I apologize that after today, I will not be interacting with anyone in Blogworld until Thursday of next week. Unfortunately, I have fallen behind in work and need to desperately catch up. Since I have been working so long on this post, I have not had the time to address other comments in other posts. For that, I apologize. I will try to address those things when I return next week.
I am writing this post in response to a friend, who asked,
“Can you give me convincing evidence that there is a God?”
First, I will not oversimplify this topic by deeming it to be an easy task; nor will I ever suggest that faith is not required by the theist. Having said that, allow me to humbly attempt to answer this question.
From my discussion with Atheists, it appears that the following reasons have been underneath most of the critiques against Theism. This is by no means suggesting that this is all an Atheist has to say in the discussion or that all Atheists feel this way. Having said that, the reasons are:
1) Lack of Evidence in Theism and the Claim that Theism is Unscientific
2) Improbability/Unlikelihood of Theism
3) There is No Need for God or Any Transcendent Objectivity
1) Lack of Evidence in Theism and the Claim that Theism is Unscientific:
It appears that some level of faith will always be required no matter what worldview we choose to espouse. Some Naturalists will take this to an extreme and suggest, “Anything that can’t be empirically verified cannot be considered True Belief.” However, that belief in and of itself cannot be empirically verified. An element of faith would be required in order to believe the assumption itself, which cannot be empirically verified as true.
Then I have met Naturalists who say, “Theists place their faith in lack of evidence.”
The truth is, not one evolutionist has explained to me how they have been able to work through evolution’s controversies, “The Cambrian Explosion, The Missing Link,” and the fact that over millions of years and species, there is no evidence that a bat and a whale share the same ancestor.
Also, when discussing the origin of all things, some atheists may posit that a Creator is unscientific, and therefore, should not be seriously espoused. Most scientists will agree that the Universe had an origin. When asking atheists, “What is the origin of the Universe,” they will suggest that it was the “Big Bang.” If you ask them what preceded the “Big Bang,” they will likely suggest “A Solid Singularity.” When asking what a “Singularity” is, they say the point at which all the laws of physics break down. Therefore, technically, the starting point of the Atheist is just as unscientific, lacking evidence.
Apologist Ravi Zacharias asserts,
“However you section physical reality, you take the physical universe as you see it, however you slice it down to its minutest form, the fact of the matter is, you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for its existence in itself. Ultimately, the physical universe reduced in any form cannot explain its own origin. It must find its explanation outside of itself. Which means the first explanation of a Universe as we see it has to have something that is non-physical as its first cause, creating somewhat of a haunted universe unaware of its origin.”
2) The Improbability and Unlikelihood of Theism:
Many atheists will suggest that the existence of a God and/or miracles is highly unlikely, and therefore, should not be espoused. However, I find some of atheism’s explanations to be highly unlikely. Consider the following:
I can see how Nature may produce patterns, but have difficulty seeing how it can produce information, namely, DNA. When affirming atheism, we would essentially be asserting:
Matter + Chance + Time = Information
Ravi Zacharias has illustrated it as such:
“If I walk onto a planet and see pebbles arranged in the shape of a pyramid, I may conclude that the atmospheric conditions have brought this aesthetic design about and be satisfied. But, if I were to walk onto the same planet and see a Macdonald’s Big Mac wrapper that says “Extra Cheese,” or “Fat Free,” somehow you will not conclude that atmospheric conditions have brought this about. There is intelligibility, there is information, and there is complexity.”
“If you walk onto a planet and see the wrapper of a Macdonald’s hamburger and see letters of an alphabet, you immediately know there is information there. Logic tells us that where we see information, we assume that prior to information is a mind. You don’t just think that Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus” came together or that the dictionary developed because of an explosion in a printing press. There is sequence to the whole thing. If you take the composition of the enzyme, which is the building block of the gene, which is the building block of the cell., the possibility of the human enzyme coming together by random chance, said a professor of mathematics in Cardiff in Wales, the possibility is 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000 – more than the number of atoms in this Universe. The possibility is virtually zero.” (From a talk by Ravi Zacharias)
John Polkinghorne, famed Professor of Quantum Theory at Cambridge who would come to believe in God, states it this way,
“When you look just at that exactitude, so precise, and the margin of error being so small – it is the equivalent of taking aim at a 1 square inch object, 20 billion light years away, and hitting it bulls-eye.”
Lee Strobel, Journalist and author of Case for Creator, stated it this way –
“Now, whenever we see a written message, we know it has an intelligent source. If we see a book, if we see a newspaper, if we see a computer code, we know that kind of information has an intelligent source. It's logical to say that the kind of chemical alphabet that spells out the assembly directions in DNA also has an intelligent source. So if you're walking down a beach and you see ripples in the sand, you can logically conclude that was done by the action of the waves. But if you walk down the beach and you see "John Loves Mary" written in the sand with a heart around it and an arrow through it, you wouldn't presume the action of the waves created that information. Why? Because nature can produce patterns but it can't produce information. DNA is the most efficient information storage system in the universe. One teaspoon of pure DNA can hold all of the assembly instructions for every protein in all of the 1,000 million species of animals that have ever existed in the planet and have room left over for all the information of every book ever published.”
I have made those statements in order to illustrate how when it comes to the “unlikelihood of beliefs,” it may be argued that there is nothing more unlikely than the belief that suggests the universe happened by random.
3) There is No Need For God or Any Transcendent Objectivity:
This may be the understatement of the century, but some of you may have noticed that I often discuss morality. The reason that I do this is because I don’t think that we can consistently say that this is a livable world without objective moral values. To say that our “moral values” originate from our need to survive seems to be a vast oversimplification that doesn’t acknowledge the complexity of the human experience. Consider:
“How do we arrive to a moral definition of what is right sexually? The atheist ultimately reduces his or her definition of goodness to survival. Don’t hurt anyone, or if two consenting adults choose to do so, it is alright. But the reality is, we face temptation sexually, issues of abortion, issues of marriage, of warfare, of telling the truth, in the courtroom about honesty and what lawyers should defend - to make a simplistic answer like “so long as two adults don’t hurt anyone or kill anyone in the process,” is just a single strand of reality, when reality has much more to it. Sooner or later the atheist will make a judgment upon someone else, which they have not given themselves the rational basis to make the judgment.” (Talk by Ravi Zacharias) Someone may protest here with:
“Even if I believe in subjective values, you can’t prove that your values are any better than mine! For how can you prove what “good” is, since it cannot be defined in some scientific way?”
Although most civilizations agree on what is “good,” (the theist, of course, believing that it is written on our hearts) the point was not to prove that one’s morals are better; but rather that the atheist has not given themselves a rational basis, a standard, by which to make the judgment. If there is any objectivity at all in their values, even the claim that the desire to live is good in and of itself, they can't account for what the origin of that desire is.
Someone may say:
“I can believe it is naturally in us, therefore, on the same ground as the theist.” However, there is a vital difference. Theists will say we have a “moral law” that tells us how we ought to act. It is more than just an instinct – it is an instinct that is objectively valuable to follow. From an atheistic perspective, there is no reason for doing something outside of the fact that it is natural. Thus, there is still no basis to really provide a valid critique against someone’s actions if they choose not to follow their natural instinct. Consider what someone on this blog has stated:
An atheist, who would later affirm that there is some objectivity, made this statement on this blog, regarding Hitler:
"The basis of why I call his actions atrocious is simply this: He killed innocent people. Killing innocent people is wrong."
A theist responded with:
“I am sorry if I am wrong, but you said morals are subjective which means your values are defined by your views on the world. Since it is subjective, your rules only apply to you. Therefore, you cannot criticize someone such as Hitler because his values told him what he did was right. Now you may say killing is wrong, but once again that is your value system which is different from the next person. We can't get caught in circular logic.
Someone like Stalin could easily say that his morals have evolved above yours. There is no measuring stick, no standard, nothing objective.
Since your values are subjective, they hold true only for you because maybe someone else's morality has yet to evolve or maybe evolved beyond yours. However, to a Christian, law is objective. There is only one set of unchanging law that they must all abide by. Now many people go against this and do evil but that is by their own choice. We know it is evil because we have a measuring stick. Whereas an atheist has no measuring stick. What is evil today, could become good tomorrow. You say that your value system is always changing(evolving). Therefore to me it seems as if there is only one thing you can be certain of, it is that there is nothing you can be certain of.”
For those who think this idea of subjective morality is an exaggeration, here the words of Adolf Hitler, suggested to be influenced by Nietzsche’s ideas that there are no objective values. In a speech given to the Hitler youth in Nuremberg, Hitler says:
“I desire to create a generation without conscience, imperious, relentless, and cruel.”
There is no way to object to such an ideology without imposing some objective value - that life itself is worth cherishing.
C.S. Lewis writes,
“From propositions about fact no practical conclusion can ever be drawn. “This will preserve society” cannot lead to “do this” except by the mediation that “society ought to be preserved.” “This will cost you your life” cannot lead directly to “do not do this” - it can only lead to it through felt desire or an acknowledged duty of self-preservation. The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premises in the indicative mood; and though he continues trying to all eternity, he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible.”
James Hunter in “The Death of Character,” says:
“We say we want a renewal of character in our day, but we do not really know what to ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of creedal order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates and compels. This price is too high for us to pay. We want character without conviction; we want strong morality but without the emotional burden of guilt or shame; we want virtue but without particular moral justifications that invariably offend; we want good without having to name evil; we want decency without the authority to insist upon it; we want moral community without any limitations to personal freedom. In short, we want what we cannot possibly have on the terms that we want it.”
That is why in an attempt to avoid objective values, some have suggested that there is no such thing as “good or evil.” They say it is all really an illusion we have created for ourselves. But do you see what this means?
How can something so disgusting, like the acts of Hitler, be an illusion? All we have to do is see one brutal murder and you will know evil isn’t illusory. If we say evil is illusory, then good acts must be illusory as well, making this world nothing more than a repetition of meaningless acts. Loving a child is no more meaningful than hating a child if it is all subjective or illusory. If good and evil acts are illusory - then our world is nothing more than a repetition of meaningless acts.
When someone suggested that history has no purpose and said that evil isn’t real, Ravi Zacharias tried to illustrate how we deal with the fact of evil, the face evil, and the feeling of evil. When asking that person if Ravi could take a live baby and mangle that baby with a sword before his eyes, the atheist said, “I may not like it, but I can’t call it evil.” Ravi replied, “Even you, while trying to deny the fact of evil, and the face of evil, you cannot deny the feeling of evil.” So the fact of the matter is that atheists end up living beyond their means.
If applied consistently, from a worldview that says there is no objectivity, I have nothing more than an opinion to someone who may rape my wife and kidnap my child. In a worldview that says evil is an illusion and not real, I can only say, “I don’t like what you did, but I can’t call it an evil fact.” To me, this worldview seems to be one that denies the reality of our experience and would make this world unlivable.
What may hold me to my faith more than anything else is the fact that I believe there is intrinsic value to our actions. What holds me to my faith is when I consider the depravity of human morality, namely my own. I can’t see how the guilt that human beings experience in life is nothing more than subjective or illusory. Where there is guilt, our only hope is mercy and redemption. When comparing our goodness to the holiness of God, one may see how even in our best day, we cannot compare to Him. That is why no one apart from Christ can be saved. It is only by God’s gift of grace through faith. If we confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts, we will be saved.
I have attempted to illustrate how we cannot escape from the fact that we must eventually exhibit an element of faith if we are to ever believe anything – even the criterion for what true belief is.
Based on some atheistic objections:
Regarding Lack of Evidence - I have attempted to illustrate how the atheist will eventually find themselves in the same place in that their beliefs also lack scientific evidence.
Regarding Improbability of Theism - I have attempted to illustrate that there is nothing more improbable or unlikely than the atheistic assertion that we are here by random chance.
Regarding the claim that God or Objectivity is Unnecessary - I have attempted to illustrate that such a world is unlivable and contrary to the human experience.
Your question was: “Can you give me convincing evidence that there is a God?”
It has been said that there are 4 fundamental questions in life: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. I believe that Christian theism provides the best explanation that is the most compelling, satisfying, and consistent with the human experience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
I'm sorry, but I have to say that I am not impressed. I was hoping you would give me something to ponder. Maybe it will be good enough for other visitors. I commend you for your attempt, though. :)
Therefore, technically, the starting point of the Atheist is just as unscientific, lacking evidence.
This is just wrong. We admit that we don't have an answer. Creationists create and answer from nothing.
In your second premise you need to learn that evolution is not random chance Missing this you miss a whole important aspect of it.
And on the third we are working on morals in our own thread so I'll wait till you answer some of my questions
gl with catching up at work
peace
Hello, in case the name doesn't give it away, I am the 'Gregory' whom you have been crossing swords with other the moral argument, so hi. You said you won't be about till thursday, but as I don't have constructive means of spending my time, I thought I would waste it answering this. Unfortunately, for all the effort you have exerted upon it, I fear parts of your time might have been far better spent better understanding the science that you are arguing with.
Whilst the self referencing complaint against verificationism ("What science cannot answer, man cannot know," to quote Russel, and other 'naturalists.') That isn't the end of the matter - it can be asserted as a definition, an axiom if you will, or it can be claimed it is analytically verifiable instead. It has, however, been distinctly out of fashion for the better part of a century (I recommend, by the way, you steer clear of vague terms like 'naturalist', 'verificationist', 'positivist', or 'physcialist' would explain it better.
Science works by finding the best current explanation, which might not necessarily be the correct one, or one with all the answers, but the best fit for the questions we can pose. The fact there are gaps in evolutionary theory doesn't stop us accepting it as broadly true (although I feel obliged to point out these gaps are amplified out of all proportion by those lacking intellectual honesty.) The sheer amount of evidence that supports it means that, whilst it might change a bit, it is broadly true. Darwin messed up his speciation details - it took too long and there wasn't enough evidence of the requisite transitional forms, but instead of rejecting the whole theory, they found that speciation could be speeded up (ideas of punctuated equilibrium by Gould, etc.) It might not be 100% right, but it is probably around 98%, and the 2% isn't sufficient cause to doubt the whole enterprise.
Likewise, the cosmological argument you intimate later is doomed to failure, not only because it can be turned around to apply to god (what happened before God, etc.) but more importantly our language isn't very well equipped to handle talking about the very, very early universe - for example, 'before' the big bang, there wasn't any passage of time, so there really wasn't a 'before' the big bang. Your argument is also fallacious - because we don't have evidence about everything doesn't mean we should accept ideas without evidence about everything. Most people with a vague idea of Cosmology will simply state we don't know 'why it happened', not tie themselves to an explanation for it all like Christianity does. The very best (and that is giving it arguably more credit than it deserves) the Cosmological argument can do is 'show' a non-naturalistic first cause or prime mover, which doesn't come close to verifing THEISM, let alone the Christian god.
Your idea of information is, without putting too fine a point on it, ignorant. Information is quite closely tied to ideas of Entropy (indeed, they often have startling similar equations), and the ideas can often be interchanged. Your favourite apologist is playing smoke and mirrors, and allow me to explain why.
When water freezes to ice, its information content increases (and its entropy decreases) due to the molecules adopting a more determinate structure than they would moving freely in liquid. In the same way the memory in your computer organizes itself means it 'gains' information, likewise putting pebbles in a pyramid gets you information, etc. etc. The reason why this can happen spontaneously in the case of water (and, as it happens, all the various processes in your cells which build things like proteins, DNA, lipid bilayers, etc) is complicated. The point is, the 'mechanisms' to get our DNA are somewhat understood (although actually, it is considered that RNA was used in the first organisms, and DNA was used as information storage due to its greater stability, and it took over primary role later.) The fact of the matter is that we can see how we got information, and as we know, information can spontaneously increase in the same way you can get spontaneous reductions in entropy provided we aren't talking about an isolated system - which planet earth most emphatically is not. Or, to put it all in a few words - you misunderstand the science you are using. The gene example is an example of this disingenuousness at work - it isn't argued that the gene came together 'at random' rather that it evolved over many millions of years to get to its advanced state. Ultimately, if you don't believe me, you should study it and understand why the vast majority of scientists (of all faiths, although Atheism is overrepresented) don't consider scientific facts good reason to think our universe is so unlikely if it wasn't created - at the end of the day, I don't particularly want to defend evolutionary theory from an interluctor who (forgive me) doesn't know it that well.
I fear you have misquoted Polkinghorne, but you are welcome to correct me - he is using a fine tuning argument, not an argument against abiogenesis (and ultimately evolution, as it involves net information gain) couched in information entropic terms - the main reason why is because we can't really quantify things like DNA sequences, or the chances of 'getting it right' wheras we can work out what would happen if certain cosmological constants were a tiny degree out. Sadly, this argument also fails - there might be reasons why certain things must be at certain values that we aren't aware (like the universe formed 'never' inflating, etc.) or that there are/have been infinite universes, making this absolutely tiny chance an absolute certainty, and finally, but most important of all, the idea that this doesn't actually show much - the chances of a set of 52 cards being arranged in a certain way might be 1 in 10^-50 or so, but it still doesn't mean it wasn't chosen randomly - and we simply don't know enough to say whether our lot is particularly lucky or unlucky - it is hard to speculate whether 'life' would exist is a radically different cosmos.
You talk about morality, but you seem to have ignored all I said earlier, and just repeat yourself without modification, which is fine if you have a good argument to disregard my argument. People can be entirely consistent libertarians whilst claiming that certain things are wrong - they might not consider gay sex moral, but they don't think the state has a right to proscribe morality - Atheist ethics are not just about survival, and as proof of that you only need to look at the vast majority of ethical theory (by theists and Atheists alike) which don't invoke God as its metaethical backstop. Erecting strawmen like this does you no favours, especially when you are assumedly trying to convince Atheists, rather than share hi-fives with your fellow Christians. In fact, I am so incensed (well, not really, but it makes fun invective) I am going to rebut you point by point.
"Although most civilizations agree on what is “good,” (the theist, of course, believing that it is written on our hearts) the point was not to prove that one’s morals are better; but rather that the atheist has not given themselves a rational basis, a standard, by which to make the judgment. If there is any objectivity at all in their values, even the claim that the desire to live is good in and of itself, they can't account for what the origin of that desire is."
Theists aren't necessitated to believe the law is written on their hearts. The point of the matter is given an 'origin' of morality is ethical naturalism, which really has been shot through since Hume, and nailed repeatedly by Moore and Ayer - it just doesn't work, and to steal your phrase and adapt it, Good is too complicated for such simple derivation - claiming an origin makes a mockery of whatever you want good to mean.
"“I can believe it is naturally in us, therefore, on the same ground as the theist.” However, there is a vital difference. Theists will say we have a “moral law” that tells us how we ought to act. It is more than just an instinct – it is an instinct that is objectively valuable to follow. From an atheistic perspective, there is no reason for doing something outside of the fact that it is natural. Thus, there is still no basis to really provide a valid critique against someone’s actions if they choose not to follow their natural instinct."
Miles off target, I'm afraid. Its the is ought gap again - you have already fallen in, and are cajoling Atheists for not following you down. An Atheist can argue, if he really wants, evolutionary ethics (which sucks) or claim a moral sense, and because of his crucial value axiom, he SHOULD follow it because he claims that is what being moral IS ABOUT. Your complaint at this strategy is feckelss is because you do the same, you believe that following the commands god has written on your hearts is what being moral is about, whereas an Atheist merely changes this for common humanity, reason, etc. As I have said, repeatedly, claiming god doesn't get you anywhere useful in metaethics.
"“I am sorry if I am wrong, but you said morals are subjective which means your values are defined by your views on the world. Since it is subjective, your rules only apply to you. Therefore, you cannot criticize someone such as Hitler because his values told him what he did was right. Now you may say killing is wrong, but once again that is your value system which is different from the next person. We can't get caught in circular logic."
Sadly, you are badly, badly mistaken. Ethical subjectivity, moral anti-realism, moral skepticism, ethical non-cognitivism etc. etc. do not prohibit someone condemning someone like Hitler or Stalin, just merely such a judgement isn't a statement of fact - it isn't 'true' but it isn't 'false' either. It also isn't circular logic due to being a non-logical statement.
"For those who think this idea of subjective morality is an exaggeration, here the words of Adolf Hitler, suggested to be influenced by Nietzsche’s ideas that there are no objective values."
Hitler was inspired by Nietzche about as much as he was by Christ. Goodness knows what Nietzche would say about national socialism, but it wouldn't be complimentary, claiming he argued against objective values, whilst true, is grossly simplistic - to Nietzche, behaviour should not be governed by such staid things as moral law, but life itself, passionate, untrammeled and free.
The part about measuring sticks, by the way, is also wrong, and before I forget, here is why - Atheists can claim that moral measuring sticks are manifold, consequences in terms of utility, categorical imperatives, natural moral law all give objective answers to 'is this right' beyond a personal opinion - and it is no more inconsisant for an Atheist to assert that these are answers to 'what good is' than it is for you to assert your own values based upon what God has alledgedly written on your heart.
"How can something so disgusting, like the acts of Hitler, be an illusion? All we have to do is see one brutal murder and you will know evil isn’t illusory. If we say evil is illusory, then good acts must be illusory as well, making this world nothing more than a repetition of meaningless acts. Loving a child is no more meaningful than hating a child if it is all subjective or illusory. If good and evil acts are illusory - then our world is nothing more than a repetition of meaningless acts."
Feeling or believing 'this is evil' isn't sufficient to show there are moral facts about evil unless you are an ethical non-naturalist, and if you are, you need to get rid of your current ideas of morality only being possible through God and embrace instead a moral sense in man.
"If applied consistently, from a worldview that says there is no objectivity, I have nothing more than an opinion to someone who may rape my wife and kidnap my child. In a worldview that says evil is an illusion and not real, I can only say, “I don’t like what you did, but I can’t call it an evil fact.” To me, this worldview seems to be one that denies the reality of our experience and would make this world unlivable."
Besides the obvious 'you might not like it, but suck it up, its true' (the author is himself one of these morose, Nihilist, reductionist, skeptic, determinist, moral anti-realists of which you speak.) I don't have a purpose written on my heart, or across the Cosmos, and I am more than happy with that - I enjoying being my own person. Once again, you criticise without knowledge. You have repeatedly shown how ethical naturalism doesn't work, but you have failed to realise your own position is ethical naturalist. You've repeatedly claimed God can be salvation from meta-ethical quagmire without supporting it with an argument (most likely because there simply isn't one.) And, once again, I can call whatever someone else does as evil as I please - it just isn't a factual statement, I don't have to respect their own ethical position or behaviour or any crap like that - I can call them out on being the evil little blighter they are - that doesn't compromise ones ethical anti-realism. You should learn more about what you are speaking of before trying to turn the tables on literally centuries of prior philosophy - half of the supposed problems with Atheism do not get any easier with Theism, and metaethics is certainly among them. So, to start, you could explain the nature of how moral facts are dependant on God.
Regards,
Gregory.
It appears that some level of faith will always be required no matter what worldview we choose to espouse.
The word "faith" is synonomous with a "belief that something is true". You are right to notice that it exists at different levels. A rational person acts according to the level of confidence that he has in that something's being true. Most (but not all) people are 100% confident of the continued action of gravity, and act accordingly in order to avoid death by plummeting.
Zarathustra is not 100% confident in the existence of Botswana, not having been there. He has to make do with only a high probability that it exists, based on the number of sightings by other people. Anyone who booked a flight there would not be wasting their money, since there are sufficient grounds for believing that the place exists.
It would be wrong to conclude that having only limited grounds for belief grants one license to believe something in the absence of any grounds whatsoever.
It would be incorrect to assert: "My belief in God (no grounds whatsoever) is as valid as your belief in Botswana (some grounds)", unless one is prepared to assert the truth of something in which one has no confidence at all. Who would do that? If I said: "I do not know what is in my bathroom right now, so it is reasonable to think that it is full of tigers", you would (correctly) conclude that I was mad. Were one to assert that "God exists" without providing even a scintilla of evidence, the same conclusion would obtain.
... there is no evidence that a bat and a whale share the same ancestor.
Incorrect. Their underlying RNA/DNA biochemistry is identical. Show me two creatures on this planet where this is not the case. How can we explain this similarity other than by common ancestry?
(Zacharias:) "Ultimately, the physical universe reduced in any form cannot explain its own origin."
So? Where did this requirement for self-explanation come from? Since neither God nor Goats appear to be able to explain themselves, surely it is unfair to castigate the Universe on this score.
I find your heavy reliance on easily-discredited apologists a little weak, Jason, if I may say so.
Matter + Chance + Time = Information
Correct. Additionally, the Earth has been receiving significant amounts of external energy for some time, so I would expect the result that we see today. Have you ever grown crystals?
(Strobel:) "DNA is the most efficient information storage system in the universe."
Incorrect. Strobel doesn't seem to know about information theory.
(Polkinghorne:) “When you look just at that exactitude, so precise, and the margin of error being so small – it is the equivalent of taking aim at a 1 square inch object, 20 billion light years away, and hitting it bulls-eye.”
This is like saying that if pi was off-value by one in its 4,000th digit, then all circles would have small gaps in them. Preposterous. (I worked with Polkinghorne's son for several years, btw. He also spouted nonsense, I'm afraid.)
If good and evil acts are illusory - then our world is nothing more than a repetition of meaningless acts.
What is the "meaning" of eating an apple? How would living for eternity with God provide extra meaning and/or a lack of repetition?
Gregory,
A scientist once stated that:
"Information is not just an abstract concept, and it is not just facts or figures, dates or names. It is a concrete property of matter and energy that is quantifiable and measurable. It is every bit as real as the weight of a chunk of lead or the energy stored in an atomic warhead, and just like mass and energy, information is subject to a set of physical laws that dictate how it can behave—how information can be manipulated, transferred, duplicated, erased or destroyed. And everything in the universe must obey the laws of information, because everything in the universe is shaped by the information it contains"
It is important to note that in the list of things that can be done to information (it “can be manipulated, transferred, duplicated, erased or destroyed”) the obvious word that is missing is “created.” Information may be discovered, but it can’t be created. Since it exists now, and can’t be created now, it must have existed since “the beginning” (whenever, and whatever that beginning was).
There is an analogy between information flow and heat flow. However, Just because Shannon entropy—the measure of information—looks, mathematically, exactly the same as Boltzmann entropy—the measure of disorder—it doesn’t necessarily mean the two are physically related. Lots of equations look the same and have little to do with each other; mathematical coincidences abound in science.
People have long known that it is hard to keep hot and cold separated. Hot things cool down and cold things naturally warm up. That’s why the ice melts in your refrigerator if the power goes out. Entropy is a measure of how evenly distributed heat is. As the ice melts in your refrigerator, the entropy of the refrigerator, and the air in your kitchen surrounding it, increases. The same thing is true of information. Once you stop applying energy, though, that stored information leaks out into the environment—for Nature, it seems, attempts to dissipate stored information just as it attempts to increase entropy; the two ideas are exactly the same.
We can say that something alive is something that is not dead, but then we have the problem of defining what “dead” means. One rather disrespectful way of describing a dead person is to say that he has “assumed room temperature.” Disrespectful as it is, it is never-the-less true. The second law of thermodynamics says that heat will distribute itself as evenly as it can. Therefore, the corpse will assume room temperature. Living bodies don’t.
This is why life is such a big problem for evolutionists. Information, stored anywhere in general, and in DNA molecules in particular, tends to dissipate.
Information collects in libraries because people spend energy to gather that information from all over and consciously transport it to the library. When uncontrolled energy was added to the library at Alexandria in the form of heat, it did not increase the information contained in it. When the library at Alexandria burned down, the information in all those books dissipated into the ashes and was lost.
There is information in a DNA molecule. How did it collect there? The scientific laws of thermodynamics and information theory tell us that information doesn’t just collect naturally. It dissipates naturally. Genetic mutations cause information to be lost, which generally results in disease or death.
Living things get information passed down from their parents through DNA. The parents got that information from the grandparents. You can keep going back generation after generation, but eventually you run out of parents.
Where did the first living things get their information? Evolutionists have to believe (despite all scientific evidence to the contrary) that somehow information naturally collected in a cell, and that information caused the cell to use energy in metabolic and reproductive processes. And then, somehow, information for making cardio-vascular systems just accidentally appeared. Random, unguided processes somehow produced a brain, complete with nerves capable of sensing the environment, and algorithms capable of reacting favorably to that environment. The information for building many different kinds of eyes just happened to flow into the DNA molecule.
Natural laws (the laws of information theory and thermodynamics) tell us that energy and information naturally tend to dissipate. We see that this is exactly what happens when something dies. For life to arise naturally, these laws would have to run in reverse. It is difficult (in fact, it is impossible) for a scientist to reconcile the theory of evolution with the laws of thermodynamics and information theory.
I have to go and will add more later...
Gregory said:
"When water freezes to ice, its information content increases (and its entropy decreases) due to the molecules adopting a more determinate structure than they would moving freely in liquid"
I am a truth seeker much like yourself Gregory. Can you define what information means to you? I am not a scientist but if I stick a book in the freezer, how will new chapters and information be added to this book?
If you say that is determined by the settling of molecules to a more settled state, I ask you once again, how do you or other scientists define information?
zarathustra said"
"If I said: "I do not know what is in my bathroom right now, so it is reasonable to think that it is full of tigers", you would (correctly) conclude that I was mad. Were one to assert that "God exists" without providing even a scintilla of evidence, the same conclusion would obtain."
You are exactly right zarathustra. It is madness. It is like saying I believe that man evolved from a monkey even though there is no fossil evidence to prove otherwise. One would assume I was mad if I believed that.
"Incorrect. Their underlying RNA/DNA biochemistry is identical. Show me two creatures on this planet where this is not the case. How can we explain this similarity other than by common ancestry?"
Sharing similarities does not mean they are the same and doesn't prove they share common ancestry. Even though they are similar, it is even more obvious how different they are. If anything, it shows how intelligent their design really is.
zarathustra stated that
"This is like saying that if pi was off-value by one in its 4,000th digit, then all circles would have small gaps in them. Preposterous. (I worked with Polkinghorne's son for several years, btw. He also spouted nonsense, I'm afraid.)"
Jason's statement was one of probability and not of a mathematical constant. Your argument is not valid. Let me give you an example.
That is like when someone says "My chanes of winning the lottery is one in a million."
To which your response would be:
"This is like saying that if pi was off-value by one in its 4,000th digit, then all circles would have small gaps in them. Preposterous."
Probability is a study all on its own and to which Jason was referring. Your argument would be valid if Jason was disputing the value for gravity..a constant which we know to be 9.8....
Either way, I have never heard anyone dispute the origin of a circle before. It is the origin of the Earth which is debated.
(Strobel:) "DNA is the most efficient information storage system in the universe."
Incorrect. Strobel doesn't seem to know about information theory."
Neither do you my friend. or any of us.
"What is the "meaning" of eating an apple? "
To provide nourishment to your body.
Hello bubba:
"It is important to note that in the list of things that can be done to information (it “can be manipulated, transferred, duplicated, erased or destroyed”) the obvious word that is missing is “created.” Information may be discovered, but it can’t be created. Since it exists now, and can’t be created now, it must have existed since “the beginning” (whenever, and whatever that beginning was)."
This is patently not true - we 'generate' new information all the time. Artistic works would be a bit of a hard example to prove, but better ones new ideas in general, or, as we will be talking about Biology, fertilization, and simply random mutation can increase information content - we have developed bacteria which can, for want of a better term, 'eat nylon', which wasn't developed until about fifty years ago. I will return to this more rigourously later.
"There is an analogy between information flow and heat flow. However, Just because Shannon entropy—the measure of information—looks, mathematically, exactly the same as Boltzmann entropy—the measure of disorder—it doesn’t necessarily mean the two are physically related. Lots of equations look the same and have little to do with each other; mathematical coincidences abound in science."
I agree, however, in this case, there is a relevance - as both can be crudely considered to be measuring 'disorder'. And to quote a (named Scientist, G. N. Lewis) "Gain in entropy means loss of information, and nothing more." So they are linked, although there are important differences between the two - however, cynic that I am, I do think certain creationists, seeing that 'standard' entropy arguments against evolution have been shot to pieces by chemistry, move on to more esoteric fields. As I hope to show, either way it is argued, it fails.
"We can say that something alive is something that is not dead, but then we have the problem of defining what “dead” means. One rather disrespectful way of describing a dead person is to say that he has “assumed room temperature.” Disrespectful as it is, it is never-the-less true. The second law of thermodynamics says that heat will distribute itself as evenly as it can. Therefore, the corpse will assume room temperature. Living bodies don’t."
Beware! Whilst this is true for humans, for other living things can still be alive whilst body temperature is the same as their surroundings, likewise if we were in a hotter environment, we would all be at 'room temperature' whilst alive.
"Information collects in libraries because people spend energy to gather that information from all over and consciously transport it to the library. When uncontrolled energy was added to the library at Alexandria in the form of heat, it did not increase the information contained in it. When the library at Alexandria burned down, the information in all those books dissipated into the ashes and was lost."
Increasing heat would certainly not increase the entropy (of either kind) of the library, as adding energy will increase the entropy, and, to be again a little crude, decrease the information particles of so heated as they rise up to higher energy levels.
You are conflating two sorts of information here - the sort carried by the words and data, and the sort carried by the molecules. Burning the library down will reduce two sorts of information - by removing the information of the books, and the entropy of the various compounds, molecules, etc. being increased by the burning (indeed, for a chemical process to do so, it MUST increase the entropy of the universe.)
"There is information in a DNA molecule. How did it collect there? The scientific laws of thermodynamics and information theory tell us that information doesn’t just collect naturally. It dissipates naturally. Genetic mutations cause information to be lost, which generally results in disease or death.
Living things get information passed down from their parents through DNA. The parents got that information from the grandparents. You can keep going back generation after generation, but eventually you run out of parents."
Drastically wrong, I'm afraid to say. Genetic mutations are one of the few ways DNA can gain information - most of the other forces of natural selection reduce information content of the genepool, whilst quite often it is harmful, sometimes it is beneficial. As we speak, there is an inversion mutation on chromosome 18 spreading through the population - spreading because it enhances fertility.
Permit me to use my example against you to show why your understanding of this is flawed. If, as you say, information MUST dissapate rapidly, how on earth can we maintain our own bodies? It is true that information entropy doesn't necessarily has to increase, but considering it is well below its maximal value, it really should. To be strict, we do lose information from our genetic code as we age, but when we die we are still far from maximally disordered. Far more important than this is that we grow - our DNA gets duplicated many, many times, and furthermore the information of all the food we eat is firstly broken down, and then certain molecules (generally very big ones are anabolically created from the results - how is this even possible if information cannot be created? What about fertilization - is there not a new genetic code generated? Finally, throughout human history there hasn't been a loss of information - how is this possible, if information is, by your own terms, meant to dissipate? If you were correct (and I, unsurprisingly, strongly suggest you are mistaken) it wouldn't just be a problem for evolutionary biology - it would be a problem for biology in general.
The answer, is, of course, thanks to energy (indeed, I think it was Heisenburg who suggested all life is entropy exporting via releasing heat to preserve its own organization.) In much the same way our bodies use energy to grow, reproduce and so on, it costs energy, which we generate via through complicated multi-step chemical pathways. We can use this energy to build macromolecules, replicate them, and so on - it increases information (or reduces entropy) but the heat so generated works to excite other atoms and molecules (ultimately outside the body) and increases their entropy - 'paying it off' so to speak.
"Where did the first living things get their information? Evolutionists have to believe (despite all scientific evidence to the contrary) that somehow information naturally collected in a cell, and that information caused the cell to use energy in metabolic and reproductive processes. And then, somehow, information for making cardio-vascular systems just accidentally appeared. Random, unguided processes somehow produced a brain, complete with nerves capable of sensing the environment, and algorithms capable of reacting favorably to that environment. The information for building many different kinds of eyes just happened to flow into the DNA molecule."
You badly misunderstand how evolution works, so you are half right - indeed, these things did 'just turn up' but they turned up gradually, over many millions of millions of years, and as these were favourable (or at least neutral, although it is possible, though unlikely, for unfavourable steps to occur) they were preserved until the next stage. As a breif examination of taxonomy, geology, general natural history and biology and so on should suggest, the evidence is stacked in favour, and the only thing that speaks against it is your (forgive me) mistaken conception of information theory.
"Natural laws (the laws of information theory and thermodynamics) tell us that energy and information naturally tend to dissipate. We see that this is exactly what happens when something dies. For life to arise naturally, these laws would have to run in reverse. It is difficult (in fact, it is impossible) for a scientist to reconcile the theory of evolution with the laws of thermodynamics and information theory."
Yes, information does 'tend to dissipate, as does entropy tend to increase, but these conditions only occur isolated systems - which the earth is emphatically not. Life and its evolution is a spontaneous process - it works because it releases information, in other words, it does ultimately reduce the information content (or, more relevantly, neg entropy) of the universe - just like ice freezing reduces its entropy doesn't mean it can't happen, the fact that life gains in information spontaneously doesn't mean it cannot happen either - whether the objection is couched in terms of thermodynamics or information theory, it is the understanding of these which are in error, not the whole theory of evolution.
If nothing else convinces you, consider the reverse example - that of a child developing. Firstly, it has a new (generally unique) genetic code of its own, generated from its parents (possibly with some chromosomal or genetic mutations) - a spontaneous increase in 'information' if there ever was one. It then develops and vastly increases in size, developing its own tissues etc. from this code, dramatically reducing the entropy of the system it is in. How can this possibly occur if information is meant to dissipate from everything without any possibility of information content increasing?
If nothing else convinces you, try this. Since the dawn of human history, man has mastered the capacity to create all sorts of complex tools and machines (like computers) and master all sorts of skills (like reading).
Whence, then, did the information you are relying on to read my message come from?
Regards,
Gregory.
P.S.
"I am a truth seeker much like yourself Gregory. Can you define what information means to you? I am not a scientist but if I stick a book in the freezer, how will new chapters and information be added to this book?
If you say that is determined by the settling of molecules to a more settled state, I ask you once again, how do you or other scientists define information?"
I'm flattered that you think of me as a scientist, but I am afraid I am merely a student, athough I hope a somewhat knowledgeable one.
This is a problem with using information in a context where entropy would be far more suitable - the chemical information and (for want of a better term) the intellectual information can be conflated and equivocated. Information can be a bit of a lose term, besides its use in information theory and thermodynamics, it is often used in physics too (the information of a rock moving into a black hole, etc.)
If you stick a book in a freezer the amount of information contained in the book increases, even if the number of words, etc. remain. The reason is because the amount of energy in the actual chemical constituents of the book is reduced - because how energy is distrubed in effect randomly amongst the molecules (following a boltzman distrubition, although that isn't very useful considering the huge numbers of different substances involved) but it is randomly distributed around the molecules. This energy means that less can be known about the molecules - their positions, their orientations, etc. Reducing the energy (by reducing the temperature) we can know more about the particles - thus they contain more information.
A catch all definition of information could be thought of as a measure of what can be known about it. When talking about chemical molecules, it is best thought of by talking about ideas of thermodynamic entropy - the less the entropy of a system, the more information it can have.
As I hope I have shown, Evolutionary theory doesn't contravene either information theory or (absolutely not) thermodynamics.
Regards (the second)
Gregory,
I've been seeing a bunch of smoke and mirrors here:
"You badly misunderstand how evolution works, so you are half right - indeed, these things did 'just turn up' but they turned up gradually, over many millions of millions of years, and as these were favourable (or at least neutral, although it is possible, though unlikely, for unfavourable steps to occur) they were preserved until the next stage. As a breif examination of taxonomy, geology, general natural history and biology and so on should suggest, the evidence is stacked in favour, and the only thing that speaks against it is your (forgive me) mistaken conception of information theory."
THE CAMBRIDGE EXPLOSION
The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total, made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time. Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total, and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time.
To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna.
DEFINING BIOLOGICAL FORM and INFORMATION
Insofar as any particular biological form constitutes something like a distinct arrangement of constituent body parts, form can be seen as arising from constraints that limit the possible arrangements of matter. Specifically, organismal form arises (both in phylogeny and ontogeny) as possible arrangements of material parts are constrained to establish a specific or particular arrangement with an identifiable three dimensional topography--one that we would recognize as a particular protein, cell type, organ, body plan or organism. A particular “form,” therefore, represents a highly specific and constrained arrangement of material components (among a much larger set of possible arrangements).
Understanding form in this way suggests a connection to the notion of information in its most theoretically general sense. When Shannon (1948) first developed a mathematical theory of information he equated the amount of information transmitted with the amount of uncertainty reduced or eliminated in a series of symbols or characters. Information, in Shannon's theory, is thus imparted as some options are excluded and others are actualized. The greater the number of options excluded, the greater the amount of information conveyed. Further, constraining a set of possible material arrangements by whatever process or means involves excluding some options and actualizing others. Thus, to constrain a set of possible material states is to generate information in Shannon's sense. It follows that the constraints that produce biological form also imparted information. Or conversely, one might say that producing organismal form by definition requires the generation of information.
Mathematical biologists have realized that Shannon's theory could be applied to the analysis of DNA and proteins to measure the information-carrying capacity of these macromolecules. Since DNA contains the assembly instructions for building proteins, the information-processing system in the cell represents a kind of communication channel . Further, DNA conveys information via specifically arranged sequences of nucleotide bases. Since each of the four bases has a roughly equal chance of occurring at each site along the spine of the DNA molecule, biologists can calculate the probability, and thus the information-carrying capacity, of any particular sequence n bases long.
Thus, we can pose a question, not only about the origin of genetic information, but also about the origin of the information necessary to generate form and structure at levels higher than that present in individual proteins. We must also ask about the origin of the “specified complexity,” as opposed to mere complexity, that characterizes the new genes, proteins, cell types and body plans that arose in the Cambrian explosion. Dembski has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity.
THE CAMBRIAN INFORMATION EXPLOSION
Building a new animal from a single-celled organism requires a vast amount of new genetic information. It also requires a way of arranging gene products--proteins--into higher levels of organization. New proteins are required to service new cell types. But new proteins must be organized into new systems within the cell; new cell types must be organized into new tissues, organs, and body parts. These, in turn, must be organized to form body plans. New animals, therefore, embody hierarchically organized systems of lower-level parts within a functional whole. Such hierarchical organization itself represents a type of information, since body plans comprise both highly improbable and functionally specified arrangements of lower-level parts. The specified complexity of new body plans requires explanation in any account of the Cambrian explosion.
Can neo-Darwinism explain the discontinuous increase in CSI that appears in the Cambrian explosion--either in the form of new genetic information or in the form of hierarchically organized systems of parts?
NOVEL GENES AND PROTEINS
some biologists have thought functional proteins to be rare among the set of possible amino acid sequences. Some have used an analogy with human language to illustrate why this should be the case. For example, it has been shown that meaningful words and sentences are extremely rare among the set of possible combinations of English letters, especially as sequence length grows. (The ratio of meaningful 12-letter words to 12-letter sequences is 1/1014, the ratio of 100-letter sentences to possible 100-letter strings is 1/10100.) Further, Denton shows that most meaningful sentences are highly isolated from one another in the space of possible combinations, so that random substitutions of letters will, after a very few changes, inevitably degrade meaning. Apart from a few closely clustered sentences accessible by random substitution, the overwhelming majority of meaningful sentences lie, probabilistically speaking, beyond the reach of random search.
Similar constraints apply to genes and proteins. They have questioned whether an undirected search via mutation and selection would have a reasonable chance of locating new islands of function--representing fundamentally new genes or proteins--within the time available. Some have also argued that alterations in sequencing would likely result in loss of protein function before fundamentally new function could arise. Nevertheless, neither the extent to which genes and proteins are sensitive to functional loss as a result of sequence change, nor the extent to which functional proteins are isolated within sequence space, has been fully known.
Neo-Darwinists envisioned new information arising from the mutation/selection mechanism. For neo-Darwinism, new functional genes either arise from non-coding sections in the genome or from preexisting genes. Both scenarios are problematic.
In the first scenario, neo-Darwinists envision new genetic information arising from those sections of the genetic text that can presumably vary freely without consequence to the organism.
The scenario has an overriding problem, however: the size of the combinatorial space (i.e., the number of possible amino acid sequences) and the extreme rarity and isolation of the functional sequences within that space of possibilities. Since natural selection can do nothing to help generate new functional sequences, but rather can only preserve such sequences once they have arisen, chance alone--random variation--must do the work of information generation--that is, of finding the exceedingly rare functional sequences within the set of combinatorial possibilities. Yet the probability of randomly assembling (or “finding,” in the previous sense) a functional sequence is extremely small.
In the second scenario, neo-Darwinists envisioned novel genes and proteins arising by numerous successive mutations in the preexisting genetic text that codes for proteins.
Thus, although this second neo-Darwinian scenario has the advantage of starting with functional genes and proteins, it also has a lethal disadvantage: any process of random mutation or rearrangement in the genome would in all probability generate nonfunctional intermediate sequences before fundamentally new functional genes or proteins would arise.
Obviously, this subject is way too complex to hope to discuss in this sort of fashion, but I hope I have poked holes in the evolutionist theories.
Biju: It is like saying I believe that man evolved from a monkey even though there is no fossil evidence to prove otherwise. One would assume I was mad if I believed that.
Fossil evidence cannot prove the non-occurrence of anything, so it's a good thing that nobody actually claims that man evolved from monkeys, isn't it?
Biju: Sharing similarities does not mean they are the same and doesn't prove they share common ancestry. Even though they are similar, it is even more obvious how different they are.
The word "similar" implies differences. Common ancestry explains the similarity of the RNA/DNA mechanisms that we observe. If you have a better explanation, please provide it.
Biju: Either way, I have never heard anyone dispute the origin of a circle before. It is the origin of the Earth which is debated.
You still haven't heard anyone dispute the origin of a circle. It is the ignorant abuse of numbers that is the point. Jason lets others do this for him. The origin of the Earth is not being discussed on this thread, as far as I am aware.
Biju: (Strobel:) "DNA is the most efficient information storage system in the universe."
Incorrect. Strobel doesn't seem to know about information theory."
Neither do you my friend. or any of us.
Do you have a certificate from the University of Jesus that qualifies you to make snide and ignorant accusations?
I have a post-graduate degree in that field and have worked in telecommunications research and on projects that used AI techniques in order to determine patterns in higher-level DNA structures for the purpose of identifying cancer-causing misreplications. Information theory is relevant to those areas, so I am lucky that no-one realized I knew nothing about the subject, as you seem to suggest.
The agendaist website ISCID purports to address these issues. In spite of it being a front for creationism (whatever that means), any suggestion as to the "divine" nature of information has been laid waste by those who actually understand the subject. Zarathustra will deal with you there, if you have more to say on this matter.
As for the more recent poster "science", he should at least have the decency to identify the source of his cut-and-paste contribution, however ill-informed it may be. He has poked holes only in his own credibility, and nothing other.
It is indeed ironic that those who ascribe "intelligence" to the design of the natural world seem to be those who are themselves least in possession of that same commodity. Whilst monkeys can be trained to repeat things that they have have been shown by others, it cannot be said that they truly understand their meaning.
Science,
Whether that was an article or your own words, it was very informative. It really showed the complexity of the human DNA and for this to be a random act is nonsense.
Zarathustra, what errors can you find in science's post? It seems these facts have really got under your skin.
Hirzw: Whether that was an article or your own words, it was very informative. It really showed the complexity of the human DNA and for this to be a random act is nonsense.
DNA is complex, but not random. Bad RNA went the way of everything as described in Eccl. 3.
Hirzw: Zarathustra, what errors can you find in science's post? It seems these facts have really got under your skin.
You are using the word "facts" in the way other people use the word "suppositions", Hirzw. "Science" has not yet made a post worthy of reply, since he has relied on shameless plagiarism to give the appearance of intellect. I will reply to the actual author once "science" is man enough to identify his source.
Whilst Christians are usually too lazy to think for themselves, I don't think that this blog should actively encourage such behaviour. This is up to Jason, of course.
When you have something to say that is not completely vacuous, Hirzw, you too can be hopeful of a considered reply.
"Fossil evidence cannot prove the non-occurrence of anything, so it's a good thing that nobody actually claims that man evolved from monkeys, isn't it?"
Shheessh..you're right...I don't know why all these evolutionists were trying so hard to find fossil evidence for so long. This whole time we had a genius right here in our midst to say otherwise. Where have you been for so long Zathustra?
"Biju: Sharing similarities does not mean they are the same and doesn't prove they share common ancestry. Even though they are similar, it is even more obvious how different they are.
The word "similar" implies differences. Common ancestry explains the similarity of the RNA/DNA mechanisms that we observe. If you have a better explanation, please provide it."
Man...I don't know..Maybe it was intelligent design, but of course you know better right since you are spouting off all your degrees...(to bad you don't have an education to go with those degrees)
"Strobel:) Bij"DNA is the most efficient information storage system in the universe."
Incorrect. Strobel doesn't seem to know about information theory."
Strobel never claims to know about it. He only interviews nobel prize winners and scientists at the forefront of their studies, but of course he should have interviewed you right?? You have given so much to the field of mathematics and science. Where can we pick up a copy of your book again?
""Science" has not yet made a post worthy of reply, since he has relied on shameless plagiarism to give the appearance of intellect. I will reply to the actual author once "science" is man enough to identify his source."
Of course!! That must be it...It couldn't be the fact you have nothing to say because you have no idea what you are talking about. Not the guy with a degree printed off the internet and who has nothing of value to say.
I have never really met a person who wrote so much but didn't have much to say. To bad they can't give you a degree in common sense. You really need to go back and ask for a refund from the school you attended and after that just log off the internet and throw your computer out the window.
At least Gregory was knowledgeable.
Biju,
I don't believe it is because zarathustra doesn't want to argue the point with science. I believe it is because he can't. The Cambridge Explosion is the major gap that evolutionist have not been able to bridge to this point.
There have been many attempts, but all have been laid to waste. He may try to repeat some of them, but none have held the test of time.
The last post was a response to hrlzw...He/She asked the question...
"Zarathustra, what errors can you find in science's post? It seems these facts have really got under your skin"
I wouldn't be surprised if Hrlzw is patting his own back.
Hey BigTex71...
I haven't heard from you in awhile.
zarathustra...Maybe we started off on the wrong foot. I apologize for any snide remarks and will attempt to refrain from doing so in the future.
I hope to return this thread to a civilized debate once again. Jason, my apologies for the problems.
THE CAMBRIDGE EXPLOSION?
When did Cambridge University blow up?
Yeah, I know you meant Cambrian. I just couldn't resist that.
Since I am not a scientist or very knowledgeable about science, I tend to shy away from scientific arguments. However, I feel I can add this to the discussion:
What probably happened with the so-called Cambrian explosion of life is that some barrier or obstacle to the spread of life was either overcome or it just faded away. For instance, the climate may have changed what was it, some 650 million years ago. Whatever it was, life forms that existed in small quantities that did not leave much evidence in the fossil record were able to expand.
To use an analogy, in the animal kingdom, in instances where the population of a prey is kept in check by a predator, if the predator is decimated or exterminated by an external force, be it climate change, or being hunted to death by humans or loss of habitat, the population of the prey often explodes. I'm on my lunch break here at work, so I don't have time to go looking for examples.
Regarding evolution itself, if it were not true, then we would not expect to see mammals living on both land and sea. Unlike fish, which breathe underwater through their gills, dolphins and whales have to frequently surface for air. Now, if all life forms were "designed" by some intelligence, we could reasonably expect that all animals that live in the sea would have gills. (Yes, I can already see the response coming: Well Tommy, that is just your opinion as to how you think God would create life, but that is because your understanding of God is limited. To that, I would answer: your view of God is no more valid than mine because your view is mentally imprisoned by the Bible.)
Tommy...
good to hear from you again. I missed your civil and intelligent posts. I found someone else's blog to haunt.
Even as the supposedly knowledgeable man I am (although, for some obscure reason, I don't think I am capable of joining issue with Zarathustra on matters of his specialty) even I feint at the prospect of trying to rebut that point by point - Talkorigins is a far better place for all of that, answered by people far more emminent then you or I (bizarrely they seem to be in favour of evolution, despite how much I am assured that science indeed shows it to be implausible.) So I'll answer the general gist, as, forgive me, but I don't particularly want to argue ideas about entropy, information theory, evolutionary biology, when not all present properly understand them for themselves.
So, 'Science', let us see:
"Thus, we can pose a question, not only about the origin of genetic information, but also about the origin of the information necessary to generate form and structure at levels higher than that present in individual proteins. We must also ask about the origin of the “specified complexity,” as opposed to mere complexity, that characterizes the new genes, proteins, cell types and body plans that arose in the Cambrian explosion. Dembski has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity."
Demski is a quack (as I am sure Zarathustra will concur) who is an evolution denier first, and an information theorist second - his only supposed theory has found no use or traction in his field. I can already see where this is going, which, frankly, increases my suspicions of this being a copy and paste - if it isn't, it is a monumental waste of your time.
"The scenario has an overriding problem, however: the size of the combinatorial space (i.e., the number of possible amino acid sequences) and the extreme rarity and isolation of the functional sequences within that space of possibilities. Since natural selection can do nothing to help generate new functional sequences, but rather can only preserve such sequences once they have arisen, chance alone--random variation--must do the work of information generation--that is, of finding the exceedingly rare functional sequences within the set of combinatorial possibilities. Yet the probability of randomly assembling (or “finding,” in the previous sense) a functional sequence is extremely small."
This is only true when considering the generation of an entire genetic sequence 'from scratch.' Generation of new information to form a new protein say can instead of being thought of as a giant leap, can be thought of as a series of smaller steps, each of which is preserved to stop things 'falling back.' Further to this, it is far more likely 'new' genes are created from old genes rather than formed de novo via various chromosomal mutations - indeed, a relatively recent issue of Scientific American featured an exploration of these non functional genes (pseudogenes) in our genome.
So, one means of getting original proteins would be something along the lines of a chromosomal mutation duplicating a chromosome (or indeed a complete ploidal change as is very common in plants, and a common mechanism of speciation) then one of these already functional genes gathering mutations before functioning as another sort - it might not actually work as an intermediate (although enzymes in particular can still be partially functional even when mutated) but it is still produced, and then gathering mutations allow it to, say, metabolize something else, and so on and so forth. A slightly less exotic example is a diploid organsim (which would be most of them) having a mutation on one of its chromosomes and passing that onto its offspring, etc. etc.
It is, in short, the second senario, and it works - the 'cost' to the organism is minimal (we routinely carry recessive alleles which code for non-functional proteins, but courtesy of the 'other copy' working, we are fine) there simply isn't a hole, and I haven't even started on other means of fresh genetic feedstock for mutation (a pseudogene getting reactivated, for example.)
Finally, I shall close on something more general. From what I have read of the subject, I don't think evolutionary biology has a cast iron explanation for the Cambrian (not Cambridge) explosion - although various theories have been suggested for it. The point is this isn't sufficient cause for 'dropping' evolution. Science isn't about finding the perfect fit, it is about finding the best one, and whilst evolution perhaps doesn't (and probably will never) have an explanation for all that we observe, we can keep refining it so that it works better - that and it already is an elegant, effective, seemingly correct explanation of the vast majority of our observations about biology and natural history. Modern evolutionary Biology is the best explanation I am aware of by a country mile, and it isn't a matter of 'faith' (which, assumedly is the original strategy to convert Atheists, right?)
If you have a better theory, you are welcome to tell me, although personally I would recommend contacting a university and preparing your Nobel prize speach.
Regards,
Gregory.
Gregory,
what is your field of study out of curiosity? Obviously, many of us cannot debate you on a scientific level. Not that there is not a reply to be made, but originally this discussion was a philosophical debate until somehow it turned scientific.
If you are as objective and civil as you appear to be, can you explain in simple terms the problems you find with both the evolutionists and creationists theories. I know you must not agree with everything evolutionists believe since you seem to be a free thinker.
Talk to you soon.
Back to the orginal question posed, the question of whether or not a being exists that we would consider to be a god is separate from whether or not the God of the Bible exists.
One can argue that the God of the Bible does not exist and is no more real than Zeus or Vishnu by comparing the scientific and historical record against the claims put forth in the Bible.
"what is your field of study out of curiosity? Obviously, many of us cannot debate you on a scientific level. Not that there is not a reply to be made, but originally this discussion was a philosophical debate until somehow it turned scientific."
I am an 18 year old student, so I suppose my fields of study can be considered philosophy, mathematics, chemistry, and biology. I am particularly good at biology (getting in the top 50-odd in the country in the biology olympiad) and, in about 6 months time, exams permitting, I will be reading Medicine at Cambridge (which makes the 'Cambridge' explosion pretty ironic.)
There really isn't a scientific case to answer as far as evolution is concerned - the reason the vast majority of scientists assent to it is because they consider it correct. It is as simple as that - the controversy is entirely manufactured by a god-bothering minority and not seriously entertained by the scientific community (don't believe me? Come over to Europe to observe the simple lack of controversy there is. I'll return to that bit later.
I imagine the turn in conversation is due to the original post by Jason which tied 'Atheism' to various sceintific claims (ignoring the substantial proportion of Theistic scientists) and further arguing that God is a necessary entity for the world to make logical sense - which I stridently deny.
"If you are as objective and civil as you appear to be, can you explain in simple terms the problems you find with both the evolutionists and creationists theories. I know you must not agree with everything evolutionists believe since you seem to be a free thinker."
Thats not fair, and indeed I will counter your first sentence by saying if you are as open minded and as free thinking as you think yourself to be, you won't consider 'evolutionists' biased and uncivilized for being evolutionists.
I simply don't see any significant problems with 'evolutionism' (more Creationist rhetoric, like 'Darwinism' and 'neo-Darwinism', outside the US, 'Biology' would be more than a sufficient descriptor.) Whilst is primarily is a retrospective theory, it makes predictions about geological time which are basically affirmed (we don't see bunnies in the pre-cambrian.) As well as ideas of morphology (no mammals with prokaryotic cell biology, and so many similar features we can base phylogenic trees around them, as well as more directly ordering things according to evolution, like cladistics.) As well as predictions about natural selection, etc. It is hard to stop mentioning huge fields in biology which rest upon evolutionary theory - "Without evolution, nothing in biology makes sense." (alas the scientist who said this escapes me.)
As I said, it might be perfect, and as I said, there might be questions it doesn't have an answer for (the Cambrian explosion might well be one.) The point is, science doesn't work on the basis of completely discarding a theory unless it is irrevocably wrong, it adapts it to work better. Darwin wasn't right on his speciation details (there indeed aren't enough transitional forms in the fossil record) instead of going back to the drawing board, evolutionary biologists instead discovered other, faster means of speciation that Darwins (although, I note, that there are examples of 'Darwinian' speciation too.) This is by the way I am skepticial of claims about lack of transitional forms, as Gould et al. have shown they aren't always necessary. The reason they sought to develop the theory rather than discard it entirely (like lamarkcism) is because it explained a lot of things effectively based on principles that were agreed upon. In short, evolution isn't a perfect explanation, or a complete one, but it is the best explanation we have.
This is the main flaw in 'creationism' and why most scientists don't consider it scientific. It just isn't an explanation. Or at least, those that purport to be an explanation fail miserably.
The idea that evidence supports events happened 'according to the old testament' is just untenable. I find it genuinely hard to think of all the reasons it can't happen. It flies in the face of all of Cosmology, most of Astronomy, most of geology, a healthy amount of biology, evolution aside - even if Noah's ark was feasibly possible, the inbreeding of building up a breed from two individuals would wipe out the line after a few generations, and a good deal of history - like the growing evidence that the events involving the movements Jewish peoples in the OT were at best legendary, and at worst mythical. You end up with such absurdities that the speed of light has changed over time (thus explaining why geological time only really lasted 6000 years) and other ideas which really are only worthy of ridicule.
Another camp of creationists invokes god - but this isn't scientific. It isn't scientific because it invokes god (something science can't really speak upon) but rather because such 'theories' don't have any explanatory power even if they were true. Ultimately, God could indeed have created the world in seven days and made it 'seem' like evolution, but that won't explain what we observe when bacteria develop resistance, it won't be of any use to us when we want to use science. Indeed, ultimately I feel such an approach boils down to Theistic evolution - evolution explaining how it all occurs, and Theism 'explaining' (not the best term to use, I would say, but no matter) why it happens.
The final camp poke holes in evolution (which is why I am grateful for you inviting me to look at the problems with creationism, as so often evolution is put on the defensive, which implies - wrongly - that the burden of proof lies against it.) The reason I dislike this approach is twofold - as I have said before, evolution should still be thought of to be basically true even if holes can be poked in it - evolution remains broadly true even with things it can't explain like the Cambrian explosion etc. If we took that sort of approach, we would end up without much of science left (hence the lampooning of intelligent design being adapted for the theory gravity as 'intelligent falling' theory.) Genetics is something we don't understand very well - that doesn't mean we discard the best explanation we have of it.
In short, I don't consider evolution and creationism comparible. The latter just isn't, and cannot be good science. Science runs on what we observe, and, as an empricist, I think that is the best grounds we have to believe in anything. Evolution is one of those things that works - any sensible application of scientific principles will lead to it from our current information - that might not always be true, but I think the chances of the theory being completely discarded minute because of the sheer masses of evidence in support - one which I fear, despite how much I have written, I am not doing justice to.
Regards,
Gregory
*applauds*
gregory that was masterfully done and well presented!!!
zarathustra, I bow down to your wisdom
I don't even have to be here - you blokes are awesome!! But it sure is entertaining
there is hope for the human race
Hey! What about me?
:-(
I have read science's past and Gregory and both are at a stand off at this point. Both have made excellent points. Gregory, you say that evolution is not the answer but possible.
Science you say that evolution may be possible but highly improbable. That is the state of this discussion. Neither side can gain an edge because all on this forum are extremely knowledgeable.
Gregory...You say that we should accept evolution despite its flaws. However, we should reject creationism despite its flaws.
*applauds*
science that was masterfully done and well presented!!!
bubba, I bow down to your wisdom
I don't even have to be here - you blokes are awesome!! But it sure is entertaining
there is hope for the human race
Gregory and Science,
I am currently sitting on the fence on who to believe. Since I was raised around intelligent design, I seem to be leaning that way.
Gregory, from reading your response I am not convinced that evolution is the best possible answer. There are too many questions that come to my mind upon reading Science's post. When I think about the human body, logic and common sense tell me that there is no way this could be produced through random chance. There is way too much complexity.
I may not have a background in biology but I am a student of everyday life. When I see a house, I do not think that it came to be by evolution because it is way too complex. It had to be built. Now I can't look at a tree and proclaim I found evidence that it evolved from a tree because the house has parts that are composed of a tree. I must ask myself where did the tree come from.
Upon reading your posts concerning genetic mutation and information contained in freezing water, I feel that is what biologists are doing. Evolutionary bioligists at least. Biologists have found a mutating bacteria and claim to have discovered something, but what have they discovered about the human body? Where did this matter come from? How we had the benefit of having this matter to observe in the first place comes to mind. Where did matter come from? It appears to me at least that at this point the conversation turns from being scientific to philosophical.
I feel that information contained in frozen water is much different from information contained in DNA and in the hard drive of a computer. One came from cognitive thought and the other from nature. Even so where did water come from?
Evolution still does not disprove God. God can use evolution to create all things...even the mutating bacteria.
Why hasn't the mutating bacteria or any other specimen evolved into a human being or other mammal over the last couple hundred of years? You may say that the environment is not suitable but then how do you know that the environment was suitable 500 millions years ago?
The Cambrian explosion makes it seem like life was created all of a sudden and not over billions of years.
If evolution is a guess at best, then what prohibits someone from saying life can begin when they fart?
It can't be emperically proven but its a stab in the dark just like everything else.
apologies tommy - you rawk as well
:)
biju, please re-read gregory's conclusion ...
evolution is... the Theory of Evolution might have some aspects that we still need to address.
truth, *clap clap* very original m8. gg wp
"I have read science's past and Gregory and both are at a stand off at this point. Both have made excellent points. Gregory, you say that evolution is not the answer but possible."
What ghost has said - Evolution is, as best as we can discover, the right answer - there is the possibility it might be completely wrong, as with all other scientific theories we create.
"Gregory...You say that we should accept evolution despite its flaws. However, we should reject creationism despite its flaws."
No, we should reject literal creationism as sceintifically ludicrous (if you think evolution has scientific gaps, check out what supposed creation science has to negotiate through) and the claim that things were created, whilst true, isn't any use to modern science whatsoever.
"Gregory, from reading your response I am not convinced that evolution is the best possible answer. There are too many questions that come to my mind upon reading Science's post. When I think about the human body, logic and common sense tell me that there is no way this could be produced through random chance. There is way too much complexity."
Without being blunt, your logic is flawed. Ultimately, the only thing I can do is recommend you study the subject at a reputable university. Evolution ISN'T random chance, it is a deterministic, directional process caused by ultimately random processes - and if you think that is contradictory, check out quantum mechanics.
If there were only humans around and not much else, it would seem bizarre - but the point is there are not, we have evidence of higher primates which aren't that far 'below' us in mental capacity and so on (and we have a record of prior human species like Neanderthals etc. - ironically enough, it is suspected that intermating between our ancestors and them is what gave us such powerful brains.) We can keep going 'downwards' (not a strictly valid term in evolution, but forgive me) and see a series of more primitive versions of organs and body systems as we go up the phylogenic tree. We didn't come about 'through chance' we are the result of millions upon millions of years of incrimental improvements.
"I feel that information contained in frozen water is much different from information contained in DNA and in the hard drive of a computer. One came from cognitive thought and the other from nature. Even so where did water come from?"
It is, but only because we are not using the information 'for something else' in water - but that could be done if it was so desired. You are veering towards a cosmological argument (where did everything come from) which simply isn't part of evolution, which works on the assumption of simple replicators (which, at the moment, are hypothesised to be strands of self replicating RNA clothed in phosopholipid bilayers.)
"Evolution still does not disprove God. God can use evolution to create all things...even the mutating bacteria."
I entirely agree, as would the catholic church and the countless Theists studying and practising science. However, the people on this thread seem to be attempting to show that God is somehow necessary to explain the way the world is - which it is not. And further, such an explanation is no more useful to us than saying 'it happened.'
"Why hasn't the mutating bacteria or any other specimen evolved into a human being or other mammal over the last couple hundred of years? You may say that the environment is not suitable but then how do you know that the environment was suitable 500 millions years ago?"
You misunderstand evolution. It isn't a matter of environment, it is a matter of time - and even 'fast' speciation events take a while. The time taken to accrue all the genetic material, develop and so on to get to humans takes millions upon millions upon millions of years - it isn't a matter of environmental factors, it is one of time taken to get all the mutations and information part by part.
"The Cambrian explosion makes it seem like life was created all of a sudden and not over billions of years."
It wasn't, it happened millions of years ago, and there was primitive life before the explosion, and slightly less primitive life afterwards - it is considered an explosion because of the seeming 'jump' in the breadth and sophistication of life, not as the singular genesis of all life.
"If evolution is a guess at best, then what prohibits someone from saying life can begin when they fart?"
Science works on finding the best guess ('Science is a process of progressive oversimplification,' to quote Karl Popper) However science works on finding evidence and conducting an experiments to disprove certain guesses and support other ones - so silly suggestions like your one gets discarded, whereas sensible ones (like evolution) are upheld and refined to work better. Science, if you'll excuse the irony, evolves.
"It can't be emperically proven but its a stab in the dark just like everything else."
Empiricial proof is a contradiction in terms, however, empirical EVIDENCE can be used to support a theory, and the balance of evidence in favour of evolution is far better than any other theory - it is why we use it.
Regards,
Gregory
Gregory,
I appreciate your patience as I try to understand your world. You are definitely very impressive much like everyone else on this blog. However, if you would please bare with me as I have a few questions for you as well.
"What ghost has said - Evolution is, as best as we can discover, the right answer - there is the possibility it might be completely wrong, as with all other scientific theories we create."
"Science works on finding the best guess ('Science is a process of progressive oversimplification,' to quote Karl Popper) However science works on finding evidence and conducting an experiments to disprove certain guesses and support other ones - so silly suggestions like your one gets discarded, whereas sensible ones (like evolution) are upheld and refined to work better. Science, if you'll excuse the irony, evolves."
"Empiricial proof is a contradiction in terms, however, empirical EVIDENCE can be used to support a theory, and the balance of evidence in favour of evolution is far better than any other theory - it is why we use it."
My question for you is at what point will there be enough holes in a theory in which you could disregard it all together? For every post you make, I see ten other posts disputing what you said (many from professors from Europe.)
Case in point is Jason's most recent post. I mean, I think we both can agree, that these men have more knowledge and qualifications than the both of us. Mainly because they have more experience and I am sure one day we will hear your name quoted with all these people. However, their arguments make sense using common sense.
If there are so many holes in evolution just as you say are in creation, then why accept either one? Does that not show a bias? It seems like a pseudo science and should be discarded along with my farting theory. Sorry if that statement seems facetious but I am merely trying to make a point.
"Without being blunt, your logic is flawed. Ultimately, the only thing I can do is recommend you study the subject at a reputable university. Evolution ISN'T random chance, it is a deterministic, directional process caused by ultimately random processes"
I'm sorry that I am not as educated in your field of study, but let me take a stab at this. Even if the process is random, from what you say, there must still be an order to this process. Which once again says to me..."MIND".
Allow me if you will...If you say that we came to be through this evolutionary process as you describe, then is it possible that this same evolutionary process could create a higher more superior being? I am not necessarily talking about God because theists believe God is timeless. However, no way you shake it, you cannot throw away the possibility of a higher being or God coming to existence based on your own science. Therefore, it is feasible to believe in a God.
It seems like to me that a theory was formed and sciencists are trying to fit evidence to support it but it has failed in many ways. Now this may be common, but at what point will the evidence supoort the theory? 500 years from now if we are left with the same questions, will this science still be accepted? If it is, then the whole field must be re-evaluated.
apologies Biju - you rawk as well
:)
Ghost, please read Jason's last post ...
"evolution is... the Theory of Evolution might have some aspects that we still need to address."
Yup...keep trying to force that square peg into that circle hole. Maybe one day it will fit.
ghost, *clap clap* cat got you're tongue?
"My question for you is at what point will there be enough holes in a theory in which you could disregard it all together? For every post you make, I see ten other posts disputing what you said (many from professors from Europe.)"
No, there aren't any form professors in Europe - it is purely a US phenomenon, as I said.
It has been said evolution could be falsified when we see bunnies in the precambrian, but that is facetious. Evolution will be disproven when the general ideas of the theory are proven to be false. Absolutely nothing creationists have said comes close to this as opposed to merely picking at particulars. Even the Cambrian explosion (arguably the only real gap in evolution) still shows evolutionary development, just more quickly than we expect. They are then grossly overblown to seem like they spell the end of 'darwinism.'
The other reason why we don't discard it is because it works, and it is useful - evolutionary principles are used in genetic engineering, selective breeding, epidemiology etc. In other words, it is useful, and gets results.
The final reason is there really is evolution or nothing. There are no creationist theories that come close to being as well in agreement with evidence as modern evolutionary theory is, and ideas of ID etc. simply aren't scientific theories. To discard evolution, there has to be a better theory, and there just isn't one. As above, I doubt there is a better one, just a better understood evolutionary mechanism - science tends to be iterative, with each attempt landing closer to the mark.
"Case in point is Jason's most recent post. I mean, I think we both can agree, that these men have more knowledge and qualifications than the both of us. Mainly because they have more experience and I am sure one day we will hear your name quoted with all these people. However, their arguments make sense using common sense."
Yes, but these people are a tiny minority of the scientific community (of which are similarly emminent) so if you are willing to believe things upon authority, you should go with the scientific consensus - as I said, it is a manufactured controversy. As I stated in response to Jason, one example of this is project steve - the number of scientists NAMED STEVE who agree with evolution outnumber those who have doubts or are skeptical. It really is a ludicrously small, but ludicrously voluble proportion.
Further to this, the 'arguments' can be shot through with anyone with a basic understanding of these fields. There is a reason these people aren't writing papers published in high level journals about these supposed arguments - their fellow scientists would shoot them down in flames because they don't add up (which they do anyway, cf. Talk origins.) They are unashamedly populist and often deliberately decietful about scientific facts to make a better case (cf. what I wrote about Meyer.) It might conform to some version of common sense - but it doesn't add up under scientific scruitiny. What other reason is there for the vast majority of biology students, biology teachers, lecturers, doctors etc. agreeing with evolution, some sort of neo-Darwinist conspiracy?
"If there are so many holes in evolution just as you say are in creation, then why accept either one? Does that not show a bias? It seems like a pseudo science and should be discarded along with my farting theory. Sorry if that statement seems facetious but I am merely trying to make a point."
And your point is ignorant. Evolutionary theory and creation science aren't even in the same bloody playing field. If you think evolution doesn't add up scientifically, try seeing how you can get genesis to work according to biological principles. The only pseudo science being peddled is on the side of creationists (its often not even that, just misrepreseted, misleading, erroneous crap.) Any holes in evolution are utterly, utterly dwarfed by the gaping chasms in creation science (causing rewrites of most of biology, geology, etc - not to mention fiddling with the speed of light, etc.) They aren't in the same field, and that is why the vast majority of those with a decent science education don't treat them as such either - as I said, if people seriously want to find out more, they should study it properly rather than relying on what is, quite frankly, quackery.
"I'm sorry that I am not as educated in your field of study, but let me take a stab at this. Even if the process is random, from what you say, there must still be an order to this process. Which once again says to me..."MIND"."
No, there need not. Imagine rolling a set of dice which are randomly biased (some tend to roll 4s, some tend to roll 6s, etc. etc.) Now, lets say we keep the higher scoring dice (rolling them all at once and then giving them an x/7 chance of survival, where X is the score of the dice.) Each round, we identically duplicate the ones that have survived. What would happen? Those which are biased to get higher scores would be more likely to survive and would keep duplicating and overwhealm those which tend to score lower (assuming they don't die out altogether.) This model doesn't even factor in competition directly, but it is a ready example of two random processes (what the dice get, and the chance each dice has of remaining) doing something determinate (the population of dice overall will average higher over time.) That is the simplest (arguable oversimplified) analogy for evolution I can think of. If you have a problem with this, as I said, quantum theory is going to ruin you.
In the dice case, we were artificially selecting the high scoring dice. However, it translates seamlessly into an undirected process when you remember that scores can represent survivability, and thus selection means survival. Fitter organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce, whereas the unfitter ones go to the wall. Part of the reason evolution is so widely supported is because it indeed makes common sense - darwins original argument could be put into standard logical form.
"Allow me if you will...If you say that we came to be through this evolutionary process as you describe, then is it possible that this same evolutionary process could create a higher more superior being? I am not necessarily talking about God because theists believe God is timeless. However, no way you shake it, you cannot throw away the possibility of a higher being or God coming to existence based on your own science. Therefore, it is feasible to believe in a God."
Yes, and as I have said, you can (and many people do) believe in evolution and God. However, merely because something is possible, it doesn't make something reasonable to believe - I might have a heart attack before I finish typing this, but that doesnt mean me stopping now and running away would be a rational choice. It wouldn't seem possible for (at least a classical Theistic) God to evolve, but a very powerful intellect is certainly possible - but we don't have evidence for it, so I whilst I hold open the possibility, I don't belive it to actually be the case.
"It seems like to me that a theory was formed and sciencists are trying to fit evidence to support it but it has failed in many ways. Now this may be common, but at what point will the evidence supoort the theory? 500 years from now if we are left with the same questions, will this science still be accepted? If it is, then the whole field must be re-evaluated."
The evidence does support the theory - creationists are picking holes in tiny sections of huge fields which give evidence in support (the entire fossil record, taxonomy, homologous and similar features, biochemical similarity, etc. etc.) They then ludicrously exaggerate their criticism - the same argument can be used for 'intelligent genetics' (as compared to the gaps in our understanding about genetics, evolution is a gold standard) 'intelligent quantum theory,' 'Intelligent gravity' and so on and so forth. Scientists adapt theories to work better - you'll see that everywhere, and not just in evolutionary biology. They do work better, and form an even closer fit to the evidence - this is another reason creationists lambast 'Darwinism' and various other things which are just outdated science - better solutions found more recently are just ignored. The field, as all other fields, is continuously evaluated then reevaulated when new evidence comes to light - and, again, the vast majority of the scienific community doesn't consider any of this evidence to even come close to calling for the theory to be scrapped.
Sadly, it is only the outliers you tend to hear from if a political agenda needs to be pushed.
Regards,
Gregory.
Gregory,
Your posts have been helpful and informative. However, once in awhile, you get on your high horse because you have an advantage since this is your field of study. :)
You could be feeding us a load of crap and we wouldn't know it. However, you seem like you've evolved past that type of dishonesty.
I have two questions for you.
#1) What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins?
#2) You wrote:
"You misunderstand evolution. It isn't a matter of environment, it is a matter of time - and even 'fast' speciation events take a while. The time taken to accrue all the genetic material, develop and so on to get to humans takes millions upon millions upon millions of years - it isn't a matter of environmental factors, it is one of time taken to get all the mutations and information part by part."
My question for you is this...If evolution is a matter of time, then there should be some bacteria from millions or even billions of years ago that is still around somewhere here in the world. Why aren't these bacteria or organisms that are millions of years old beginning to turn or evolve into humans? Now if you say that the environment is not conducive to produce life, then isn't that what evolution is about -- survival of the fittest. Isn't that why fish have gills, because they evolved so they could breath under water. Wouldn't these organisms evolve to survive in their environmental condition?
Biju, you have not addressed the point I made above about mammals that live in the water (not that you have to of course!).
But as I argued above, if evolution were not true, then we should not expect to find mammals that live in the water such as whales and dolphins. It does not seem like such an intelligent design for a creator to make species that live in the water which must constantly surface for air in order to breathe instead of having gills to breathe in the water like fish do.
Hey Tommy,
Thanks for the response...Could you also respond to question 1 that I posed to Gregory...If you don't mind of course.
Also concerning dolphins and whales...It could be out of my complete ignorance on evolution and please pardon me if it is, but this forum is a place to exchange information. I could very well read a book like Gregory constantly says...or I could ask you.
Anyways...so if the dolphin left the water and came on to land...would he develop legs and feet? I'm not trying to be funny, but from my very limited education on evolution I was told that this is the process. That some fish like looking thing came to land and then grew legs and so and so forth.
Could you elaborate on the topic?
Actually Biju, if my memory serves, it was the other way around, that the ancestors of the dolphins and whales returned to the water and that their legs atrophied away over the passage of time. From what I have read, they have vestigial bones indicating where limbs once were.
Which question to Gregory do you want me to respond to, the one about Dawkins? I think he is a fine and decent man who is making many important points. My atheism is probably more moderate than his or Sam Harris though. I do not seek to challenge religious belief per se, merely to check its extremist impulses. For someone like Dawkins, who is a scientist, he is especially sensitive to the dangers of Biblical creationism as undermining the integrity of science.
I look at it this way, whether we are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or atheists, we all have to share this world together. Our time would be better spent working together to eliminate poverty, disease, ending warfare, eliminating sex slavery and so forth instead of trying to convert each other to our religions.
Hey Tommy,
You kind of sidetracked me from my original question somehow...I don't know how you accomplished that. Must be your mutant powers...Hey..which brings something to mind..atheists favorite movie must be X-men..
Anyways...my original question was:
"My question for you is this...If evolution is a matter of time, then there should be some bacteria from millions or even billions of years ago that is still around somewhere here in the world. Why aren't these bacteria or organisms that are millions of years old beginning to turn or evolve into humans?"
Why aren't these organisms turning into dolphins, humans, rabbits or whatever? Why aren't arms popping out or a flipper emerging from these organisms? There must be some specimen that is a billion years old. I know this may be out of your scope as we are not science majors, but are there any theories why this is not happening.
Also..speaking of X-men...do atheists believe that the movie X-men could happen? That there could be a human that grows wings and flies? It certainly doesn't sound too far fetched based on their science.
Finally...I agree with your last statement. You definitely have your priorities straight. Are you sure you're not an in the closet Christian? You don't have to answer that. It was a joke.
biju
"Your posts have been helpful and informative. However, once in awhile, you get on your high horse because you have an advantage since this is your field of study. :)
You could be feeding us a load of crap and we wouldn't know it. However, you seem like you've evolved past that type of dishonesty.
"
Well, I more get on my high horse out of frustration - I've written a lot recently on evolution (look around if you don't believe me. ;)) So to see criticisms rehashed etc. does drive one a little bit up the wall.
Ultimately, yes, I could be feeding you a load of balls (and, more likely, I have probably made a couple of factual errors.) I could more rigorously back up what I say, but ultimately it would be hard to understand such sources without a background in at least biology. This is of course presuming you could even read them (for example some Biology textbooks I have over in the UK I could cite with impunity, because, lets face it, how could you check?) I hope I have given some explanations which can be regarded as commonsensical - otherwise I might as well have not bothered and just said, "Yeah, you might find this hard to believe, but your wrong, and I'm right. Trust me, I'm a science student."
However, you should ask these questions, but not to me. I don't really have much of a motive to lie - it doesn't really matter if you lot believe it or you don't to me. Further, contrary to what some people believe, Atheism wasn't a Darwinian invention - I would still be an Atheist even if evolution was categorically shown wrong tomorrow.
However, you should ask the other side what motive they have to lie, and I think the case is substantial - the controversy is littered with creationists shoring up their case by basically quoting other authorities out of context to the point of deliberate misrepresentation, for example. Most scientists (and by most I mean the vast, vast majority) don't consider the so called arguments against evolution even remotely convincing. You should really consider if it is as scientifically credible as it seems to be, why isn't it more followed - a Darwinist plot?
#1) What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins?
Not much; he is a leading authority in evolutionary biology, but I am not at the level of expertise where I can recognise his contribution to the field. I would certainly recommend his books which explain evolution - think of him as a substantially more knowledgeable, more eloquent version of me. He has recently taken to laying into religion, which I don't have a particular problem with - ultimately, he isn't a philosopher, and what he writes is covered in greater depth by others, but as an introduction to the field (albeit one which strongly argues a certain case) I don't see the problem.
"My question for you is this...If evolution is a matter of time, then there should be some bacteria from millions or even billions of years ago that is still around somewhere here in the world. Why aren't these bacteria or organisms that are millions of years old beginning to turn or evolve into humans? Now if you say that the environment is not conducive to produce life, then isn't that what evolution is about -- survival of the fittest. Isn't that why fish have gills, because they evolved so they could breath under water. Wouldn't these organisms evolve to survive in their environmental condition?"
Species tend to split - one group diverges sufficiently from the other they are reproductively isolated, which tends to be the acid test for a new species. It is strictly wrong to say evolution works to 'evolve better' (although sometimes I have implied it, but hopefully not without that caveat.) Whilst evolution might still happen, there is no necessary reason for the original group to die out - the 'new species' tends to be adapted for a different ecological niche (part or role in an ecosystem.) In the case of bacteria, there are loads, and loads, and loads of ecological niches for which they are well evolved to exploit - it is why they constitute such a huge part of life (in both number and variety.) Evolution ain't a staircase, but rather just a very large set of advantageous solutions corresponding to certain bits of an ecosystem - they can change and thus a species adapted to it might die out, but the reason organisms have got progressively more developed over time is that you can't get much simpler than the very simple proto-cells it is hypothesised existed. It isn't remotely surprising that some bacteria remain 'unevolved' unless there was a reason to make them extinct, of which there is none.
Regards,
Gregory.
Gregory,
I was about to say the same thing. J/k.
Never mind. I have no idea what you just said. You could have been speaking Spanish for all I know. I'm done with the Biology talk. Let's get back to philosophy. However, Jason is as knowledgable in philosophy as you are in biology and sometimes that can get pretty deep itself.
Biju, would that I had Professor Xavier's mental powers!
Speaking of bacteria, I think bacteria proves that the Bible is wrong. In the Bible, God gives Man dominion over the Earth, but in truth it is bacteria that rules the Earth. We would not be able to survive without beneficial bacteria in our intestinal tract. Bacteria develop immunity to the antibiotics we develop so we have to constantly develop new ones. We couldn't eradicate all bacteria from the Earth if we tried. So, when you ask why don't bacteria evolve into humans, my answer to you is another question, why would they need to?
Regarding the X-Men, while I especially love the 2nd movie (Brian Cox is one of my favorite evil character actors), it is not possible for humans to develop into the X-Men.
If I consider myself anything, it would be a secular humanist.
Tommy,
Are you kidding me? Xavier over Wolverine? Sure, Wolverine wouldn't stand a chance. However, Xavier can't stand at all=)
Jason, I'll take the mental powers without the wheelchair!
I don't even think Wolverine could be considered a real X-Man as he was not born one, he was made into one. That is why in the 2nd movie I thought he should have been immune to the Professor's hypnotically induced attempt to kill all of the mutants.
And speaking of movie villains, I think the wheelchair bound and mute Jason in X-Men II is one of the creepiest villains ever. That stare of his is spooky.
Wait...
I thought his ability to heal, along with his senses, were his mutant powers. Also, does the professor's powers not work with humans? I never knew this!
Regarding Jason - Yea, I concur.
I actually was a little disappointed in the last X-Men. I thought they could have done better than introduce a complex character like the Phoenix.
Tommy,
I think Wolverine was always a mutant. Initially his retractable claws were purely skeletal. However, It was because of his healing powers that he was chosen for the super soldier program. This is where the unbreakable adamantium metal was infused with his bones. His healing powers enabled him to survive the procedure.
I have to go with Jason on this one though. Wolverine was cool because he had rage which combined with his excellent fighting skills made him the ultimate fighter. I didn't agree with Hugh Jackman playing the role of Wolverine. First of all, Wolverine is supposedly only like 5'5" and secondly Wolverine gets beat up way too much in the movie. He usually kicks butt in the comics.
Another cool character I wish they would have introduced was Gambit. I always thought his persona was cool. X-Men III wasn't bad but it wasn't great either. However, I had a feeling that was going to happen when Brett Ratner directed the third movie instead of Bryan Singer.
Did any of you catch the ending of X-III. If you watch through the credits, they give the impression that Xavier is still alive. Does anyone know about that?
I think the most useless X-men would have to be Angel....I would be pissed if I was him...of all the powers...you just have wings
Okay, I stand corrected about Wolverine being a true mutant because of his healing and sensory powers. I was focusing on Stryker telling him about the admantium (or whatever that metal was called) so it made me think that his powers were created by Stryker. My bad!
Post a Comment