Tuesday, August 23, 2011

An example of gordo's crazy bullshit

August 21, 2011 at 2:11 pm

From just life it is possible to infer design, but not the particular designer of life. (It is possible that a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond where Venter et al are today, could do what we see on earth.) But then put that world of life on a planet in a cosmos that is fine tuned for life and a very much bigger picture emerges.

August 22, 2011 at 11:25 am

KF, If “From just first life it is possible to infer design, but not the particular designer of life.”

Please enlighten why not possible to ‘infer’ the particular designer of life!?

August 22, 2011 at 1:29 pm


Just from the functionally specific complex information and related organisation based on molecular nanomachines like DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, ribosomes etc in observed life, we may infer to much the same structures in the first cell based life. If that life must both metabolise and self-replicate using digital stored info. (Just ATP Synthase alone is enough to make the point: the energy battery molecule factory, a rotary robot factory spinning at 1,000′s of rev pm and spitting out 3 ATPs per cycle! Cyanide kills in seconds by cutting off the effect of ATP.)

The best explanation for that — on many grounds not to be elaborated just now [cf link for starters] — that FSCO/I is best explained on design.

However, the design of life itself, standing by itself, is sufficiently [note the logical subtlety] accounted for on say a molecular nanotechnology lab some generations beyond Craig Venter’s recent efforts. Mycoplasma laboratorium is a proof of concept of intelligent design of life in the lab, at least as a prelim stage.

It is when we look at the environments of life, the chemistry involved and he physics behind a cosmos in which you have such habitable zone planets in solar systems and galaxies of the right type, with the proper elements in required abundance, etc etc, that we see that the observed COSMOS is fine tuned for such C-chemistry, cell based life that uses an aqueous medium.

Worse [for our would-be materialist], that cosmos credibly had a beginning, so it is a contingent being.

Even through multiverse speculations [strictly, philosophy not science as there are no observations . . . never mind Mr Hawking et al!] that requires, logically, a necessary being, one capable of forming a cosmos, with the required fine tuning for life. Such a NB (per simple logic) has no external necessary causal factors, and so if it exists it always existed and can never cease from existing, there is nothing to turn it off so to speak. So a serious candidate NB is either impossible [like 2 + 2 = 5], or it is eternally existent in all possible worlds [like 2 + 3 = 5]!

If possible, then actual.

An eternal, massively powerful being with the knowledge, skill and power to be architect and builder of the observed cosmos.

Sounds familiar?

An observed cosmos fine tuned for C-chemistry cell based life [observed forms of which reflect massive evidence of design], some of which happens to be intelligent and under moral government. As the hot parallel threads show — and note we are clearly discussing world view issues not science at this point, the only way that ought can be grounded is if there is a foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT.

The ONLY serious candidate for that — you should see the twists and turns to avoid acknowledging this — is an inherently good, creator God.

So, pull the strands together and braid ‘em into a rope: a necessary being, with the power and ability to create a cosmos fine tuned for life, which has in it intelligent, and credibly designed life that is morally governed, requiring an inherently good Creator God to order such a universe.

Sounds familiar?

It should.

Now, go back through. Have we at any point cited or based our inferences on anything beyond logic and observation, per the approach of inference to best explanation?


In particular you will find nowhere i this post a citation or inference form the text of any religious work as such.

And BTW, this is pretty much where Plato ended up in The Laws, Bk X, at the end of his life, c 360 BC.

Let’s clip:


>> Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second.

[[ . . . .]

Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it?

Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life?

Ath. I do.

Cle. Certainly we should.

Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life?

[[ . . . . ]

Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul?

Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things?

Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things.

Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer?

Cle. Exactly.

Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler?

[[ . . . . ]

Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.] >>

Newton, in his General Scholium to Principia, says much the same.

No prizes for guessing why The Laws Bk X is as rare as hen’s teeth in general discussions or what the Greek Philosophers thought!

So, the point is the case is a cumulative one, like a natural rope. Little fibres are twisted together to form strands, and then we counter twist and re twist to gradually build up a long strong rope.

And, if you imagine that by pulling a single fibre and saying that’s weak you can dismiss the strength of the whole rope, you have just committed a blatant fallacy of composition.



So, gordo says: "From just life it is possible to infer design, but not the particular designer of life." and then Zoe asks: "Please enlighten why not possible to ‘infer’ the particular designer of life!?" and then just look at the contradictory, convoluted gobbledegook that gordo spewed. What a fucking mess of bullshit. And, according to gordo, it's not possible to infer "the particular designer of life" but he infers "an inherently good Creator God" anyway! The christian god of course.

Want to see what gordo 'infers'? Go here and click on the blue links that run down the right hand side of the page: