Evolutionist, how do you feel about this short video?

Question

If you don't want to watch I understand, but do not reply if you don't.
thanks-†
http://www.illustramedia.com/umolpreview.htm

Are we not machines in a sense? Can machines create themselves?

Answer 1

The link asked for permission that my OS didn't like. I wouldn't mind watching this if there are no viruses, etc.

Yes, we are biological machines that create new versions every generation. So?

OK. I read the script. I didn't watch the video. This is the typical style of Intelligent Design flicks: they are more propaganda for the public than they are data for scientists.

For example, in the discussion about DNA and reproduction, it doesn't mention the idea of the RNA world. We know that RNA can act in many ways that proteins do today: it can catalyze reactions and self-replicate. THe idea is that the first life on this planet was RNA rather than DNA+protien based.

In the description of the flagellum, the actual descriptions from other scientists about how a secretory function changed into a propulsion system are not given: it is just stated that the descriptions aren't good enough. Once again, the actual evidence is not presented, nor are the counter arguments from other scientists given in any detail.

One difficulty with figuring out whether there is an intelligence in the production of something (like a watch, Mount Rushmore, or anything else) is knowing what the natural alternative processes are in that area. At this point, we truthfully don't understand the chemistry of life and the interactions well enough to say exactly what happened when, say, life got started. But realize that there is far, far more complexity in the basic atoms and chemicals than most people generally realize.

People like Behe and Dembski make their money by promoting their ideas to those who don't know enough science to argue against them. They do not make these arguments in scientific journals nor do they respond to criticisms made in those journals. That, to me, says they are not interested in what scientists have to say; they are interested in making a buck from the ignorant.

Answer 2

This is basically saying that since the replication process is complex it must be intelligently designed.

I don't see why this assertion has been made. I could equally well make the assertion that the process is the way it is because the other processes that evolution tried didn't work.

There's no proof or evidence of ID in this. What the video fails to show is the candidates for the process that didn't work.

It would be like saying god invented the lightbulb because the lightbulb so perfectly performs the function of converting electricity into light. It doesn't take into account the thousands of ways Edison learned how NOT to make a lightbulb.

You cannot simply look at the end product in all its complexity and say "Beats me how this thing could be this complex, gotta be god's work." That's asinine.

Don't forget that evolution isn't a random thing. It's self-guided. It's not a case of quintillions of random things being tried, it is progressive - if one 'random' mutation performs a part of what is neccessary to achieve the goal, it is kept. The totally random argument is llike saying a codebreaker must always work from a random set of possibilities, always forgetting the parts of the code already cracked. No, the codebreaker remembers the parts of the code it has already cracked, and this not only narrows the possibilities remaining, it often provides guidance as to how to complete the rest of the code. It's the same thing with the evolution of the replication process. Evolution of the first part of the process may have taken as much as a million tries, but the next part of the process would be based on the first part. Instead of the process becoming more unlikely to work as it becomes more complex, the chances of it working with more complexity actually increase.

An intelligently designed process would be less complex. The video actually supports evolution.

Answer 3

It was the typical Biblical video - lots of graphics of nature against a portentous soundtrack.

It begins with an assertion, that evolution must be wrong and that instead creation must have been intelligently designed. To illustrate this claim it refers again to the hackneyed idea that if something is very very difficult for us to understand, it must have been made by God.

The trouble is that this argument is always, always anti-scientific. To reach unconnected conclusions because you do not know the rational answer is something science NEVER does. It would be quite as reasonable to say that the reason your car won't start on the day of an important job interview is because gremlins have interfered with it. The two options are not connected by anything other than assumption. Not scientific.

Some of the video is scientifically inaccurate (DNA is not merely the place where "proteins" are manufactured - it plays a much more complex role than that). It is full of anthropomorphism - proteins are presumed to have human-like qualities and human-like interests (they don't, they're just proteins). And the Irreducible Complexity arguments have been annihilated long ago.

It is not a very good video but it plays to its audience. I'm glad it pleases you.

Answer 4

Only three short weeks ago the Pope said that there is scientific evidence of evolution but as it took place over millions of years it is unlikely there would ever by final proof.

Of course he is only the most senior person in the Christian church and maybe you have a much better view than his!

From dust and bone to living being would have been an easy parable like way of explaining what people of those days needed to understand about evolution. But of course this sort of question indicates that you think God was too stupid and unintelligent to use evolution as his tool!

When you lump evolutionists together rather than just people who believe in science you give a legitimate platform to those who criticise religion. In that sense you are doing damage both to the church and God's word.

Slavish fundamentalism is fast turning Christianity from a faith/religion into an ideology and there is a huge difference.

People reading this question please be assured that there are an awful lot of good Christians out there who believe in a loving, inclusive, tolerant and forgiving God.

Answer 5

This segment is unusually well done scientifically, quite accurate in all its descriptions, something rarely seen in a video supporting intelligent design. Of course, this says nothing one way or the other about biological evolution, since the idea of intelligent design and the fact of biological evolution do not conflict in any way.

Unfortunately there are some Christians whose personal interpretations of the Scriptures do conflict with the known fact of biological evolution, and they conclude that biological evolution must therefore be a false concept, when actually it is their own unauthoritative, simplistic attempts at biblical exegesis that are flawed. Many other devout Christians, myself included, who have access to authoritative, godly interpretation of the Bible, find no conflict between the truths revealed by God and the truths revealed by science, for truth cannot conflict with truth.

Answer 6

Some machines can create other machines (artificial intelligence). We've made machines that can navigate themselves in outer space.

Answer 7

Yes, we are machines. And yes, computation can happen without intelligent design -- in fact, this happens regularly. Computation requires only an entropic gradient, not intelligence.

So no, your argument does not hold up.

Show me two computers having sex and procreating and having an offspring that varies slightly from both, and you can come back to this arguement. Until then... no dice.

Answer 8

we're biological machines.

The difference is that human artefacts cannot self-reproduce, mixing their attributes to produce a new, slightly different machine.