Darwinism Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

Suzan Mazur to Larry Krauss: Darwinism now marginalized

Spread the love

Origin of Life Circus In her new book, The Origin of Life Circus, journalist Suzan Mazur interviewed Larry Krauss because he is the “gatekeeper” of the late Harry Lonsdale’s prize for promising research into the origin of life (Lonsdale, a chemist, proceeded from a chemical and Darwinian view).

Readers may call Krauss from John Lennox replies to Larry Krauss’s claim that Higgs boson “arguably more relevant than God”, Christian cosmologist Don Page calls out Larry Krauss on “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, and Celeb atheists Dawkins and Grayling don’t want to debate apologist Craig because … maybe a reason is now emerging … Larry Krauss! (As Krauss tells it, Craig is “disingenuous,” and he “shocked” Larry Krauss in a recent debate.) Incidentally, for a physicist, Krauss spends a lot of time arguing about religion or with religious figures. Just noticing.

Anyway, Mazur’s discussion with Krauss turned up a interesting exchange, among many:

Suzan Mazur

Suzan Mazur:The Origin of Life Challenge focus so far has been on the chemical, life described in the Lonsdale outreach as “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.” However, Darwinian and neo-Dawinian theory are waning in serious science circles.

My question is, in giving advice and direction to the Lonsdale Challenge were you aware that whole swaths of the scientific community now have Darwinian science in the margins?

Lawrence Krauss: Well I don’t think they have Darwinian science in the margins.

Suzan Mazur:They actually do.

Various examples are tossed around, and then:

Lawrence Krauss: Whether you call it life or not, it’s just the laws of physics and chemistry. There’s nothing beyond the laws of physics and chemistry that allow for the origin of life. We are just a bunch of chemicals subject to forces and laws. It’s electromagnetism and quantum mechanics and how those laws of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics produce chemistry. And how chemistry produces biology. And then once biology is produced, how do those laws impact on how biological molecules evolve. It’s a continuum. (pp. 38-39)

Note that in his response Krauss does not mention information, the vast amounts of which chiefly distinguish life from non-life. Which in turn means that one can drive a 26-wheeler through the gap in his program.

This isn’t even a question of whether the magical Darwinian mechanism can just produce information, standing in for the Laurence KraussBoltzmann brain. The problem is bigger than that.

Here’s a thought from evolutionary biologist G. C. Williams that sums up a part of it:

“Information doesn’t have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn’t have bytes. You can’t measure so much gold in so many bytes. It doesn’t have redundancy, or fidelity, or any of the other descriptors we apply to information. This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.” – G. C. Williams, quoted in By Design or by Chance?, p. 234.

So there are two separate domains of existence, and the second one is simply ignored. Read William Dembski’s Being as Communion for an insight into the issues.

Also, readers: Make sure that people who claim they love you prove it by getting you this book on the next suitable occasion. As long as they don’t mind that you disappear a few times over the next few weeks to read its eye-opening interviews. 😉

For more on why the origin of life field can’t really go anywhere if Krauss’s assumptions prevail, here’s a synopsis.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Added: We mustn’t confuse cultural Darwinism (the bobbleheads pursuing Scott Walker about where he stands on “evolution”) with useful science theory. The bobbleheads are talking about something more like evolutionary psychology (the caveman explains why you drank to much at that party last night, etc.). Not about anything that could be recognized as science.

37 Replies to “Suzan Mazur to Larry Krauss: Darwinism now marginalized

  1. 1
    humbled says:

    The second this man claimed that nothing (as in NO THING) is actually not nothing but rather something, he should have been removed from any position of influence. He does however stand as an example of where materialism ultimately leads a person long term. Absolute nut job.

  2. 2
    JimFit says:

    I wonder how can you take up seriously this stupid face, Krauss is a clown that noone will remember after years. Atheists are arrogant and that drives them to wrong conclusions.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Now this is something even the earnest, but misguided, Krauss could appreciate:

    The first ever photograph of light as both a particle and wave – Mar. 2, 2015
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

  4. 4
  5. 5
    Quest says:

    Krauss is more than a clown…He is attention seeking at any cost even at making a fool of himself… He is a kook and nothing else… I stopped reading his stuff after I have wasted $20 on his book and few days to read it…

  6. 6
    JoeCoder says:

    Among the 20 links above, why do half of them just link to other uncommon descent articles but none actually link to the original interview we’re discussing? For the curious, here is the original interview, which is from 2012:

    http://counterpunch.org/2012/0.....the-prize/

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Suzan Mazur: My question is, in giving advice and direction to the Lonsdale Challenge were you aware that whole swaths of the scientific community now have Darwinian science in the margins?

    Lawrence Krauss: Well I don’t think they have Darwinian science in the margins.

    Suzan Mazur:They actually do.

    as to ‘they actually do’:

    Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin – April 22, 2014
    Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said that view under-represents the real facts being discovered in evolutionary biology.
    “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.”
    http://www.worldmag.com/2014/0....._of_darwin

    Darwin’s Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem – video – The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization
    Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin’s Doubt in which 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to ‘make up’ for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....Ow3u0_mK8t

    The Third Way
    “J.A. Shapiro a professor at the University of Chicago, , and other top researchers, is searching for a “third way,” a (ahem) ‘scientific’, non-Darwinian way.”
    http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people

    of related interest to ‘non-Darwinian’ evolution (i.e. adaptation) is this recent lecture:

    Epigenetics, New Insights into the Genetic System and Evolution 2-28-2015 by Leonard Brand
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJUJFYb1iFk

  8. 8
    ecs2 says:

    Zachriel @4. I am somewhat of an independent observer to this website so I don’t have a strong lean in the fight. But I always find it amusing when a materialist points to someone with a very strong background in academic departments and journals with a strong bias towards a particular worldview as evidence of their expertise.

    It stands to reason that if those journals and departments will only include and showcase a narrow set of ideas, and if inclusion in those departments and journals stands as an entry gate or hurdle in academic qualification, then the only individuals considered well qualified will be the ones in those departments publishing in those journals. So, there will be a scientific consensus on that narrow set of ideas, by default.

    If the very smart people included in those departments do a lot of smart studies and are very persuasive in their argumentation, but if somewhere along the way the assumptions or ideas being built on are wrong or incomplete or incorrectly interpreted, and the concept they are converging on happens to be false, then 1)the only people with credible credentials will be wrong and 2) it will take a very long time to sort it all out because of the suppression of the contrarian view.

    That is why science isn’t supposed to be conducted that way, but in real life it is sometimes.

    A better route might be to talk to the quality of ideas, and any issues or holes in the respective sides vs. copying a resume.

    PS – I would agree with you that comment #32 was immature, but I don’t think the appeal to authority presented here addresses the points presented in the OP. What are the assumptions in current theory? What are the gaps there? And how are we considering and handling the ‘information problem’? Is unguided abiogenesis remotely possible based on what we know? Will we ever know? If not, how do scientists handle and communicate that responsibly?

  9. 9
    Mapou says:

    ecs2:

    Zachriel @4. I am somewhat of an independent observer to this website so I don’t have a strong lean in the fight. But I always find it amusing when a materialist points to someone with a very strong background in academic departments and journals with a strong bias towards a particular worldview as evidence of their expertise.

    It’s a self-referential and intellectually incestuous, mutual butt-kissing society. They deserve little respect. Watch out for the monstrosities that are regularly spawned in such environments.

  10. 10
    CHartsil says:

    >Still calling evolution ‘Darwinism’

    >Still conflating evolution with the origin of life.

    >Thinking anyone is going to take you seriously.

    “It’s a self-referential and intellectually incestuous, mutual butt-kissing society. They deserve little respect. Watch out for the monstrosities that are regularly spawned in such environments.”

    Says the person on the pro-ID ID-run site full of people that couldn’t concede the observed evolution of an IC system.

  11. 11
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Still conflating evolution with the origin of life.

    Conflate design with mechanism?

  12. 12
    CHartsil says:

    “Conflate design with mechanism?

    Strawman. I’ve asked repeatedly for the mechanism of design, with no response. I never said a mechanism and design are the same thing.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest:

    Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? (Yes! Urgently) – Oct. 2014
    http://www.nature.com/news/doe.....nk-1.16080

    Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin October 8, 2014
    Excerpt: “The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
    Yet the mere mention of the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis) often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.”
    (Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently,” Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) )
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90321.html

    Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory – By Dick Peterson – Jan. 2, 2015
    Excerpt: Scientists who reject the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution are getting bolder about publicly proclaiming their skepticism of the explanation for the origins of life once universally accepted in the scientific community.
    During a mid-November conference in Sao Paolo, Brazil, 350 mostly young research scientists and scholars from Brazil, the United States, Canada, Egypt, Uruguay, Argentina, and Peru gathered to discuss intelligent design (ID). The conference dealt “directly with ID evidence and proof, and how the present scientific paradigms fail to explain the origin and evolution of the universe and life on Earth,” ,,,
    Neo-Darwinian evolution, or what evolutionary biologists refer to as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES), is fraught with fundamental problems,,,
    “As a matter of fact, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a dead scientific theory since 1980,” Filho said. Several cell structures discovered since then cast doubt on the previously held notion that the DNA-to-RNA-to-protein process alone determines the basic features of living cells. Such doubt led to what has become known as the Altenberg 16 conference in 2008, when 16 evolutionary biologists and science philosophers met in Altenberg, Austria, and called for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) to modify and eventually replace MES.
    The Altenbeg 16 meeting gave voice to the growing realization of the inadequacy of MES to explain evolution. Proponents of creation theory and ID theory point to conclusions from the meeting as evidence that MES, still taught in classrooms and accepted by most practicing biologists, is a framework beginning to topple. EES will be announced as a new general theory of evolution in 2020, but if the scientific literature on the subject is any indication, it won’t include the origin of genetic information. Filho predicts that without complex specified information, EES will be stillborn as a scientific theory.
    In the past year, an expanding group of researchers and authors seeking a forum to voice their beliefs that other mechanisms would better explain evolutionary processes are joining a website called The Third Way.
    http://www.worldmag.com/2015/0.....ian_theory

  14. 14
    Mapou says:

    CHartsil:

    Still conflating evolution with the origin of life.

    If there is no natural origin of life, there can be no evolution. You fault IDers for not coming out with a designer (design necessarily implies designer; no designer = no design) and I agree. Yet you don’t see that you are guilty of the same unpardonable sin: you can’t tell us how life started. You just know, by some mysterious pseudoscientific magic, that life just randomly sprung out of dirt: no designers necessary. It’s infantile nonsense.

    You need to put your money where your mouth is.

  15. 15
    Zachriel says:

    ecs2: But I always find it amusing when a materialist points to someone with a very strong background in academic departments and journals with a strong bias towards a particular worldview as evidence of their expertise.

    Perhaps JimFit wasn’t aware of Krauss’s extensive work in physics and cosmology. Krauss, who has published in Physics Review, General Relativity and Gravitation, and the Astrophysical Journal, is probably not a “stupid face”, even if he may be wrong.

  16. 16
    Timaeus says:

    CHartsil:

    What would a “mechanism of design” be?

    I can imagine a “mechanism of manufacture” but not a “mechanism of design.” Design is a free act of a mind.

  17. 17
    Andre says:

    Timaeus

    Stop being rational! you’re freaking out the materialists!

  18. 18
    TimT says:

    Humbled (at 1) — totally agree. Krauss should have been put on psycho watch by his peers after saying nothing gave rise to everything.

    I’ve seen him called out on this before, once on Australian TV when he had a sort of mini-debate with Archbishop George Pell. Even the totally biased left-wing TV moderator, who I imagine would identify happily with Krauss over Pell any time, pulled Krauss up by saying you can’t redefine nothing to mean something.

    Nevertheless, Krauss keeps spouting this nonsense as though science has demonstrated it. All it has demonstrated is that Krause is someone who can talk himself into anything as long as it is anti-God.

  19. 19
    rvb8 says:

    A ‘mechanism of design’ is a clumsy way of saying, natural selection, sexual selection, or HGT, there may be others, scientists are investigating; it’s what they do.

    The only understandable, coherent idea in the above post is Krauss’ description of the workings of nature, everything else is emotional twaddle. (By the way I still love my friends. How terribly human for an atheistic, materialist, non-designed, hominid to have such scruples. Upon what are they grounded? Decency!)

    Best stop hyping Mazur, I’ll let you in on a secret, no one else gives a toss.

  20. 20
    Timaeus says:

    rvb8:

    I didn’t ask *you* what Zachriel meant; I asked Zachriel. I don’t need you as an interpreter. But the context of Zachriel’s comments in 12 shows that he didn’t mean what you think he means by it. He was asking the people here for *the mechanism that the ID “designer” employs*, not the evolutionary mechanisms postulated by neo-Darwinism etc. It would help if you would pay attention.

    What you call “decency” is, on your own premises about the nature and origin of man, mere “emotional twaddle,” with no ontological basis. You’re trading on leftover British Commonwealth Christian/Classical moral axioms, without being aware that you are doing so. If you really practiced a Darwinian morality, you wouldn’t care a fig for “decency” but would violate it whenever it served your purpose.

    I am not “hyping” Mazur; I didn’t say anything about her here, and even where I mentioned it elsewhere it was not to say that she was right about anything, but merely to point out that you had no business talking about her, when you haven’t read her. So, speaking of “decency,” would have you have the “decency” to be quiet about things you have not read?

  21. 21
    rvb8 says:

    ‘British Commonwealth Christian/Classical moral axioms’ ?

    You made me laugh:) Thank you:)

  22. 22
    Timaeus says:

    rvb8:

    You said you were from New Zealand. NZ is (or at least originally was) part of the Commonwealth. Its cultural heritage is historically British. And the British idea of “decency” was shaped by centuries of interaction between Christian and Classical traditions. You carry those moral ideas around in your head, even though you have cut yourself off from the metaphysical and epistemological bases for retaining them.

  23. 23
    Andre says:

    God is an All Black……

    With such a beautiful anthem of worship, its impossible that he not support the Kiwis 🙂

    God of nations at thy feet
    In the bonds of love we meet
    Hear our voices, we entreat
    God defend our free land
    Guard Pacific’s triple star
    From the shafts of strife and war
    Make her praises heard afar
    God defend New Zealand

    E Ihoa Atua
    O nga Iwi! Matoura
    Ata whakarongona
    Me aroha roa
    Kia hua ko te pai
    Kia tau to atawhai
    Manaakitia mai
    Aotearoa

    Men of every creed and race
    Gather here before thy face
    Asking thee to bless this place
    God defend our free land
    From dissension, envy, hate
    And corruption guard our state
    Make our country good and great
    God defend New Zealand

  24. 24
    rvb8 says:

    Actually I quite like the Queen. Her husband and children, extended family, including grandchildren, I care nothing for and am uninterested in their often, absurd lives.

    Yes we are still part of the commonwealth, something most NZers barely register. Am I influenced by the ideas of ‘socialised medicine’, welfare support, plaing by the rules of Cricket? Sure, why wouldn’t I be? The alternative is an inhuman dog eat dog Protestant race to crap upon everyone else.

    I often find it strange that a Christian country such as the US, which has a powerful anti-evolution lobby should cling so strongly to the social Darwinism that is a rampant capitalism. It seems to me to be the ultimate irony. You hate NS, and yet your society is defined by, ‘Winners’ and ‘Losers’; No thanks! I’ll take the humanity of atheism every time; enjoy your ‘jungle’.

  25. 25
    rvb8 says:

    Andrey,

    oddly enough, I can’t stand rugby and have never seen the All Blacks play; friends like wise.

    Our anthem is full of God, you are correct. And like Britain with its state sponsored CofE, no one goes to church, it’s in areal decline, I am very proud to say.

    The Maori in the song is there because in 1990 (I think) we passed a law stating English and Maori are to be regarded as equal. Pointless really, as the Maori language continues to sadly dissapear; nice effort though:)

  26. 26
    Andre says:

    RVB8

    I did not post the info for you…. You don’t know what treasure or value is……

  27. 27
    rvb8 says:

    I’m not a fan of our anthem, it’s rather tedious.

    However Andre, I do understand your appreciation of the lyrics. There are some pleasant ideas bound with it:)

    Have a nice day!

  28. 28
    Andre says:

    Of Course you’re not a fan, you hate God for giving you free will, don’t know how you can think them nice they are based on Christian values…..

    God of nations at thy feet…….. You don’t get better worship than that!

  29. 29
    News says:

    Hey, guys, let’ get back to Mazur and Krauss. God and the Queen can confer privately.

  30. 30
    Timaeus says:

    rvb8:

    You have some bizarre ideas.

    Like, for example, that because America has not gone in for 100% socialized medicine, there are no Americans who support going part-way in that direction. You ever hear of a man named Obama?

    Like, for example, that the US has no programs of “welfare support.”

    The idea that Protestants favor a dog-eat-dog society is ludicrous. You must be speaking of the secularized Protestants who became captains of industry, of multinational corporations, etc. When Protestants were truly religious (i.e., not like modern mainstream church Protestants, who have pretty well made their peace with “the world”), they certainly were community-minded. You perhaps are unaware (not being American) that in the old days, when a Protestant farmer’s barn and house burnt down, ruining him financially, it was very common for everyone in the community to come out and help him rebuild them? That when a tornado devastated a whole town back in the 1980s, several hundred Mennonites from a state hundreds of miles away hitched up their wagons, brought along their tools, and proceeded to rebuild the town filled with strangers to them? That the Salvation Army has always devoted itself to helping the poorest of citizens by making clothing and other items available to them? That even today many Protestant churches have “out of the cold” programs that serve Saturday or Christmas dinners to the poor or homeless? Are all of these the actions of people who believe in a dog-eat-dog Darwinian social morality?

    Yes, there certainly is plenty of unjust inequality in the US and many other countries. But to blame that on Protestantism, rather than on a global capitalism that long ago freed itself from Protestant moral constraints, is pretty shoddy analysis.

  31. 31
    Timaeus says:

    News:

    Sorry, I just saw your #29 now. I will follow your request to stay on topic. I don’t have much to say about Krauss, whom I think is a typical arrogant know-it-all atheist secular humanist scientist with a mission to teach the world that human beings are pointless cosmic accidents, so I will bow out.

    I did, however, make one point relevant to Mazur — that people who haven’t read her shouldn’t be making judgments about her. But as the anti-Mazur faction here will not acknowledge that principle, I will let this point go as well.

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    T, your thoughts are always appreciated. I for one would welcome some OPs — perhaps the science, worldviews and society theme would be helpful. KF

  33. 33
    JimFit says:

    Perhaps JimFit wasn’t aware of Krauss’s extensive work in physics and cosmology. Krauss, who has published in Physics Review, General Relativity and Gravitation, and the Astrophysical Journal, is probably not a “stupid face”, even if he may be wrong.

    Extensive work doesn’t mean that he is right about what he publishes. The famous Atheist Biologist Alfred Kinsey who raped children and made sadistic experiments to innocent people published a lot but his work was proven wrong later. Krauss, Sean Carroll and other famous atheists that use their achievements to commercialize atheism live for the now, their work will be proven wrong, you must know that to discover the truth you must first have your consciousness clean and to achieve that you must be humble, patient,hard working, only scientists that follow a moral code close to Christianity even if they are not Christians have trained themselves to accept the Truth.

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    JimFit: Extensive work doesn’t mean that he is right about what he publishes.

    That’s right, however, being widely published in high impact scientific journals typically means the person is not a “stupid face”. That means you should address his arguments rather than just cast aspersions or make malicious comparisons.

  35. 35
    Me_Think says:

    It is an insult to Krauss that he is being talked about in the same page as Mazur.

  36. 36
    Joe says:

    Kraus is an insult to reason.

  37. 37
    JimFit says:

    That’s right, however, being widely published in high impact scientific journals typically means the person is not a “stupid face”. That means you should address his arguments rather than just cast aspersions or make malicious comparisons.

    I am a big fan of physiognomy and i insist that regardless his research he still looks like an arrogant douche!

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.psychobiology/TbVLVybed-g

Leave a Reply