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=166vjtorley
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply