Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

My faith is falsifiable, Professor Coyne. Is yours?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent article in USA Today, Professor Jerry Coyne made the following claim:

I’ve never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can’t rationalize as consistent with a loving God.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Vincent Torley, and I’m a Christian whose faith in God, Jesus Christ and Intelligent Design is falsifiable. I have the greatest respect for your acknowledged expertise in the field of biology, and I don’t wish to question it for a moment. My Ph.D. is in philosophy, not science. For the record, I accept that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, and that all living things spring from a common ancestor that lived approximately 4 billion years ago. However, I do not believe that non-foresighted processes (random mutations plus natural selection, in popular parlance) are adequate to account for the complexity we observe in organisms today, or that natural processes suffice to explain the origin of life. Here is a list of observations that would cause me to abandon belief in God, belief in Christianity and belief in Intelligent Design.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in God

1. The discovery of a naked singularity – a point in space which could literally spew forth anything “out of the blue” – chairs, pizzas, computers, works of literature, or whatever.

2. The discovery that it was possible for intelligent agents (such as human beings) to go back in time and alter the past.

3. The invention of a machine that could read the propositional content of my thoughts – or those of any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason.

4. A scientific demonstration that our thoughts, words and actions are completely determined by external circumstances beyond our control (heredity plus environment).

5. The invention of a machine that could control the propositional content of my thoughts, and make me believe anything that the machine’s programmer wanted me to believe – or do the same to any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason.

6. The invention of a machine that could control my actions, without impairing my ability to reason and without impairing the link between my beliefs/thoughts/judgments and my actions – or do the same to any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason. Which brings me to…

7. The invention of a machine that could turn me into a person who would willingly perpetrate atrocities like those those committed by the Nazis, without impairing my ability to reason and without impairing the link between my beliefs/thoughts/judgments and my actions – or do the same to any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason. In answer to your question about the Holocaust, Jerry: Nazis wouldn’t destroy my faith in God, but a machine that could turn me (or anyone else) into a willing Nazi, would.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in Christianity

1. The discovery of Jesus’ dead body in Palestine.

2. The discovery of archaeological proof that any of the following individuals never existed: Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Ezra and Nehemiah – e.g. a letter by a scribe, confessing to having made them up as a work of fiction. (I haven’t included Noah on this list because I suspect that the Biblical Noah is a “telescoping” of two individuals – one of whom lived two million years ago and another who lived 5,000 years ago. I’ve included Daniel and Jonah, because Jesus Christ referred to them as historical individuals.)

3. A human being coming back to life, with an indestructible body. (This human being would also have to contradict one or more of the claims of Christianity.)

4. Documentary evidence of 3., which was at least as strong as the documentary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

5. Observations confirming that the universe is infinitely old, or is infinite in size.

6. Scientific proof that human beings did not spring from a common stock, and that the human race had a polyphyletic origin.

7. Scientific proof that the following distinctively human abilities arose at different times in the past: the ability to create a language with rules of discourse and a structured grammar; the ability to engage in logical argument (and not just means-end reasoning); the ability to entertain abstract concepts such as “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty”; the ability to entertain a concept of God who is worthy of worship and who punishes wrongdoing; and the ability to believe in a personal after-life. (As a Christian, I believe that all of these human abilities emerged literally overnight, although some of these abilities may not have manifested themselves in the fossil record until long after they appeared.)

8. The discovery of a non-human animal (e.g. a dolphin) possessing one or more of the abilities listed above.

9. The discovery of a race or tribe of human beings who are currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason, but who are utterly incapable of even comprehending – let alone accepting – the Gospel message.

10. The creation of a machine that was capable of conversing at length about any topic – including its own mental states and life story – in such a way that it could fool an audience of intelligent people into thinking that it was human.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in Intelligent Design

1. An empirical or mathematical demonstration that the probability of the emergence of life on Earth during the past four billion years as a result of purely natural processes, without any intelligent guidance and starting from a random assortment of organic chemicals, is greater than 10^-120.

2. An empirical or mathematical demonstration that the probability of the emergence of any of the irreducibly complex structures listed on this page, as a result of non-foresighted processes (“random mutations plus natural selection”) is greater than 10^-120.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in Christianity and/or Intelligent Design

1. A scientific demonstration that the human brain was sub-optimally designed for a human primate – in other words, that it would have been possible for an Intelligent Designer to have manipulated our ancestors’ genes in such a way as to generate human beings which looked just like us, but whose neural architecture was much more efficiently wired.

I could go on, but I think that’s about enough for one day. Suffice it to say that my faith is falsifiable. What about your atheism?

Comments
Dr. Torley, It seems that a few objected to your exception for Noah in your falsification criteria: Well it seems that you may be able to fairly confidently strike that exception for Noah from your list: Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7075979791519871387# references: Worldwide 'planation' also points to a global disaster from water: Planation surfaces ...Excerpt: planation surface, any low-relief plain cutting across varied rocks and structures. Among the most common landscapes on Earth, planation surfaces include pediments, pediplains, etchplains, and peneplains. There has been much scientific controversy over the origins of such surfaces. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/462878/planation-surface It’s plain to see - Flat land surfaces are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood Excerpt: A planation surface is a large, level, or nearly level, land surface that has been ‘planed’ flat by running water. Scientists believe that running water cut these surfaces because they are covered by rounded rocks. Water is the only agent we know that can produce rounded rocks, by tumbling them against each other as it transports them along.,,, Planation surfaces sometimes cut across tilted sedimentary rocks. They are especially easy to recognize. The layered sedimentary rocks are often a combination of hard and soft rocks. Only a gigantic, fast-running water flow could have cut both the hard and soft rocks evenly.,,, Geomorphologist Lester King has documented that planation surfaces are abundant on all continents and found at different elevations. He noted about 60% of Africa is a series of planation surfaces. Some planation surfaces are located on the top of mountains. http://creation.com/its-plain-to-see Ancient Earth Smackdown at Santa Fe Tells Global Story - August 2010 Excerpt: “Geologist John Wesley Powell called this major gap in the geologic record, which is also seen in other parts of the world, the Great Unconformity.” Clicking on the link elaborates further: “The Great Unconformity is a geologic feature that exists across the world at a relatively consistent rock strata (or depth relative to sea-level).” Any unconformity worldwide in its extent would seem to require to a global catastrophe. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201008.htm#20100810a This ‘global anomaly’ of a 'unconformity', and planation, is exactly what we would expect to see from a global flood perspective, yet the dating of the global catastrophe(s) from water, as far as I know, is not yet known to accurate detail. Indeed I know of no secular reference of any known ‘mass extinction’ that mentions any ancient global disaster for water covering the face earth, to form this worldwide 'unconformity' and planation. And yet, there the worldwide anomaly sits. An anomaly that certainly requires a global deluge to explain!: The following video is very interesting for it shows a geological formation that is now known to have been formed by a catastrophic flood, yet Charles Darwin himself had 'predicted' the geological formation was formed 'gradually': Where Darwin Went Wrong - geology video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3darzVqzV2o As well, there is actually very strong archaeological evidence tracing all human races to the three sons of Noah: Tracing Your Ancestors Through History - Noah's Descendants - video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/ancestors.xml TABLE OF NATIONS (GENEALOGY OF MANKIND) by Tim Osterholm Excerpt: The fact is, that wherever its statements can be sufficiently tested, Genesis 10 of the Bible has been found completely accurate; resulting partly from linguistic studies, partly from archaeology, and, more recently still, from the findings of physical anthropologists, who are, to this day, recovering important clues to lines of migration in ancient historic times. As implied in verse 32 of Genesis 10, this Table includes everybody; meaning that so-called fossil man, primitive peoples (ancient and modern) and modern man are all derived from Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. http://www.soundchristian.com/man/ This following video, and article, are very interesting for they talk about the scientific evidence for a 'genetic Adam' and a 'genetic Eve', and how the evidence relates to Noah's flood: Does human genetic evidence support Noah's flood? - Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4116168 Book Review; Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man: Excerpt: The Bible claims that there was a genetic bottleneck at the Genesis flood. Whereas all females can trace their ancestry back to Eve (through the three wives of Noah's sons), all males trace their Y-chromosomes through Noah (through his three sons). This predicted discrepancy for molecular dates of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data is actually seen in the scientific literature. http://www.godandscience.org/newsletters/2005-09.htmlbornagain77
October 18, 2010
October
10
Oct
18
18
2010
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
It’s really amusing seeing the likes of coyne and pz pretend to do theology and metaphysics. Intellectual midgets such as these are what philosophers of science have scoffed at in the 20th century for their abuse of science, knowledge and philosophy. Feyeraband was explicit in fact in lamenting the intellectual ineptitude of modern scientists on matters outside their specific fields (which are very limited) and these two charlatans (pz and coyne) are prime examples. God is not a hypothesis nor is He falsifiable. Theism - as in our understanding of reality from a specific vantage point - could be argued against, as atheists have tried to do over the millennia and failed. But even if they were successful that would not mean that we find ourselves in an atheistic reality. Many atheists are not honest enough to admit this but every once in a while someone comes along that does. Atheist Kai Nielsen says it best: “All proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it may still be the case that God exists” So what we are talking here is not ontology but epistemic validity in a belief. So now that we have framed the issue correctly, what evidence can pz or coyne or any other atheist give us to support their faith in atheism? I have as of yet not seen a single evidence in support of such a belief system and have not even seen a coherent epistemology through which such claims will be substantiated. In other words materialism/atheist does not even provide the necessary tools for such inquiry let alone to try and demonstrate its claims. What is ironic, especially in the nonsense spouted by pz is that it is atheism/materialism that has been trying to reinvent itself every time it gets refuted. Starting from the falsity of the clockwork/deterministic view of materialism by QM, to the insurmountable problems facing physicalism to the extend that it now presents itself as ‘dualism lite’. The irony here is endless!above
October 16, 2010
October
10
Oct
16
16
2010
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
PPPS: As to the inference Mr Coyne makes to the force of he problem of evil -- a typical atheistical rhetorical tactic -- he apparently has not seriously thought about the worldview level import of the reality of evil. (Not to mention, his evident lack of familiarity with the force of Plantinga's work on the Free Will Defense. 101 summary here.) It is worth the while to excerpt Koukl: ___________________ >> Evil is real . . . That's why people object to it. Therefore, objective moral standards must exist as well [i.e. as that which evil offends and violates] . . . . The first thing we observe about [such] moral rules is that, though they exist, they are not physical because they don't seem to have physical properties. We won't bump into them in the dark. They don't extend into space. They have no weight. They have no chemical characteristics. Instead, they are immaterial things we discover through the process of thought, introspection, and reflection without the aid of our five senses . . . . We have, with a high degree of certainty, stumbled upon something real. Yet it's something that can't be proven empirically or described in terms of natural laws. This teaches us there's more to the world than just the physical universe. If non-physical things--like moral rules--truly exist, then materialism as a world view is false. There seem to be many other things that populate the world, things like propositions, numbers, and the laws of logic. Values like happiness, friendship, and faithfulness are there, too, along with meanings and language. There may even be persons--souls, angels, and other divine beings. Our discovery also tells us some things really exist that science has no access to, even in principle. Some things are not governed by natural laws. Science, therefore, is not the only discipline giving us true information about the world. It follows, then, that naturalism as a world view is also false. Our discovery of moral rules forces us to expand our understanding of the nature of reality and open our minds to the possibility of a host of new things that populate the world in the invisible realm. >> ___________________kairosfocus
October 16, 2010
October
10
Oct
16
16
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
PPS: Back on topic for the thread, I suggest a look here to see a simple 101 on the warrant issues relating to the core Christian faith, and this is a matter that was put on the table by 50 - 55 AD by the Apostle Paul, in Acts 17 and 1 Cor 15, when most of the eyewitnesses to the pivotal event were still very much alive. And the record is clearly authentic, on every reasonable canon of textual criticism. Not to mention, 2,000 years and millions of cases of very live people who have undergone miraculous life-transformation through living encounter with God in the face of the living risen Christ. As to the possibility of empirically refuting the inference to design on dFSCI, that has already been discussed, endless times in this blog -- which just happens to be probably the leading Intelligent Design discussion forum in the world. So, the good professor knows, or should know better -- at least, if he is expected to speak based on evidence. Mr Coyne, sorry to say, is therefore being arrogantly dismissive and closed minded through falling into the trap of selective hyperskepticism and associated ideologically indoctrinated closed mindedness.kairosfocus
October 16, 2010
October
10
Oct
16
16
2010
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
PS: For those needing a tutorial on why snowflakes and trays of coins tossed at random do not count, they store no functional codes. GA's fail because they are examples of intelligent designs that use constrained random searches -- a 1,000 bit search space would be beyond the reach of the whole cosmos we observe, converted into a computer carrying out a search for a function; the problem being not to improve performance within an island of existing function, but to reach such an island while sampling at most 1 in 10^150 of the config space of 1,000 bits, the upper limit of the search resources of our observed cosmos.kairosfocus
October 16, 2010
October
10
Oct
16
16
2010
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
MF (or more realistically the onlookers): DNA stores 4-state digital data, which functions in the cell based on algorithmic processes. A hard drive stores two-state digital data which functions in my PC based on algorithmic processes. The only known, ACTUALLY observed source of symbolic codes, algorithms and complex functional codes and data structures -- and we can take 1,000 bits of storage capacity as a reasonable threshold for "complexity" on configuration space grounds -- is intelligence. In the case of the PCs that intelligence is indeed human, but we have no good grounds to imagine, assert or assume that such humans exhaust the possible set of intelligences. We DO have good empirically anchored grounds for concluding that dFSCI as just described is a signature of that intelligent action we term design: purposefully directed, often functionally organised contingency. So, what is empirically well warranted is to infer form observed cases of dFSCI to the explanation, design, thence intelligent cause of that design. So, in fact the observation of how dFSCI occurs in the cell and is a key part of its self-replicating capacity, grounds the conclusion that the cell was designed. By an intelligence that obviously pre-existed humans. The mental gymnastics taken to avoid that conclusion simply underscore just how much we are seeing a priori evolutionary materialism as an ideology imposed on science, and how it repeatedly leads to absurdity. And, finally, to falsify the chain of inference is simple in principle: provide a credible, repeatably observed case of dFSCI in excess of say 1,000 bits unquestionably caused by chance plus mechanical necessity. No smuggled in intelligence. That such cases are simply not forthcoming -- strained attempts such as the complexity of a snowflake or a random string of 1,000 coins, and smuggled in designs such as genetic algorithms do not count -- is telling on the force of the point. And, sadly, on the intensity of the determination not to see it. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 16, 2010
October
10
Oct
16
16
2010
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Mark: Juhst a few considerations, and then if you want we can leave it at that. I must say that you have agreed with many important points, even if giving them a different meaning, and I appreciate that. This discussion has been particularly constructive, IMO. I suppose that we could not get nearer, given our basic convictions about reality. But it is beautiful that we can at least share some concepts. So, just to clarify further my position on some details, and not to convince you, here are some further thoughts about your last comment: a) In the ozone layer and similar examples, I am convinced that you can find any kind of complexity, but that such complexity will never be related to any function you analogically define, even if it is not digital. IOWs, if you define a function, and then compute in some way a complexity, the result will be that the complexity will be random if evaluated for the function, not necessary in any way to express the function. The ozone layer can be complex in terms of the disposition of its particles, but that complexity is not specific for ots filtering properties. The state which allows it to filter in a specific way is fundamentally simple, and is certainly one of many possible states which can realistically occur. If you want ro argue that the whole system which maintains an ozone layer is complex, that is probably true, bugt we are again in the situation of the planet allowing life: we don't know really how much of that is a consequence of necessity (the development of internal characteristics of a palnet is not, IMO, much better understood than the formation of a planet), and we cannot really have a realistic idea of the random component and of the probabilistic resources of a very complex system (that is true also in biology). That's why I try to discuss single objects (proteins) and not systems (the flagellum). The discussion can remain much more quantitative. b) You say: "There are aspects of the “function” of DNA and proteins which are similar to some man-made products and which, as far as I know, not found elsewhere. Although they are quite hard to define." I appreciate this statement. I can agree that they are "hard to define", but I would maintain that they are often easy to detect. My definition of dFSCI, for example, detects them very well in most cases. Regarding understanding what they are, for me it is simple: they are the product of a process involving consciousness and purpose which we call "design" when we observe it in humans. I know you refute that, and that's fine for me, but you should maybe see that your refusal is mainly motivated by the necessity to deny that a designer could be the origin of biological information. Starting from that position, you must necessarily find faults with the argument. If you were really neutral in regard to that hypothesis, you would easily see how strong the argument is. c) You say: "But after all is said and done we end up with aspects of life that are found in human products and nowhere else. What do we deduce? That humans made life?" Ouchs! That's obviously the difficult point... No, not that humans made life, but that a conscious purposeful process of design, similar to what we observe in human design, made life. d) You say: "You are probably familiar with Dawkins concept of the extended phenotype. The beavers’ dam or the bees’ nest are a product of the animal’s genes just as much as the immediate body." I have a special appreciation for Dawkin's silly concepts. They are the best arguments for design. If you take out Dawkin's blind faith in the blind watchmaker, what you have left is a lot of animal intelligently organized behaviour whose origin is a complete mystery. But which looks very much designed. And not by the animal itself. In the case of humans, the situation is very different: our designed behaviours and products are consciously and intelligently designed by us: they are not the product of instinct. If Dawkins is unable to see the difference, and conflates the two things in the silly concept of "extended phenotype", that is just another sign of his special talent in philosophical shallowness. e) Finally, you say: "What DNA and computer code have in common is not design. It is life!" I would just respectfully mention that "life" is much more difficulot to define than "design". Design requires life to be originated (in the designer), but again, computer code is not alive. Living beings are alive, but they don't necessarily design things (humans do). So, I am sorry, but what computer code and DNA have in common is not life, but design.gpuccio
October 16, 2010
October
10
Oct
16
16
2010
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
markf, you wrote: "But after all is said and done we end up with aspects of life that are found in human products and nowhere else. What do we deduce? That humans made life?" No, we deduce that an intelligent agent *designed* life. T.Timaeus
October 16, 2010
October
10
Oct
16
16
2010
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
#107 Gpuccio If you stretch "purpose" to things like the purpose of the system that maintains the ozone layer is to prevent UV light reaching the earth while permitting other radiation through - then you find there are indeed some complex (in many meanings of "complex") things which are neither designed nor living. Most of these systems are not obviously digital - but as you point out we can always assign them digital values. I don't want to get silly about this. There are aspects of the "function" of DNA and proteins which are similar to some man-made products and which, as far as I know, not found elsewhere. Although they are quite hard to define. It is to do with the way that a very small difference in the protein configuration can have a large effect a long way down the causal chain. Of course this is also true of chaotic systems - but in this case the effect is hard to predict. With proteins the small difference can have a large but predictable effect. You might call this is the "codedness" of DNA and proteins. But after all is said and done we end up with aspects of life that are found in human products and nowhere else. What do we deduce? That humans made life? Here is another way of looking at it. You are probably familiar with Dawkins concept of the extended phenotype. The beavers' dam or the bees' nest are a product of the animal's genes just as much as the immediate body. Our extended phenotype is vast. It includes cities and roads and computers. So what we have observed is that living systems, including their extended phenotype, have certain unique characteristics. What DNA and computer code have in common is not design. It is life!markf
October 16, 2010
October
10
Oct
16
16
2010
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
Dr T. The Lord Jesus spoke of Noah as an historical person, the same way He spoke of Daniel.Mats
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Mark: But the, in the same way, we could assign "purposes" even in non living, non designed things, always in form of analogy. Indeed, we often do that. What we cannot do, however, is to find, in non living, non designed things, complex information which is necessary to effect our "analogy" of purpose. We find it in abundance in designed things, we find it in abundance in living things, and nowhere else (OK, we will live life allowing planets alone, for the moment, as an unsolved instance).gpuccio
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
#105 Gpuccio I was not very clear about living things. Basically I am saying that when we assign a purpose to a mechanism to in a living thing it is an analogy not really a purpose. I wonder what happened to Barry? He gives me a hard time about not responding to your challenge. So I go to considerable effort to answer it and he totally ignores my challenge to him!markf
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Mark: No, I find your last post very reasonable. Indeed I agree with it. With some precisations. If you remember, I define function as something which can be recognised by a conscious observer as having a purpose (not only an effect), a purpose which can be objectively defined and measured, after having been recognized. So, my idea is that function is tied to conscious designers and observers, rather than to "living things". Indeed, non living things (machines) can effect the function deviced by their designers, and that function can often be recognized by other intelligent observers, even without any "contact" with the original designer. I find a little confusing your statement that: "But what of living things? Here we assign a purpose which more or less coincides with organism’s desires (although clearly the organism did not make its own DNA) to live as long as possible and reproduce." That is not very clear. Again,let's consider my favourite example: a protein with a specific enzymatic function. The important point is that such a protein is, indeed, a powerful molecular machine, even if it is not used to sustain life. Indeed, we can use enzymes for many chemical uses which are not related to the life of the original being. The basic biochemical function of an enzyme, which is easily recognized by any biochemist, is to incredibly accelerate a biochemical reaction. It is true that, in the general context of the cell, that basic fucntion does support life, but that depends on how the various components interact at many higher levels: IOW, that is a higher function of the system, rather than a basic function of the protein. Moreover, the living bacterium has probably no idea of the basic biochemical problems solved by its enzyme: as you say, it was not the bacterium who designed it. So, the only "desire" we can reasonably connect to the basic biochemical function of the enzyme is the "desire" of its designer to solve a specific problem which will be useful in a greater, higher level context. QED.gpuccio
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Gpuccio #101 You are right and I realise I haven't analysed this correctly. The real key is around the word "function". Just to step back a moment. First I want to summarise what I think we agree on. Many things can be interpreted as digital sequences. Some are man-made (and therefore known to be designed); some are found in living things; others are not in either category (for future brevity I will call this the non-living category). Some sequences have low Kologomorov complexity. Others appear to have high Kologomorov complexity (as you know, we can never be sure of this but from now on I will just refer to them as having high KC). Consider the class of such sequences which have high KC. Again many are man-made, many are are found in living things, many are found in non-living things. Now consider the subset of these sequences which are "functional". Now we find that many of these sequences are man-made; many are found in living things; but I am not aware of any that are non-living. So far I expect we agree. The interesting question is why? Consider what it is for anything to have a function. There are two elements. One is it has to have an effect - it has to do something. A second is that effect has to serve some purpose. This is key and I suspect you may challenge it so I will spend a bit of time trying to prove it with a few examples. A spanner turns a nut which is helpful to the wielder of the spanner. On a badly fitted wheel the motion of the car may also turn a wheel nut so as to loosen it (as I learned to my cost). This is far from useful unless you intend to kill the driver. Same effect - but no purpose and therefore not a function. The configuration of geography in a river valley could be interpreted as digital sequence - categorise it into blocks of high and low for example. And as a result the river takes a particular route. But we don't think of the sequence as serving the function of directing the river that way because it does not have a purpose (if it happened to direct the river so that it was accessible for drinking when otherwise it would not have been - then we might say the configuration of rocks had a function). In the case of man-made things the purpose is related to the manufacturer's purpose. But what of living things? Here we assign a purpose which more or less coincides with organism's desires (although clearly the organism did not make its own DNA) to live as long as possible and reproduce. This is a useful way of analysing the parts of living organisms even though there isn't anything that actually designed the parts with that purpose. You could consider it an analogy. But what of the non-living world? There are many high KC sequences with effects - from the river delta to the chemical structure of CFCs which causes them to interact with the ozone layer (a reasonably complex chain) . But because these outcomes are not associated with any thing's desires it sounds ridiculous to talk of the function of CFCs being to reduce the ozone layer. Interestingly we do talk of the function of the ozone layer being to reduce UV radiation - because that is associated with the desires of living things. So in summary. We do not find high KC sequences with function in the non-living world because the very concept of function is tied to living things. I am sure accusations of red herrings will come emerge as a result of this!markf
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
#102 Gpuccio I suggest leaving this one. My assumptions are not just personal beliefs. I think they are justified. But I also think it would be fruitless to embark on that debate right now. Response to #101 coming up!markf
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
Mark: just read your other post. The problem is that an assumption in a discussion is not the same thing as a personal belief. You usually assume something if that something can be reasonably shared by your interlocutor, even provisionally. That's why I have made that point. I did not mean that we elect our belief by popular vote. I love mionorities, do you remember? What I meant is that I was assuming something most people (including probably you) would agree with (that God usually does not spend time tampering with coin tosses), while you were assuming something (that it is impossible that a god designed the universe to allow life) which is certainly your personal belief, to which you are entitled, but is in sharp contradiction with what a lot of people (including me) do believe and consider credible. That's all.gpuccio
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT
Mark: just to imitate you: now I am seriously confused. The point is not if atoms are digital and molecules or coins are not. The point is if the information we read in some physical support can have any meaning or function if read with a digital code. Let's take the model, now dear to my heart, of out coin tossing system. There is nothing digital in the coins themselves, not probably in the system which tosses them. What is digital is the series of results, when they are recorded as bunary: a series of 0s and 1s. In that sense, a lot of potential data in nature can be read as digital series. You could read the sequence in time of retrograde movements of a planet respect to the earth, and a binary value to direct and retrograde movements. Or you can derive series of numbers from many different natural systems, including non living biochemical molecules. The only problem is that those strings, however read, will be always either truly random strings, or simple compressible strings, or a mixture of the two. They will never be functional. But, if long enpough, and truly random, they will certainly be complex. The strings in protein coding genes are strings which are interpreted according to a quaternary code. They are digital, complex and functional. The code is not my invention or yours, it is regularly decoded by the translation system in the cells, and we have simply learned it from the cells themselves. It is the code which allows us to read the meaning in protein coding genes. Nucleotides in themselves are not digital. They are justy of four different types. It is the speific sequence they have in the gene, which in no way depends on biochemical laws, which, correctly translated, reveals their function.gpuccio
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
#91 Gpuccio Interesting comment. My main point is that ID does rest on assumptions about the motives and powers of the designer - even if they are at the level that the designer does not frivolously intervene with coin tossing (or make biological outcomes look as if they were not designed). I am glad that this is established. As to the relative merits of different assumptions. I don't think we can evaluate them by popular vote. Many people assume that there is a creator, many people assume that astrology is true, some people believe in luck as divine force capable of influencing things such as the draw of cards and tosses of coins. I personally believe it is far less plausible that there is some intelligence designing the universe than there is some intelligence influencing the toss of a coin. I cannot conceive of a mechanism for doing the former. I can conceive several mechanisms for the latter. But I guess we all adjust our assumptions to suit personal taste.markf
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
#89 Barry - why did you omit the rest of my comment? I wrote I confess it is hard to find a digital string that meets these criteria. The reasons for this are not to do with design (I will explain why in a separate comment) . You omitted the second sentence and then went on to make assumptions about why I didn't answer the question (I did supply a non-digital example). The short answer is that I think it is most unlikely that there exists a digital string which is functional and complex and we have no reason to suppose it is designed - other than in living things. But this is nothing to do with ID or materialism. The reasons are quite complex which is why I saved it for a second comment. There are all sorts of issues to do with "functional" and "complex" but I don't want to write an essay so I will concentrate on the digital side. At the scale with which we are familiar nothing is really digital. It is a continuous world out there, not a discrete one. E.g. letters are continuous marks on a screen or piece of paper which vary continuously. It is human strategies and devices which allocate them to discrete categories. Some shapes we designate letter A, others the letter N, others are ambiguous. So of course I cannot produce a digital string at this scale of anything unrelated to human design. At the molecular and smaller scale some things are truly digital. An atom cannot be divided under normal conditions. However, as far as I can see, at this scale digital strings with any kind of apparent Kolmogorov complexity are only found in living systems (or were until very recently when humans began to able to work at this level). I suspect this is because of the laws of chemistry and I am happy to discuss why - but it needs a true scientist to discuss this (I would also add that I do not believe such strings are complex - but that it is another debate). So, with a very few exceptions, we have no examples of digital complex strings designed or otherwise outside of life. Now I have made a real effort to meet your challenge. Are you prepared to make any effort to meet mine ?markf
October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
bornagain: Different people come to accept a religion by different paths. For you, a personal revelation was chronologically first, and the adjustment of philosophical and scientific thinking came second; for others, it has been the reverse -- the scientific and philosophical critique of the received materialism has moved them from atheism to agnosticism or to Deism or perhaps to some form of pantheism, thus creating a non-materialist conceptual framework in their minds that religious experience can "hook up" with. Thinkers such as C. S. Lewis and (it appears from an interview I recently heard) Alister McGrath underwent this sort of "intellectual conversion" before having any "religious experience" or adopting any particular beliefs about Jesus. I'm certainly not suggesting that Christians should divorce science from theology, in the sense of not caring how they relate. Of course they should strive to relate them. But one doesn't have to prove that the days of creation were 24 hours long, or that the earth is only 10,000 years old, or that the fall of Adam and Eve produced an inherited sin, or that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, or that the morality of Christians is superior to the morality of other religionists, or that Christians are better scientists than atheists, or that Western Christian civilization is better than any other, or that only getting back to "Christian values" can save America from collapse, or that Hitler did evil deeds because he read Darwin instead of the Bible, in order to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution is wildly improbable, or in order to argue that the best explanation for the origin of life includes a role for intelligent design. In fact, bringing in apologetic arguments will turn off many agnostics who aren't persuaded by either atheism or Christianity, but *could* be moved in a Christian direction if they were shown that even secular science and philosophy, when done rationally and with empirical honesty, point in the direction of an intelligent designer. As for your points about the history of science, there is no doubt in my mind that modern science owes something to Christian theology for its origins, so we have no dispute. However, note that the quotations you give above from Planck and Newton appear to argue to an intelligent creator from nature rather than from Scripture. And this is what ID must do if it is to make headway among the religiously uncommitted. It's also what gives ID a huge advantage over TEs. TEs, by refusing to even consider the possibility of design inferences, have basically restricted their mission field to people who are already Christians (i.e., YECs and OECs). Nothing they have to say resonates with thoughtful secular humanists who have (as yet) no interest in Jesus, churches, etc. ID can resonate with thoughtful secular humanists, those with a healthy skepticism concerning received wisdom and hearts that are open. It therefore has a huge potential for growth that TE does not have. So by all means, if Coyne or Hitchens takes cheap shots at Christianity, fire back; and I don't even mind seeing some of that discussion here, provided it's tied somehow to ID concerns. But the focus should be on showing how bad these guys' scientific arguments are, not on how wicked their theology (or anti-theology) is. T.Timaeus
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Timaeus, Well actually as a Christian, and the absolute truth claims of Christianity placed on me. Claims that I find to be valid. Valid in so far as the best scientific evidence I can find will let me tell,,, I would be very remiss in my duties as a Christian to divorce my science from my theology. Indeed I would be blind as to integrating a tightly integrated and coherent worldview from the evidence I find in science. A coherent worldview that only started falling into place for me once I realized Theism is correct on a personal level,, i.e. once I realized that God is really real and that Jesus really did rise from the dead! Of course, you don't have to take my word for the fact that 'true' science and theology are tightly integrated, and indeed I would not expect you to: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” ??????????? [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”… The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, "Principia" 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/best-brainac/article37176-2.html Einstein and The Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre - The "Father" Of The Big Bang Theory - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4279662 "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - (Of Note: Max Planck was a devout Christian, which is not surprising when you realize practically every, if not every, founder of each major branch of modern science also 'just so happened' to have a deep Christian connection.) Little known by most people is the fact that almost every, if not every, major branch of modern science has been founded by a scientist who believed in Christ: Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=8b121425f7e044148a1b A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm The Origin of Science Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 Let There Be Light http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html Summary of paper - Theism compared to Materialism in the scientific method: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Timaeus #94 !!Upright BiPed
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Timaeus: My advice to ID proponents is to follow that lead — stick to empirical science and philosophy and leave the Bible and theology out of it. Absolutely correct. Obviously, there is nothing wrong in "widening" the discussion here and there on this blog, but you are right that strictly religious arguments are probably made too often, and that can certainly help the cause of our (not always) friendly "enemies". So, while I appreciate some philosophical or religious discussion here, I would like that we remained a little bit more focused on science, or on very universal philosophical principles, especially about philosophy of science.gpuccio
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
bornagain: I am not an atheist. VJ Torley's challenge was to atheists, and primarily to Jerry Coyne. It is up to Jerry Coyne to answer the challenge, not me. I wouldn't speak of "falsification" in any case. I would speak of more or less probable explanations of phenomena. It seems to me that both the accidental chemical origin of life and Darwinian evolution are wildly improbable explanations. Thus, probability theory counts against both materialism in general and Darwinism in particular. It doesn't disprove them, but it makes them unlikely. And a rational person will not adopt unlikely hypotheses, merely because he finds the alternate explanation (God) personally distasteful. The New Atheists find the idea of God personally distasteful, and this is what drives their argumentation -- not the evidence. So no, I have no single "falsifier" that would disprove atheism or materialism. I just think they are improbable and based on wishful thinking. Part of the problem in these debates is that the case for God is tied to the specifics of Christian religion, or even of conservative Protestant evangelical religion, or of a literal reading of the Bible. That is a mistake. It means that every time Ken Ham or Pastor Hagee says something stupid, the cause of ID is set back; it means that ID people have to waste time arguing about the age of the earth, which has nothing to do with ID; it means that ID has to defend all the indefensible cruelties, tortures, wars, etc. which Christians are historically guilty of, which again have nothing to do with ID; it means that ID has to justify the existence of pain and evil if God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., which again has nothing to do with ID, since ID only claims that the designer is intelligent, not that he is all-good, all-powerful, etc. ID is not about proving the truth of the Christian religion. Unfortunately, many Christians, a few here and many elsewhere, write as if it is, and this allows Coyne and others to conflate arguments for ID with arguments for Christianity, and to claim that they have "refuted" ID when in fact they have refuted only arguments for certain forms of Christianity (if even that). To my mind, Plato and Aristotle and Cicero disposed of materialistic arguments long ago, without any help from the Bible or Christian theology. My advice to ID proponents is to follow that lead -- stick to empirical science and philosophy and leave the Bible and theology out of it. Coyne, Dawkins, etc. cannot win on the plane of either science or philosophy. They want the battle to be waged on the plane of Christian apologetics, because they can count on the ineptness of most Christian apologists to give them openings for attack. ID must steadfastly refuse to engage them on that plane, first, because a theological victory over theological incompetents like Coyne and Dawkins and Hitchens is nothing to brag about, and second, because it allows the New Atheists to make the issue the moral or theological problems with Christianity, rather than the philosophical and scientific problems of atheism and materialism and Darwinism. We can't let them succeed in that diversion. T.Timaeus
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
This following video is better at drawing the preceding 'privileged principle' out: Lecture On The Privileged Planet Principle - Gonzalez And Richards http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=311637b566777fc2d67abornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Since markf is screaming for some Privileged Planet resources :) I would like to point out that one fact that is being overlooked from the Privileged Planet principle as developed by Gonzalez and Richards, is that probability is just one side of the coin. One the other side of the coin is the fact the universe seems to be designed for us to make discoveries into the universe as well. i.e. Not only do we find that all the conditions for a life support body are extremely rare, but we also find that those conditions that allow for life in the universe also allow the most 'privileged' position in the universe for making foundational discoveries. And as I believe Gonzalez said that 'coincidence between livability and observability is what we find 'strange''. (paraphrase) note: Privileged Planet, which holds that any life supporting planet in the universe will also be 'privileged' for observation of the universe, has now been made into a excellent video. The Privileged Planet - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308516608498324470&ei=r5EfTNrdMqWSqwLJlOGHCw&q=privileged+planet#bornagain77
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Mark: just a brief, more serious comment. I am surprised of the really transcendental conceptions of a designer that you, and many other darwinists, seem to have. I mean, I had never thought of a God who is so strangely omnipotent as to influence my coins, just to make ID unfalsifiable (or falsified, according to the interpretations), or to make the point that I have to make assumptions about Him. Compared to you materialists, I am probably a bleak empirical thinker without any faith. When I think of a random system of coin tossing, I think of it exactly in those terms: a random system of coin tossing. I don't consider really the possibility that God will intentionally tamper with my experiment, exactly as I don't expect Him to alter my result if I experiment with chemical reactions. Even with the greatest respect for you, I would not say that your assumption: "I am going to assume there is no designer that could or wanted to influence the universe to support life (after all it is a very tall order)." is on the same plane. After all, most people in the past, and many people today, believe exactly that. And I don't see why that kind of belief should be considered so absurd as to justify your "assumption". While I would bet you will not find many people who really believe that God habitually tampers with coin tossing... IOWs, there are reasonable assumptions, and very unreasonable ones.gpuccio
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Mark: OK, I would do more or less the same :) I could try to convince BA to reduce his quotes about the privileged planet, so that ID may not be falsified in your eyes, given your assumptions, but I am not sure I would succeed... And anyway, we had not really computed all those ifs :)gpuccio
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Markf writes: So we are looking for: an example of a digital string emerged in a random system which has the following properties: (a)is functional (has some use) (b)it is incredibly improbable to have happened through chance (c)there is no reason to suppose it was designed other than (a) and (b) I confess it is hard to find a digital string that meets these criteria. So, it is “hard to find” a functional incredibly improbable random digital string. Well, it is “hard to find” good barbeque in Denver, but after a long search I finally did. Therefore, I conclude one of two things are possible: 1. You believe that it is actually possible to find a functional incredibly improbable random digital string, but it would be really really really hard and you just don’t have time to find an example for us; or 2. You refuse to admit the obviously true answer (i.e., that it is impossible to find a functional incredible improbable random digital string), because you know that just as soon as you do so you will have given away the materialist store, and therefore you give us a reply couched in weasel words. I do not think you are stupid (evasive, yes, but stupid, no), so I believe the second possibility is by far the most probably true. Either way, however, Gpuccio still wins by default. Markf then writes: “Meanwhile a little challenge to you. Describe any possible outcome that falsifies ID without making any assumptions about the designer.” No Mark. You have no right to issue challenges when you refuse to respond fairly to challenges issued to you. As soon as you give an unambiguous reply to Gpuccio’s challenge, I will respond to yours.Barry Arrington
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Barry #38 I wonder if you have been following the exchange of comments between myself and Gpuccio. The "red herrings" resulted in us agreeing that in order to falsify ID you have to make assumptions about the designer. One of the few occasions where there has actually been progress on this forum. I didn't respond directly to the challenge because there were many threads to our conversation and one cannot pursue them all. Also my response is rather long. But here goes. It is not possible to know for certain if something is not designed. There may always be a designer of unknown powers and motives. So we can never know (c) unless we place limitations on the designer. The best we can do is "no reason to suppose has been designed other than (a) and (b)". So we are looking for: an example of a digital string emerged in a random system which has the following properties: (a)is functional (has some use) (b)it is incredibly improbable to have happened through chance (c)there is no reason to suppose it was designed other than (a) and (b) I confess it is hard to find a digital string that meets these criteria. The reasons for this are not to do with design (I will explain why in a separate comment). As I discussed with Gpuccio, it is easy to find a non-digital outcome that meets these criteria - at least one that you should accept - the privileged planet. You presumably hold that it is incredibly improbable that there should be a planet capable of supporting people and supporting people is a function. But our only reason for supposing this arose through design is that it is incredibly improbable and functional. Meanwhile a little challenge to you. Describe any possible outcome that falsifies ID without making any assumptions about the designer. Cheresmarkf
October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply