IDists often act as though there is something surprising about the DNA code. A recent post at UD highlights a letter from Crick containing the line “Now we believe that the D.N.A. is a code.” The typical implication is that somehow it came as a surprise that DNA would involve a code.
But there was nothing new about such an idea. Indeed, what is difficult is to imagine how genetic information could be held without being coded. In 1943, a decade before DNA’s structure was revealed, Erwin Schrodinger explained how a code would work in life, writing:
THE VARIETY OF CONTENTS COMPRESSED IN THE MINIATURE CODE
It has often been asked how this tiny speck of material, nucleus of the fertilized egg, could contain an elaborate code-script involving all the future development of the organism. A well ordered association of atoms, endowed with sufficient resistivity to keep its order permanently, appears to be the only conceivable material structure that offers a variety of possible (‘isomeric’) arrangements, sufficiently large to embody a complicated system of ‘determinations’ within a small spatial boundary
Page 21 of the pdf What is Life?
Indeed, and DNA fits quite well with that description. In addition, the linear nature of the DNA code allows for a straightforward geometry for producing transcripts and eventual translation of DNA information. The fact that Crick underscores “is” before “a code” appears to be nothing but recognition that what had been predicted is what was actually discovered, a genetic code.
Of course Schrodinger, like Crick and Watson, had no doubt that life had evolved. To be sure, this does nothing to demonstrate that DNA did evolve or any such thing, just that while the IDists simply assume that a code must be designed, people who lacked their biases merely considered how a genetic code was functional within life. The DNA code is just something that well fits the requirement for compact information storage and provides for a straightforward output of that information into proteins, RNA, and other needed molecules.
The evolution of the genetic code may well involve certain affinities between RNA and amino acids, and thus may not be entirely arbitrary in its origins, but that is a subject beyond the scope of this short post. The point at present is merely that one should not be hung up on the word “code” as if that means anything about its origins, for the fact is simply that it stores and puts out information in a manner that functions well for life. The term “code” denotes something important about DNA’s function, but not about its origin.
On the Ubiquitin thread at UD, Origenes writes:
Where do they even come up with this BS? I don’t recall any denial that the DNA code is real at this place in years. At most, there isn’t much of it.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
That quote also seems to confuse the genetic code with the genome itself.
Can you imagine the reaction of creationists at the time? I bet they were in denial: “No way I’m just a bunch of relationships between molecules or a well ordered association of atoms!!11!”
Now, after the first 4 stages of creationist grief, Denial, Anger, Bargaining and Depression, they’re in the final stage: “Oh wait! God did that!”
Lulz
At this stage, the only thing about creationists and ID advocates that interests me is their psychology.
They are so absolutely confident in the sheer obviousness of their claims — that the genetic code is ‘literally’ a code, that large biomolecules are literally machines, that codes and machines are always reliable indicators of intelligence — that we just look like ignorant fools or nefarious knaves in not seeing what they see, or at any rate not seeing it as they see it.
The idea that someone might be reasonably well-informed about biology and think, “well, ‘codes’ and ‘machines’ are useful metaphors but that’s all” must look like willful ignorance and special pleading to them.
(And although a few of them ever make explicit the nefarious motives they ascribe to us, I don’t doubt that the rest agree. Ironically, the motives they ascribe to us are contradictory. One day, we’re licentious sex addicts who hate God because we don’t want anyone to tell us that maybe drug-fueled orgies with animals and children aren’t a good idea; the next we’re totalitarians and fascists who want to give the government absolute power over what everyone thinks and says.)
interestingly there is a new study that delves into the motives of those who reject the Protestant Christian worldview.
quote:
Those participants who exited their religion were more likely to start out scoring lower on emotional stability, to be less trusting of others, and they tended to place less value on conformity, tradition and benevolence, and more value on self-direction, hedonism and the pursuit of power.
end quote:
from here
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/04/06/what-are-the-psychological-effects-of-losing-your-religion/
I wonder if the same tendencies apply to those who once found Darwinism to be convincing but no longer do so?
We will have to wait for more research to say for sure.
peace
More from the article…
“The most striking difference between the groups was that those who lost their Christian Protestant identity showed much greater variation in their mental well-being over time. About half of the “de-converts” showed a reduction in depression and anxiety compared with the consistently religious group, and about half showed a greater increase in depression and anxiety, although within these broad strokes were further variations in their precise emotional “trajectory”. The de-converts as a whole also showed a greater improvement in their sleep than the consistently faithful.
A key factor seemed to be the de-converts’ personality and psychological state prior to losing their religion. If they were more extraverted and had adequate psychological resources, losing their faith seemed to be an opportunity for growth and even greater psychological resilience. In contrast, those who were neurotic and more mentally and physically vulnerable prior to losing their faith were more likely to experience greater psychological distress after becoming a non-believer (or in a small minority of cases, a believer in a different faith).
This is not specific to IDists, but to the current mainstream conservatives with religious bent. In USA only. And I sort of get how they don’t see the contradiction: It’s because both of these aspects are against their own claimed values. Whatever is against their own claimed values, they attribute to “liberals”, so they can easily attribute Communism, Fascism, and Hippie Anarchy to the opponent in a single sentence.
I find this large variation in mental wellbeing to be interesting but not exactly pertinent to what KN was talking about.
I think it probably tells us about support systems and where the individuals were at in their “faith” journeys more than about their underlying psychology.
peace
Yes, GP was trying over and over again to get me to see how the DNA code has to be symbolic, committing the same fallacy each time as he tried to get me to understand something so obvious.
The caveat I’d include is that mostly biologists really don’t see “codes” and “machines” as useful metaphors, but have decided to define them as simply codes and machines. I don’t care if someone actually does consider them to be metaphors, it’s just that in general that’s not how the terms are used.
I don’t know how much they all agree with that, but certainly many do. And it might seem contrary to us to ascribe various evils to us that typically are at odds with each other in real life, but to a whole lot of the true believers it’s all the work of Satan, so it’s all the same. LIbertarian fascists might not be typical, but Satan has something for everyone, so all of the bad ideas and bad people can be lumped together.
They’re not analyzing anything, after all. They’re categorizing the world according to their a prior beliefs.
Glen Davidson
Yes, it’s kind of a strange formulation.
Glen Davidson
A code is a code is a code. it suits creationism to see a organized code as opposed to some random generator of a parts department store.
the DNA code discovery fits better with a creator. its evolving seems science fiction.
Also a dNA code suggests that biology being contained in it means also biology laws. so the dna has within it mechanisms to change itself. thus bio change can come from independent innate abilities.
Glen:
Right. The creationist/IDers’ error is not that they see codes and machines in biology. It’s that they attribute those things to an intelligent designer.
I’m not too surprised. Since he doesn’t know that affinities play a role in how biomolecules work. He must think they have tiny eyes, that they read the “code,” and then start doing the work indicated by yelling at each other for coordination. Maybe he thinks they take some little banners and wave them at each other for coordination. The more “symbols” the better.
In other words, the “this is a code therefore god-did-it” is an equivocation fallacy. Words can have different, if similar, meanings under different contexts. So, the problem arises when people forget those contexts, the limitations of the usage in one context compared to the other, and then conclude by misassociation.
KN probably took it for granted that there may be psychological differences between the devout believer, the ex-believer who lost faith, the new believer who adopted faith, and the never-believer who wasn’t raised in a religious household.
After all, worldwide the overwhelmingly best indicator of anyone’s religion is the religion of their family and community. And speaking as someone raised in a household where religion simply wasn’t involved in any way, I can say that the only psychological stress (if that’s the right word) for me lies in the impossibility (despite many decades of effort) of understanding how in the world anyone can believe in any of that superstitious stuff. Which applies to ALL faiths that center around imaginary self-contradictory and superfluous entities.
Intellectually, I can figure that if my incomprehension in the face of idiocy is insurmountable, the idiots’ incomprehension in the face of reality might be analogous. But emotionally I can’t internalize this. I guess as the twig is bent, tree is inclined — even if the twig is bent into a pretzel. The human capacity for delusion seems bottomless, and the genuinely devout are almost invariably victims of child abuse. There seems to be a “window of development” during which such an infection can take root. If parents help their kids get past this window (rather than defenestrating them “for their own good”), later belief in bullshit is nearly always incomplete and malleable.
Kind of interesting, but one would have to do a lot more research to see which of their observations are valid for non-Chinese Protestant Christians, for non-Protestant Christians who aren’t Chinese, and for non-Protestant Christians who are Chinese. There are too many confounding variables here.
I agree, Things like this are very personal.
It’s very hard to generalize.
On either side of the fence. Folks are folks mostly. We just look at the world differently.
I wish we all could internalize that a bit better. It would make the world a better place.
peace
That’s one of the things that make the Chinese study interesting to me.
It’s probably safe to say that in China Christianity is more of a conscious choice than it is in places like the USA.
In some areas I’d say ones belief in Darwinian evolution is also strongly influenced by ones community and family. We assume it’s true because we were raised to trust “science” and because have never given it much thought.
I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to try and look at our own presuppositions in cases like this.
peace
A great way to convey such a commendable attitude is to keep telling others that they know stuff they don’t even believe in.
Not really, because the only reason you say that is that you want to imply that “Darwinism” is a religion.
Even more importantly, it’s rather more likely to be the opposite for the most part for giving up empiricism in biology, because the usual reason to do so is in order to take up religious belief. Now I wouldn’t be surprised if lower emotional stability could be a reason why they’d take up flim-flam (people are generally more likely to change during periods of lower emotional stability), but on the other hand, they’re more likely to be the types who would be more conformist, trusting of others and of benevolence, and with less focus on self-direction, hedonism, and the pursuit of power.
The fact is that acceptance of evolution tracks with belief in religion to an amazing degree in the US. You’re safe to assume that those who give up science in biology are almost always going to be those who have taken up conservative religion, and so will have the characteristics of those who convert to authoritarian religion.
Glen Davidson
I don’t even think true Christianity is a religion.
I think the very use of the term is poisoning the well.
I much prefer the more neutral term Worldview for both Christianity and Darwinism.
peace
The equating of Darwinism with “evolution” is something I take exception to.
Evolution just means change over time. Even the most strident YEC has no problem with evolution.
What they would object to are the claims that evolution is undirected and that RM/NS has virtually unlimited power.
peace
IOW, you want a highly prejudicial term that obscures the vast differences between believing evidence and wishful thinking.
Well poisoning is all that you can manage, since you can’t begin to discuss issues meaningfully.
Glen Davidson
We all know stuff we don’t consciously believe in.
The subconscious is simply a fact it’s nothing to get upset about.
peace
Not at all,
I think that adherents of both worldviews would consider what they do to be believing evidence and what others do to be wishful thinking.
What is prejudicial is using a term like “religion” only for beliefs you reject and not for beliefs you embrace.
peace
Yes, you want to twist everything to fit your beliefs.
Not in the context of biology. So quit trying to redefine everything to fit your mindless presuppositions.
Any honest scientist would object to that, because that wouldn’t be scientific evolution at all. “Virtually unlimited power” in evolution is basically the projection of religious belief in the supernatural onto something that avoids such nonsense.
Of course you could never characterize the matter properly, lying under your pile of misconceptions that you use to mischaracterize whatever you oppose.
I can always expect you to get nothing right about anything, including your own beliefs.
Glen Davidson
Preach on.
Glen Davidson
What exactly does “evolution” mean in the context of biology Oh great decider in chief and who died and made you the definer?
peace
Oh passive-aggressive ignoramus, who must attack whatever disagrees with your paltry knowledge.
Go learn something for once, pontificator of nothingness.
Glen Davidson
Exactly,
I think a big part of the cause the controversy is in the discrepancy between what working scientists mean by evolution and what those who would seek to equate science with atheism mean.
peace
Darwinism is but the term generally used, by biologists, to refer to evolution by positive natural selection. It’s not a worldview, but a way of conceptualizing a phenomenon.
The term is misused by religious idiots who think that people who don’t believe in their gods worship both Darwin and his theory of evolution. However, thinking that life’s diversity arose by evolution is not a worldview. It’s an explanation for a particular set of observations. That’s all.
Surely you don’t think natural selection is a positive force? Do you?
Do you think scientists believe natural selection is a positive force?
Darwinism is simply the idea that evolution is largely the result of RM filtered by NS.
peace
Substitute “change over time” for evolution and you get.
Life’s diversity arose by change over time.
No one would argue with that!!!!!!
Substitute “random mutations filtered by natural selection” for evolution and you get.
Life’s diversity arose by random mutations filtered by natural selection.
Lots of scientists would object to that!!!!!!!
Now do you see why I call Darwinism and not evolution a worldview??
peace
It’s a positive bias “force”, sure it is. Deal with it
care to explain?
Suppose there was no genetic diversity whatsoever what direction would NS “positively” move a population?
peace
Positive in the sense of selecting for changes, rather than selecting against changes (negative natural selection).
In the sense they use the term “positive” (selection for changes), of course.
That kinda works (though that would be neo-Darwinism). The point is that it’s not a worldview, just an explanation for a particular set of observations. Focus FMM, focus. Otherwise I might think that you just want to miss the point. Focus: it’s not a worldview. For someone who believes that his god is knowledge you seem rather resistant to learning. Again, an explanation for some observations, not a worldview.
Suppose there was no mass. Would gravity be a “positive” force?
Of course I see why. You don’t understand the difference between an explanation and a worldview.
Natural Selection is neutral when it comes to change. It does not care at all about it. It only cares what works.
What observations exactly???
You did not observe that life’s diversity arose by random mutation filtered by natural selection.
There is no way to even know if a mutation is random or not. There is certainly no way to observe that all of life’s diversity arose by RM/NS.
You have to infer it from observations and presuppositions about the way the world works.
That is why it’s a worldview.
peace
Oh shit. You had to get started with your Newtonist worldview. 🤣
What do you think Christianity is???
It’s just an explanation for a particular set of observations
peace
Do you think gravity is a positive force rather than a description of a relationship between things with mass?
peace
I never cease to be amazed at the inability of folks to see themselves as others see them.
Do you honestly think that you are the only ones who believe that they are simply following the evidence where it leads?
Every one thinks that. Even the most ardent YEC
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
While I could answer those questions, your problems is still that you’re mistaking an explanation for a set of observations for a worldview.
Repeating yourself is not an argument.
Why is Christianity not simply an explanation for a set of observations?
peace
aaaawwwww, how cute. Look at you, little presuppositionalist pretending to care about evidence. ahh!
It’s not an explanation for a particular set of observations. It envelopes everything about your whole life. From having fantasies for explanations as to how the whole universe arose and operates, to how you should comport yourself. That’s both a religion and a worldview.
Darwinism covers very little by comparison, doesn’t cover it completely, and people who think that’s part of how life’s diversity arose, don’t take it to be the absolute answer to everything.
I understand how you see me. You see me as a just someone like you, only worshipping Darwin and evolution instead of your imaginary friend.
How about you make an effort to try and understand, instead of continuing bullshiting your way out of the mess you made. Be courageous for once and learn something.
I now understand what you are doing. You are trying to separate your understanding of evolution from the rest of your worldview.
The problem is you can’t do that. Worldview is a comprehensive whole the sum of all we believe.
The only reason you can accept the idea of random mutations is because you think randomness is possible in our universe. The only reason you accept the idea of natural selection is because you think the idea that non-personal things can be said to “select” in some sense is not nonsensical.
Both of those are beliefs are functions of your worldview. They are not observations or explanations of observations. The are preconceived axioms of how the word is and works.
We simply can’t parcel out one small part of what we believe and view it in isolation while ignoring the whole. It’s all connected
peace
For our purposes think of Christianity as simply the idea that Jesus is Lord seen in isolation.
That is simply an explanation of particular observations It says nothing about how the universe arose or operates.
peace
fifth, now:
fifth, earlier:
Therefore, you are wrong to call Darwinism a worldview.
Was that so hard?