Leading orthodox evolutionary biologist admits that ID is at the cutting edge

14 Replies, 302 Views

(2024-07-04, 01:44 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: I found that another leading biologist has now (unwittingly) come around to what appears to amount to a pro-ID position. This scientist is prominent theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman, who has been promoting a definition of life that entails irreducible complexity — though Kauffman (who is unsympathetic towards ID) doesn’t use that term.

This is discussed in a new article at https://evolutionnews.org/2024/06/irredu...n-of-life/ .


The study shows that what are termed RAFs (reflexively autocatalytic food-generated networks) - self-sustaining networks that collectively catalyse all their reactions - are embedded within microbial metabolism as far back in the evolution of life as can be traced. These networks are basically irreducibly complex systems.


It turns out that Kauffman's new definition of life inherently makes irreducible complexity a defining characteristic of life, and the irreducible complexity problem for Darwinism is realized to be overwhelming, since all of life is now recognized to be irreducibly complex, not just a few molecular machine subsystems like the bacterial flagellum.

Defining life in this way reminds me somewhat of the effort to define consciousness in terms of the maximum of a very obscure function - IIT.

David
(2024-07-04, 01:44 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: I found that another leading biologist has now (unwittingly) come around to what appears to amount to a pro-ID position. This scientist is prominent theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman, who has been promoting a definition of life that entails irreducible complexity — though Kauffman (who is unsympathetic towards ID) doesn’t use that term.

This is discussed in a new article at https://evolutionnews.org/2024/06/irredu...n-of-life/ .


The study shows that what are termed RAFs (reflexively autocatalytic food-generated networks) - self-sustaining networks that collectively catalyse all their reactions - are embedded within microbial metabolism as far back in the evolution of life as can be traced. These networks are basically irreducibly complex systems.


It turns out that Kauffman's new definition of life inherently makes irreducible complexity a defining characteristic of life, and the irreducible complexity problem for Darwinism is realized to be overwhelming, since all of life is now recognized to be irreducibly complex, not just a few molecular machine subsystems like the bacterial flagellum.

Kauffman has written about the possibility of a Cosmic Mind, so I am not sure he is completely against ID so much as worried about losing credibility by overtly siding with IDers.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'

- Bertrand Russell


[-] The following 2 users Like Sciborg_S_Patel's post:
  • nbtruthman, stephenw
(2024-07-04, 01:44 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: I found that another leading biologist has now (unwittingly) come around to what appears to amount to a pro-ID position. This scientist is prominent theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman, who has been promoting a definition of life that entails irreducible complexity — though Kauffman (who is unsympathetic towards ID) doesn’t use that term.

This is discussed in a new article at https://evolutionnews.org/2024/06/irredu...n-of-life/ .


The study shows that what are termed RAFs (reflexively autocatalytic food-generated networks) - self-sustaining networks that collectively catalyse all their reactions - are embedded within microbial metabolism as far back in the evolution of life as can be traced. These networks are basically irreducibly complex systems.


It turns out that Kauffman's new definition of life inherently makes irreducible complexity a defining characteristic of life, and the irreducible complexity problem for Darwinism is realized to be overwhelming, since all of life is now recognized to be irreducibly complex, not just a few molecular machine subsystems like the bacterial flagellum.

Kauffman definitely espouses this theory and tries to apply it to the Cosmos, as indicated by Sci's post, at https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-c...7#pid57877 .  It turns out Kauffman issued another paper (COSMOS MIND AND LIFE: Is Mind in Spacetime?, at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...id=4818762 ), this one featuring autocatalysis systems involved in basic Standard Model particle dynamics and history.
(This post was last modified: 2024-07-04, 07:52 PM by nbtruthman. Edited 4 times in total.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes nbtruthman's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel
(2024-07-04, 07:39 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: Kauffman definitely espouses this theory, as indicated by Sci's post, at https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-c...7#pid57877 .

Yeah he also speaks positively, though somewhat tentatively, of Radin's work.

Basically he seems open to Psi but acknowledges there should be stronger evidence through more experiments.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'

- Bertrand Russell


[-] The following 1 user Likes Sciborg_S_Patel's post:
  • Brian
(2024-07-04, 02:29 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: But Weinstein's statements about ID are intelligent, show understanding, and are well thought-out, giving him credibility at least in his position on the ID issue. 

What are some of the questionable counter-culture issues he comes out in favor of, and some of the questionable positive absolute statements he is making? 
Is he is losing his professional reputation as an evolutionary biologist, along with perhaps tenure at his university?

Again, I'm trying to be clear about separating the speaker from his statements (on ID for example).  My point simply being that for critically thinking, open minded individuals he's not a great spokesperson in my view.  If you are curious as to why I think this, just take a spin through his Tweets (or whatever the hell you're supposed to call them these days).

He regularly speaks, making rather absolute, declarative statements, on all types of things in which his biology background has no relevance.  Very much conspiratorial in nature about deep state, COVID, politics, etc.  As with so many who develop some level of notoriety online they get captured by their ego and audience.  Again, all my view.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Silence's post:
  • Brian

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)