Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Odds That End: Stephen Meyer’s Rebuttal Of The Chance Hypothesis

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Andes mountains opened up on both sides of us as we drove on one July afternoon along a highway that links Quito, the capital of Ecuador, with the smaller town of Ambato almost three hours further south. The setting sun shone head-on upon two volcanic giants- Tungurahua and Cotopaxi with its snow covered peak just visible through the cordillera. I had traveled along this road many times in previous years and had been repeatedly awe-struck by the sheer beauty of the surrounding land. Today fields extend as far as the eye can see, with the lights of small communities and villages illuminating the mountain slopes.

Volcanoes that periodically eject dangerous lava flows are a rich source of soil nutrients for Ecuadorian farmers. Still, in the eyes of organic chemists such as Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtershauser there exists a more pressing reason for studying the world’s ‘lava spewers’- one that has everything to do with the unguided manufacture of prebiotic compounds (1). Huber and Wachtershauser’s 2006 Science write-up on the synthesis of amino acids using potassium cyanide and carbon monoxide mixtures was heralded as groundbreaking primarily because of the ‘multiplicity of pathways’ through which biotic components could be made using these simple volcanic compounds (1).

Others have similarly weighed in with their own thoughts on volcanic origins (2-6). In the words of one notable Russian research team “the opportunity to define the pressure and temperature limits of [volcanic] microbiological activity as well as constrain its rate of evolution in a primordial environment is an exciting one, with implications for the origin of life on earth and existence of life elsewhere in the solar system” (3).

Whether it be Darwin’s warm little pond or contemporary speculations over life-seeding environments we see in both a search for continuity from the non-living to the living- a search that was exemplified in Walt Disney’s color and sound extravaganza Fantasia almost seventy years ago. Disney popularized origin of life theories by artistically proclaiming that volcanoes exploding and comets colliding were all that were needed to get life under way. According to such a portrayal the evolution of more complex multi-cellular forms would then naturally follow (7). Disney enthusiasts will no doubt find comfort in the decade-old New York Times prescription for a life-yielding brew:

“Drop a handful of fool’s gold (the mineral iron pyrites) and a sprinkle of nickel into water, stir in a strong whiff of rotten eggs (caused by the gas hydrogen sulfide) and carbon monoxide, heat mixture near the crackle and hiss of a volcano and let simmer for an eon.” (8)

Along a similar thread, journalist Tony Fitzpatrick cavalierly asserted that “conditions favorable for hydrocarbon synthesis also could be favorable for other life ingredients and complex organic polymers, leading…eventually to all sorts of cells and diverse organisms” (9). Of course skeptics of such depictions have their own armory of scientifically-valid reasons for denying that naturalistic earth models could have given us anything more than a geothermal sludge.

Perhaps the most persuasive of these comes from philosopher Stephen Meyer who in his most recent book Signature In The Cell supplied a mathematical treatise on the synthesis of bio-molecules (10). Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang) (10). In other words, we are stopped dead in our tracks by a probabilistic impasse of the highest order before we have even begun assessing the geological plausibility of competing origin of life scenarios.

The scientific method commits us to finding the best explanation for the phenomena we observe. Drawing from the opinions of NIH biologist Peter Mora, Meyer shows us how the chance hypothesis- that purports to explain how life arose without recourse to design or necessity- has been found wanting particularly in light of the ever-growing picture of the complexity of the cell (10). But the debate-clincher in Meyer’s expose comes from his comprehensive summarization of the bellyaches associated with chemist Stanley Miller’s controversial spark discharge apparatus (10).

Former colleagues of Miller concede that the highly reducing conditions he used in his experiments could not have been the mainstay of prebiotic earth (4). Nevertheless they further posit that localized atmospheric conditions around volcanic plums may have been reducing after all and that these could have given rise to life-seeding compounds (4). In their assessment:

“Even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced, which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide, a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.” (4)

Of course with so many ‘could-haves’ and ‘may-haves’ such a picture leaves us sitting on a vacuous flow of speculation rather than on a substantive bedrock of firm evidence. For seasoned biologist David Deamer the realization of implausibility, at least for a direct volcanic origin, comes from his own direct observations:

“Deamer carried with him a version of the “primordial soup”- a mixture of compounds like those a meteorite could have delivered to the early Earth, including a fatty acid, amino acids, phosphate, glycerol, and the building blocks of nucleic acids. Finding a promising-looking boiling pool on the flanks of an active volcano, he poured the mixture in and then took samples from the pool at various intervals for analysis back in the lab at UCSC. The results were strikingly negative: life did not emerge, no membranes assembled themselves, and no amino acids combined into proteins. Instead, the added chemicals quickly vanished, mostly absorbed by clay particles in the pool. Instead of supporting life, the bubbling pool had snuffed it out before it began.” (6)

Not only has Meyer’s probabilistic analysis supplied us with the odds that end the discussion for ‘chance-philes’, but contemporary extravagations over prebiotic earth have done nothing to bolster their credibility. We are left with little choice but to discard chance as a serious contender in the ‘life origins’ debate.

Literature Cited
1. Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtersheuser (2006) a-Hydroxy and a-Amino Acids Under Possible Hadean, Volcanic Origin-of-Life Conditions, Science, Vol 314, pp. 630-632

2. A.J Teague, T.M Seward, A.P Gize, T. Hall (2005) The Organic Chemistry of Volcanoes: Case Studies at Cerro Negro, Nicaragua and Oldoinyo Lengai, Tanzania, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #B23D-04

3.John Eichelberger, Alexey Kiryukhin, and Adam Simon (2009) The Magma-Hydrothermal System at Mutnovsky Volcano, Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, Scientific Drilling, No. 7, March , 2009, pp. 54-59

4. Adam Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason Dworkin, Daniel Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, Jeffrey L. Bada (2008) The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science 17 October 2008: Vol. 322, p. 404

5. David Grinspoon (2009) This Volcano Loves You, Denver Museum Of Nature & Science, COMMunity Blogs, See http://community.dmns.org/blogs/planetwaves/archive/2009/03/19/this-volcano-loves-you.aspx

6.Chandra Shekhar (2006) Chemist explores the membranous origins of the first living cell, UC Santa Cruz, Currents Online, See http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/04-03/deamer.asp

7.Fantasia, Walt Disney Home Video, Copyright by the Walt Disney Company, 1940

8. Nicholas Wade (1999) Evidence Backs Theory Linking Origins of Life to Volcanoes, New York Times, Friday, April 11, 1997

9.Tony Fitzpatrick (2000) Life’s origins: Researchers find intriguing possibility in volcanic gases, http://record.wustl.edu/archive/2000/04-20-00/articles/origins.html

10. Stephen Meyer (2009) Signature In The Cell: DNA And The Evidence For Intelligent Design, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, pp. 215-228

Comments
Biped:
Nagel used the phrase “something it is like” to describe its subjective quality. In my personal view, that is the self.
Nagel also famously stated that it is intelligible to assert that it is "like something" to be a bat (although we can never know what it is like to be a bat). Do bats therefore have selves?
David Chalmers once wrote on the subject.
Chalmers accepted the notion that the world as described by the natural sciences is causally closed: “For every physical event, there is a physical sufficient cause…there is no room for a ‘ghost in the machine’ to do any extra causal work” ("The Conscious Mind," p. 125.) (StephenB should love the causal closure, but not the exclusion of ghosts). It has been many years since I read that book, but IIRC his solution to the problem of consciousness in light of this was to conclude that consciousness was "real," but had no causal powers whatsoever: a non-conscious zombie that was otherwise physically identical to a conscious person (a logical possibility once you deny that consciousness derives exclusively from physical structure and processes) would behave identically, right down to making claims that it knew it was conscious because its consciousness was immediately apparent to it. (Chalmers may have changed his position an it is certainly more subtle than this, given that this is a ten year old recollection, at least).Voice Coil
January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Seversky, -- “Going back to my previous illustration, suppose aliens came to Earth after we had become extinct. They find one of our books and recognize that the marks on the paper are some form of code. But without being able to read the symbols and understand the language are they likely to get the message?” -- “And since the only people who could get the message, assuming there was one, are dead and gone, where is the message?” Because something may be unknown to the alien, does not mean it doesn’t exist. The message is still in the book, regardless of any ability to understand it. There are many artifacts we ourselves do not understand; even as we are capable of understanding they have meaning. This is hardly a controversial idea. -- “In what sense can we say the message “exists”?” In your illustration above, the message existed when it was authored. - - - - - - - - -- “…when I, or anyone else, looks at that car, what we are actually seeing is a reconstruction in the brain of the image falling on the retinas in our eyes. Can that mental ‘model’ of the car be said to “exist” in the same way as the car itself?” One is a representation of the other, and they both do indeed exist. -- “The existence of the physical body of a human being can be verified in the same way as that of the car but the “self” is a somewhat more nebulous concept. How would you define it?” The material body is composed of mechanistic functions. Yet, those functions do not account for the accompanying phenomena of conscious experience. Nagel used the phrase “something it is like” to describe its subjective quality. In my personal view, that is the self. It is the thing that not only receives the image of the car, but experiences it outside of the functional aspect of the physical image falling onto the retina. If you are now asking if the self actually exists, then I will ask you why exactly you think it doesn’t. David Chalmers once wrote on the subject:
According to this line, once we have explained the functions such as accessibility, reportability, and the like, there is no further phenomenon called "experience" to explain. Some explicitly deny the phenomenon, holding for example that what is not externally verifiable cannot be real. Others achieve the same effect by allowing that experience exists, but only if we equate "experience" with something like the capacity to discriminate and report. These approaches lead to a simpler theory, but are ultimately unsatisfactory. Experience is the most central and manifest aspect of our mental lives, and indeed is perhaps the key explanandum in the science of the mind. Because of this status as an explanandum, experience cannot be discarded like the vital spirit when a new theory comes along. Rather, it is the central fact that any theory of consciousness must explain. A theory that denies the phenomenon "solves" the problem by ducking the question.
-- “The advantage of not having an “intellectual commitment” to one particular religion or philosophy is that I am free to decide for myself what morally acceptable or unacceptable. I am not bound to accept the – possibly arbitrary – choices of some other being nor am I placed in the unenviable position of having to justify, for example, passages from scripture that I might otherwise find indefensible.” The “intellectual commitments” that were being requested earlier on this thread dealt solely with rationality and reason, not religion. The inquiry centered on the question of whether we are “free to decide” to abandon rational thought within the debate. Religion and morality had nothing to do with it. -- “As far as I understand it, the world we experience around us is a ‘model’: a virtual reality reconstructed in our brains on the basis of sensory input.” The world around us is real, and so is our experience of it. -- “To do that it also needs to include us as a part of the model. That could be what we mean by “self”.” It’s a reflection of the reality that we are a part of the reality. -- “Who or what is it in our brains who is looking at this model we build in there?” The Self. -- “Unless consciousness can emerge from some sort of self-referential model that watches itself. Or the “self” is just the part of the model that represents the subject and that awareness of self is just a reflection or illusion” None of your comment addresses the distinction between the functionality of receiving a certain wavelength of light in the eye, versus the experience of deep blue. In any case, your need to categorize it in one way or another (to suit your personal distaste for stories in an ancient book) does not make it non-existent. -- “I honestly don’t know.” I am certain that is a comforting admission if you begin your day by denying your self in reality. A chance to equivocate on the proposition that the you in you doesn't even exist is...well...something to believe in. I also noticed from the structure of your paragraph that you used the words “Unless” then “Or”. And yet, before accepting that it might be an illusion, you forgot to accept that it might be real. -- “And it is good to be able to admit that without being thought to have fallen short in my “intellectual commitment” to a particular philosophy or my adherence to a particular faith.” This is self-serving rhetoric. Again, the “intellectual commitments” referred to on this thread had only to do with rationality, not faith. You are using the avoidance of an issue to applaud yourself. And you are doing it as if intellectual independence is something your opponents lack. -- “Of course, I realize, that doubt and confessions of ignorance are of no use to those who crave certainty and the corresponding sense of security.” Now you are just grandstanding. You seek no less than anyone else. You’ve found what you want through repeated denial (design, self, good & evil, a basis of rational thought). -- “That is why there is religion and I would not take that away from people even if I were able.” You continue to avoid the issues, to you own magnanimous applause. -- “What I have a problem with is when one group tries to assert their own brand of faith as the only true one and tries to have it taught in the public schools as such.” No shit! So do I, but there is little I can do about it. Academia, the media, and the courts have sought to codify ONE worldview into the laws of this land under the guise of a scientific consensus based on an unfalsifiable premise. They’ve re-fashioned the founding father’s ban on the establishment of a state church into a bowling ball to knock down any religious pins that the population might carelessly have lying around. And because those courts have taken control over what is taught in the public schools, we have ended up with ONE worldview being taught there. How ‘bout that? -- “If I had children, I would not want them to have to learn only your faith just because you believe it is true.” That’s interesting Seversky. If you had children I would not want my faith taught to them in public schools at all, with the possible exception of a religious studies setting (if they so chose to take the course). And I damn sure wouldn’t want it taught in a science class. But I have news for you; your faith was taught to my children. They were told that life began in a primordial soup, that humans were nothing more than evolved primates, and that there was no objective meaning to the universe. All of these topics could have easily been covered without injecting your faith into the studies, but they weren’t. The opposite was true. -- “What is worse, though, is if – I repeat, if – the campaign to have something like Intelligent Design inserted into the school science curriculum as an established scientific theory is actually using it as a Trojan Horse to get Christian creationist belief in through the back door. That would be unacceptable” I have always found this to be the most specious of the anti-ID claims. I am not interested in replacing one dogma for another. Nor do I think a high-school biology class is the battleground for design theory. So, I rarely approach these side issues. I believe they are almost always disingenuous. But please do tell me Seversky; what are your fears for the children? Spell them out, one by one. List them in bullet points. Let us examine the substance of what you are afraid of. What does “Christian creationist belief” smuggled through the back door of your local grade-school science class look like, exactly? When you are through with all that, then I'll remind you that science is suppossed to be a search for truth in reality - not fodder for the prosecution or the defense. Why not cease the fake battle between science and religion, and just follow the evidence where it leads? Do you actually have a better idea?Upright BiPed
January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
Seversky, "A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound-a proof that there are no such things as proofs-which is nonsense. Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: `If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'" [Haldane, J.B.S., "Possible Worlds," Chatto & Windus: London, 1927, p.209] But Naturalism, even if it is not purely materialistic, seems to me to involve the same difficulty, though in a somewhat less obvious form. It discredits our processes of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself." (Lewis, C.S., "Miracles: A Preliminary Study," [1947], Fontana: London, Second edition, 1963, reprint, pp.18-19. It therefore follows that all knowledge whatever depends on the validity of inference. If, in principle, the feeling of certainty we have when we say `Because A is B therefore C must be D' is an illusion, if it reveals only how our cortex has to work and not how realities external to us must really be, then we can know nothing whatever. ... This admission seems to me completely unavoidable and it has very momentous consequences. In the first place it rules out any materialistic account of thinking. We are compelled to admit between the thoughts of a terrestrial astronomer and the behaviour of matter' several light-years away that particular relation which we call truth. But this relation has no meaning at all if we try to make it exist between the matter of the star and the astronomer's brain, considered as a lump of matter. The brain may be in all sorts of relations to the star no doubt: it is in a spatial relation, and a time relation, and a quantitative relation. But to talk of one bit of matter as being true about another bit of matter seems to me to be nonsense." (Lewis, C.S., "De Futilitate," in "Christian Reflections," [1967], Hooper, W., ed., Fount: Glasgow UK, Fourth Impression, 1988, pp.86-88) "What makes it impossible that it should be true is not so much the lack of evidence for this or that scene in the drama as the fatal self-contradiction which runs right through it. The Myth [of Evolution] cannot even get going without accepting a good deal from the real sciences. And the real sciences cannot be accepted for a moment unless rational inferences are valid: for every science claims to be a series of inferences from observed facts. It is only by such inferences that you can reach your nebulae and protoplasm and dinosaurs and sub-men and cave-men at all. Unless you start by believing that reality in the remotest space and the remotest time rigidly obeys the laws of logic, you can have no ground for believing in any astronomy, any biology, any palaeontology, any archaeology. To reach the positions held by the real scientists- which are then taken over by the Myth-you must, in fact, treat reason as an absolute. But at the same time the Myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational - if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel- how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution? They say in effect: 'I will prove that what you call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity which results from bio-chemistry which results from physics.' But this is the same as saying: 'I will prove that proofs are irrational': more succinctly, 'I will prove that there are no proofs': The fact that some people of scientific education cannot by any effort be taught to see the difficulty, confirms one's suspicion that we here touch a radical disease in their whole style of thought. But the man who does see it, is compelled to reject as mythical the cosmology in which most of us were brought up. That it has embedded in it many true particulars I do not doubt: but in its entirety, it simply will not do. Whatever the real universe may turn out to be like, it can't be like that." (Lewis, C.S., "The Funeral of a Great Myth," in "Christian Reflections," [1967], Hooper, W., ed., Fount: Glasgow UK, Fourth Impression, 1988, pp.117-118) "Charles Darwin himself once said, `The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. I., 1959, reprint, p.285] In other words, if my brain is no more than that of a superior monkey, I cannot even be sure that my own theory of my origin is to be trusted. Here is a curious case: If Darwin's naturalism is true, there is no way of even establishing its credibility let alone proving it. Confidence in logic is ruled out. Darwin's own theory of human origins must therefore be accepted by an act of faith. One must hold that a brain, a device that came to be through natural selection and chance-sponsored mutations, can actually know a proposition or set of propositions to be true. C.S. Lewis puts the case this way: `If all that exists is Nature, the great mindless interlocking event, if our own deepest convictions are merely the by-products of an irrational process, then clearly there is not the slightest ground for supposing that our sense of fitness and our consequent faith in uniformity tell us anything about a reality external to ourselves.Our convictions are simply a fact about us-like the colour of our hair. If Naturalism is true we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is uniform. [Lewis, C.S., "Miracles: A Preliminary Study," [1947], Fontana: London, 1960, Revised Edition, 1963, reprint, p.109] What we need for such certainty is the existence of some `Rational Spirit' outside both ourselves and nature from which our own rationality could derive. Theism assumes such a ground; naturalism does not." (Sire, J.W., "The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog," [1976], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1988, pp.94-95. Emphasis original) Clive Hayden
January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Mustela Nivalis @ 389 You need to stop bluffing and actually access your own links, read both Dr. Schneider thesis and ev simulator. When you do that let us know to which real biological scenario does ev simulator map. But let me help you by quoting Dr. Schneider from the ev web site you linked: "A small population (n=64) of `organisms' was created, each of which consisted of G= 256 bases of nucleotide sequence chosen randomly, with equal probabilities, from an alphabet of 4 characters (a, c, g, t)." Now all you have to do is tell us, what might these 64 living and reproducing organisms, with a total and unchangeable genome one quarter of the size of one typical gene, be? What can be easily demonstrated that these cannot possibly be single nor multiple cell life forms, not even virus nor any other known organism. This prevents any kind of model validation. Therefore your claim that ev simulator demonstrates anything relevant to real biological organism is bogus.inunison
January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed @ 384
“As for a non-material or immaterial world, what is there for physics to describe? Physics can only study what exists. You talk about abstracts like morality or information as if they exist in the same way as my car yet plainly they don’t”. The message contained in a book of words does not exist, but only the paper and ink?
Good question. Going back to my previous illustration, suppose aliens cam to Earth after we had become extinct. They find one of our books and recognize that the marks on the paper are some form of code. But without being able to read the symbols and understand the language are they likely to get the message? And since the only people who could get the message, assuming there was one, are dead and gone, where is the message? In what sense can we say the message "exists"?
Or is this yet another suggestion that the “self” does not exist either?
No, but we need to be clear what we mean by "self" and also to understand that 'existence' is not quite the black-and-white concept some seem to think it is. I referred earlier to my car out in the parking lot having an objective existence and how we are able to verify it. But when I, or anyone else, looks at that car, what we are actually seeing is a reconstruction in the brain of the image falling on the retinas in our eyes. Can that mental 'model' of the car be said to "exist" in the same way as the car itself? The existence of of the physical body of a human being can be verified in the same way as that of the car but the "self" is a somewhat more nebulous concept. How would you define it?
When you stated elsewhere that you were giving your personal moral code and beliefs, who was the originator of the code and beliefs you were talking about?
My moral beliefs, like a lot of people's, have been compiled from a number of sources: my religious upbringing, reading and talking about other faiths and philosophies and from "gut reactions". In fact, I suspect a lot of it is post hoc rationalization of more visceral responses to what happens, both for me and for others. The advantage of not having an "intellectual commitment" to one particular religion or philosophy is that I am free to decide for myself what morally acceptable or unacceptable. I am not bound to accept the - possibly arbitrary - choices of some other being nor am I placed in the unenviable position of having to justify, for example, passages from scripture that I might otherwise find indefensible.
Are you saying there is no self whom even thinks of himself as Serversky, instead there is a complex chemical reaction that excretes the arbitrary identity of Seversky as a means of survival.
As far as I understand it, the world we experience around us is a 'model': a virtual reality reconstructed in our brains on the basis of sensory input. We use that model to navigate our way through the outside world so it has to be a reasonably accurate representation of what is there. To do that it also needs to include us as a part of the model. That could be what we mean by "self". In evolutionary terms it seems to be a strategy that works. We have become the most successful species on the planet even though it costs each of us a significant portion of our available resources to build and run such a large brain. Unfortunately, the mental model hypothesis doesn't answer an obvious question. We build models for us to look at and manipulate. Who or what is it in our brains who is looking at this model we build in there? Unless consciousness can emerge from some sort of self-referential model that watches itself. Or the "self" is just the part of the model that represents the subject and that awareness of self is just a reflection or illusion, as you say. I honestly don't know. And it is good to be able to admit that without being thought to have fallen short in my "intellectual commitment" to a particular philosophy or my adherence to a particular faith. Of course, I realize, that doubt and confessions of ignorance are of no use to those who crave certainty and the corresponding sense of security. That is why there is religion and I would not take that away from people even if I were able. What I have a problem with is when one group tries to assert their own brand of faith as the only true one and tries to have it taught in the public schools as such. If I had children, I would not want them to have to learn only your faith just because you believe it is true. What is worse, though, is if - I repeat, if - the campaign to have something like Intelligent Design inserted into the school science curriculum as an established scientific theory is actually using it as a Trojan Horse to get Christian creationist belief in through the back door. That would be unacceptableSeversky
January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden @ 380
Seversky,
The fact that science is not yet able to describe every link in the causal chain between quantum-level events and human thought does not mean that it never will.
It cannot, it would be self referentially incoherent.
Could you explain that in a little more detail, please?Seversky
January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
"The Navy/Missouri game doesn’t look so good" I am a Stanford graduate and was watching the Stanford Oklahoma game. It is starting to look grim for Stanford.jerry
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
I'm still debating. The Navy/Missouri game doesn't look so good... :-) (and thanks)tgpeeler
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Tom, if I had known my posts would cause you to not reply yourself, then I wouldn't have made them. Your posts are some of the best reading out there! Have a great New Year :) ...and Happy New Year to all that come here.Upright BiPed
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
p.s. STILL, no evidence of intellectual commitments from the darwinists. I'm shocked. Shocked, I say. Yeah, right. Appalled, but not shocked. So materialism was defined in post #33 but ROb comes along in post #357 and says he doesn't even know what materialism is, even though much of the discussion to that point (virtually all of what I wrote) has been about materialism. I think that's when I pretty much checked out of this conversation. From post #33. If a materialist is intellectually committed (in my experience they have no real intellectual commitments) to the idea that all that is real is material, that is matter and energy, or the physical world, or the natural world, or the things described by the natural sciences, or whatever the latest version of the nonsense is, THEN, the only explanatory resources they have are the laws of physics.tgpeeler
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Upright, I read the reply from Seversky and despaired of having to go through ALL of it again. But thanks to you, I no longer have to do that. Happy New Year. p.s. I'm still wondering about whether or not it's worth a reply to ROb. Hmmm, read history all afternoon in front of a fire while I watch Oklahoma/Stanford or restate the same things we've been saying for, for, forever, all over again to no avail all over again. Wow. This is a toughie ... :-)tgpeeler
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
inunison at 369, Repeating your claims many times does not make them true. I'm pleased that you realize that. Of course Dr. Schneider claims that his thesis and it’s validation via ev simulation software relates to real biological scenario. He doesn't merely "claim" it, he demonstrates it very clearly in his thesis and in the papers on his simulator. The only thing that was demonstrated is that his and your claim of his thesis validation is false. Anyone reading his thesis and his overview of the ev simulator will see who is making false claims here. It is very simple actually, you only need to let us know to which real world biological organism ev simulator applies. As noted repeatedly, it applies to the genomes researched in Dr. Schneider's thesis (links above).Mustela Nivalis
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
StephenB: The FACT of the movement MUST be caused, while the WHERE of the movement, MAY or MAY NOT be caused.
You define LAW OF CAUSATION in terms of cause, but you're apparently using the term "cause" in a private manner. It usually means a relationship such that former events imply latter events. Apparently you apply it only to existence, even though it is most often used for transformations, such as billiards. Furthermore, you think that the existence of a particle is the cause of its movement. It's certainly necessary, but causation usually refers to an entailed relationship, and mere existence doesn't imply movement. Even then, you have ignored the problem in Quantum Mechanics. We have a particle. It exists. And we know where it is. But if we know where it is, we can't know its momentum. It may be moving. It may not. So whether it is moving or not is not implied by the mere existence of the particle.
StephenB: nothing can come into existence without a cause.
Nor have you defined what you mean by "no thing." As pointed out above, causation normally refers to transformations. The Solar System can come into existence through the collapse of a Stellar Nebula, but this isn't considered a violation of causation. Particles can pop in-and-out of existence in a vacuum, and there is no limit to the size of such particles. All-in-all, it's not clear you are *saying* anything at all. But it is apparently essential to all science, even to reason itself.Zachriel
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
According StephenB, we have a class of quantum events regarding which the "law of causality" has nothing to say (hence they MAY or MAY not be caused): - the "movement of a particle" (The "where" of the movement, not the fact of its movement). - "a CHANGE in movement." (a CHANGE in the "where of its movement," presumably) - "a CHANGE in location." (again, a CHANGE in the "where" of its movement.) - "CHANGES in position and momentum." (A CHANGE in the velocity and direction of the "where" of its movement.) (Quoted words are Stephen's, with my emphasis added.) Therefore, according to StephenB, it is not merely "the where of movement" that may be uncaused, even as the "fact of movement" is caused: CHANGES in the "where of movement" (position, velocity, direction) may also be uncaused. Because such changes are not inherent in the particle's coming into being, nor are they inherent in the original "fact of movement" of that particle, such changes are properly viewed as further EVENTS distinct from the coming into being of the particle. A change in the "where of movement" is an EVENT. A change in momentum is an EVENT. Ergo, the "law of causality" does not govern all events at the quantum level. It is silent on some events, which therefore MAY or MAY NOT be caused. Because the law is silent, only the science remains to adjudicate whether or not such events are in fact acausal. Therefore we have an instance of the science preceding, and operating without benefit of, "the law of causality." Even were the science to massively reverse itself and conclude that such inherently unpredictable events nevertheless have hidden causes, the fact would remain that the law of causality was silent and it was the science that made that determination, without benefit of that law. The "law of causality" therefore does not undergird all science, or even all physics, contrary to StephenB's claims.Voice Coil
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
#379 "Put it another way. How do you think Phillip Johnson would react if Kenneth Miller tried to lecture him about points of law?" If Phillip Johnson was suggesting that conclusions can be drawn regardless of the evidence, then Ken Miller would be correct in lecturing him about it.Upright BiPed
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
#379 "On the one side we have a motley collection of lawyers, mathematicians, philosophers, engineers, doctors, dentists, chemists, physicists, etc with a smattering of representatives from the biological disciplines. On the other side we have the overwhelming majority of the community of biologists. So tell us, on questions of biology, which would you say was the more competent?" - - - - - You left out a couple of minor details in your question. 1) You and yours have made one thing abundantly clear regarding the "community" to which you refer. By definition, the "community" MUST limit itself to certain conclusions or "it's not science!” (I'll be happy to start posting the evidence of this if you feel it’s necessary) (and I am sure it will be). Do you think that such priori limitations placed upon the "community" might indeed place a priori limit on the "community"? 2) You start of by saying that those opposed to the priori conclusion of the "community" are a motley collection. Motley is defined by Merriam-Webster as composed of diverse often incongruous elements. Why should logic suggest that a group, who has placed upon itself a limit against considering an idea, be more valuable in evaluating that idea than a diverse group who has not placed such limits? 3) The naïve insinuation that this debate is about scientific acumen is specious (if not an out-and-out lie). You present your question under the false idea that the Priests of Biology know something about this debate that the lowly layperson just can't know. What world are you living in? This debate is not about technical facts, in the sense that one group has it figured out while the other group just doesn’t have the skill-set to understand it anyway. (What a ignorant appeal to authority). This debate is about the rational interpretation of evidence that is available to all who are interested in knowing it. Is the information available or not? And if a Prof Emeritus in bio-chemistry (independent, and no friend of ID) sees that the “community” is orgasmic over the artificial synthesis of RNA and comments that “this has nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth whatsoever” because “the chances that blind, undirected, inanimate chemistry would go out of its way in multiple steps and use of reagents in just the right sequence to form RNA is highly unlikely”, then why should anyone ignore it? Truly…what specific quality of the “community” are you suggesting that should cause me (or anyone else) to ignore these comments in favor of an interpretation which is limited from the start (and regardless of the evidence)?Upright BiPed
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
#379 "As for a non-material or immaterial world, what is there for physics to describe? Physics can only study what exists. You talk about abstracts like morality or information as if they exist in the same way as my car yet plainly they don’t". The message contained in a book of words does not exist, but only the paper and ink? Or is this yet another suggestion that the "self" does not exist either? When you stated elsewhere that you were giving your personal moral code and beliefs, who was the originator of the code and beliefs you were talking about? Are you saying there is no self whom even thinks of himself as Serversky, instead there is a complex chemical reaction that excretes the arbitrary identity of Seversky as a means of survival. End of story. Please Serversky, why don't you guys on your side of the argument stop with the crap about fossils and such. Just take your underlying premises on a road show to the public. It can be labeled a campaign to liberate mankind from the delusional sickness of self. It’s a new final solution for a new age; the eradication of the non-existent human will. Quit cleverly maintaining the fake struggle to show how Darwin was "fact Fact FACT!" and get on with it. Tell them the truth about what you see as the truth. Say atheism is fact Fact FACT! Form a string of willful refugee camps where people can be re-educated. Whatever they bring in will be tested for its existence just like your car. Whatever fails the test, they must abandon before they are "free" to go. The NCSE will love you for it.Upright BiPed
December 31, 2009
December
12
Dec
31
31
2009
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
tgpeeler, I'm guessing that asking the question a third time won't persuade you to address it, so I'll just apologize for bugging you and wish you a happy new year.R0b
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
#379 Sagan: "The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be”. Monod: "The scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity - the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. This is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever"..."Chance alone is at the source of every innovaton, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, only chance, absolute but blind liberty is at the root of the prodigious edifice that is evolution" Dawkins: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" Lewontin: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Meyers: "I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart." Seversky: "Unlike religion, science does not deny any thing because it conflicts with some impregnable dogma. " - - - - Seversky, you are intellectually and emotionally incapable of an honest assessment of the debate.Upright BiPed
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
---Voice Coil: Denying that you repeatedly stated that changes in momentum and position can be uncaused isn’t one of your options." Why would I deny the same point that I have not only made clear but dramatized countless times. I summarized it again at 377: The FACT of the movement MUST be caused, while the WHERE of the movement, MAY or MAY NOT be caused. Do you sleep through what I write and dream about what you wish I had written? It appears so. It is not my place to recant, but rather it is your place to learn how to read.StephenB
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
Seversky,
The fact that science is not yet able to describe every link in the causal chain between quantum-level events and human thought does not mean that it never will.
It cannot, it would be self referentially incoherent.Clive Hayden
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
tgpeeler @ 344
Physics will NEVER have an explanation for anything that is immaterial because physics describes the behavior of material things, matter and energy. Physics will never have an explanation for design because design is a mental, that is to say, abstract, phenomenon. What about this is so hard to get?
The fact that science is not yet able to describe every link in the causal chain between quantum-level events and human thought does not mean that it never will. Neither you nor anyone else alive has any way of knowing that. All science can do for now is to continue to investigate to see how far we can get.
What about this is so hard to get? You are committing an egregious (is there any other kind?) of category mistake. Since physics can’t possibly describe non-material or immaterial things because part of the DEFINITION (LAW OF IDENTITY) of physics is that it is about the physical world, yet that is all the materialist has in his metaphysical bag of tricks, well then, the only thing left to do is deny the existence of those things. It’s intellectual degeneracy of the highest order.
Unlike religion, science does not deny any thing because it conflicts with some impregnable dogma. What it does require is that if you want to overturn or supplant a well-established theory then the replacement needs to do more and do it better than the incumbent. As for a non-material or immaterial world, what is there for physics to describe? Physics can only study what exists. You talk about abstracts like morality or information as if they exist in the same way as my car yet plainly they don't. I can verify the existence of my car through my senses and through instruments. I can find evidence that it continues to exist regardless of whether I am observing it or even thinking about it. They same cannot be said about morality. There is no evidence of any such thing outside the human mind. If the human race were snuffed out of existence our artefacts would continue to exist after - in some cases, long after - the last human consciousness was extinguished. Alien explorers, if they came to Earth after, would be able to study all the material things that survived us. There would be no rusting bits of morality for them to pick up and take to a laboratory to study, would there? So tell me how abstracts like morality can have any existence beyond our conscious minds.
... you feel free to ignore ALL OF THE DATA/OBSERVATIONS of design because it offends your philosophically indefensible premise. How would you know about design in the first freaking place if there wasn’t such a thing as real design?
I am not ignoring anything. Of course we know about design. It's what we do. We also know that we did not design those things that look designed. And while there are many beliefs and speculations about gods and extraterrestrial intelligences we have no evidence for any of them. What we do have is a theory of how these biological features that look designed might have come about through purposeless or undirected processes. That is why we talk about the appearance of design. Because that is all it might be. If you really want to be reasonable and scientific then, for a start, you need to be wary of the fallacy of selective reporting, which is the pitfall any analogical argument. You need to study the differences with even greater care than noting the similarities. People see the face of Christ in a damp stain on a wall or the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus in a pretzel. Are these examples of design or just false-positives from our internal pattern-recognition software? And remember, it's not about what you believe and want to be true, it is what we can reasonably infer taking into account all factors.
You say: “And it is not a fallacy to appeal to appropriate or competent authority.” It is when the issue under discussion is that competence.
On the one side we have a motley collection of lawyers, mathematicians, philosophers, engineers, doctors, dentists, chemists, physicists, etc with a smattering of representatives from the biological disciplines. On the other side we have the overwhelming majority of the community of biologists. So tell us, on questions of biology, which would you say was the more competent? Put it another way. How do you think Phillip Johnson would react if Kenneth Miller tried to lecture him about points of law? Do you think it would be much the same way as a professional biologist would react, having spent many years of education and the whole of his or her working life in the field, being told by someone like you that they don't have the first idea of what they are talking about?
There IS NO objective morality . There IS TOO objective morality. That’s what you are claiming in the same post.
No. Read it again. I am stating my own moral beliefs. Unlike you, I am not claiming they have any objective existence or must be true because they are approved by some Supreme Moral Authority. But even if yours were the Approved Version, what reason do you have for thinking they are any better than we could come up with and are you saying that you only know what is right or wrong because God tells you what they are?Seversky
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
ROb @ 370 While I appreciate the time you put into your post, all 10 seconds or so, I don't have any idea what genetic code or gene expression mean.tgpeeler
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
---Zackriel: "There is a distinction between causality and unpredictability, but that’s not it. Please my comment above." let me lay it out for you: On matters concerning quantum events[A] Causality does not equal unpredictabililty. In keeping with that point [B] The "fact" of the movement of particles is caused, while the "where" of the movement, may or may not be caused. If I say then, that "movement" may or may not be uncaused, and I provide no further explanation, I am talking about the where of the movement, [its destination, location, trajectory etc] not the fact that it is moving. [C] The fact of the movement is dependent on the necessary condition that it must first exist. A necessary condition is a cause, even if it is not the only kind of cause. Should I use diagrams? Nothing can begin to exist without a cause. It if could, science would not be possible since we would not know which events are caused and which ones are not. If you think otherwise, explain to me how, absent the law of causality, we could track down causes or even be sure that anything at all is caused. Explain how we could reasonably interpret evidence in such a madhouse environment. How could you predict the outcome of an experiment or even hope to isolate variables? How could you control conditions if conditions refused to be controlled? How would you know which effects were bound to causes and which ones were not? For that matter, on what princple can you declare that a brick wall will not suddenly appear on front of your moving car and take your life? I am still waiting for Darwinists to answer. I suspect that hell will freeze over before a Darwinist will answers my questions [though one may ignore context and demand that I provide evidence that hell exists]StephenB
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
StephenB:
That he cannot distinguish causality [the fact of the movement] from unpredictability [the where of the movement] is his problem.
As before, it was YOU who repeatedly used "cause" in various forms with respect to changes in position and momentum (movement), and their relationship to the "law of causality." Once again:
I acknowledge that an “event” can be uncaused if we define an event as a change of movement, which understood on those terms would not violate the principle of causality.
and
…If a quantum particle changes location, it is conceivable to me that such an “event,” if that is what we mean by event, could be causeless because I don’t think the law of causality forbids it.
And again:
I submit that the existence of the particle was caused and the movement of the particle may or may not have been caused.
And again:
Causality, at the quantum level, and with respect to movement, may or may not HAVE been violated because we simply don’t know for sure. On the other hand, there is no reason, in principle, why it cannot be suspended in that context because there is no firm law that can either forbid it or mandate it.
And again:
Quantum events (changes in momentum and position) can be uncaused in that sense.
Any confusion vis "uncaused" and "unpredictable" was yours. If you would like to retract the above statements, or indicate that you misspoke, or otherwise revise the above, you are welcome to do so. Denying that you repeatedly stated that changes in momentum and position can be uncaused isn't one of your options. Voice Coil
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
StephenB: Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.
That must be your LAW OF CAUSATION. Did you define "cause" somewhere? It can be a very tricky concept. And "anything" probably needs to be clarified also. Many things come into existence out of other things. For instance, the Solar System formed from the collapse of a stellar nebula.
StephenB: What is it about the fact that it is a non-negotiable principle of science that you do not understand?
Let's review that exchange.
StephenB: I submit that if it is true that nothing can come into existence without a cause, … Zachriel: That seems to be the case, but it isn’t derived from logic, but experience. As a working principle in science, it is quite reasonable to make that supposition.
Not knowing how you were defining the LAW OF CAUSATION, the response was to your direct statement. A working principle has much more flexibility in definition than a non-negotiable principle. A working principle can be modified or dispensed with depending on its utility.
StephenB: On the other hand, if you will agree that it is a reasonable supposition, I will be thankful for small favors.
I already granted that favor a week ago. Nor does that justify your stronger assertion.
Zachriel: That doesn’t mean the movement is caused. Even if the existence is caused, it doesn’t “follow,” that its movement must have a cause. It may be a reasonable presupposition, but it’s not a logical necessity. StephenB: If you think that something can move without existing, far be it from me to argue against you.
Just because something exists doesn't necessarily mean its movement has a cause. Such a claim is not derived from logic, but experience. And there is the case of knowing a particle's position, but don't can't know its momentum, even in principle.
StephenB: You must first explain the difference between the two [classical paradigm and the law],
Classical causation is the causation found in classical mechanics, biology and chemistry. It includes the supposition that all transformations have a discrete cause, cause here meaning a demonstrable relationship such that former events imply latter events. Modern causation has been modified due to discoveries of Relativity and Quantum Theories. For instance, while wave functions are deterministic, individual observations are not.
StephenB: describe what you think biologists are doing that exempts them from thet law,
Biologists nearly always work within the paradigm of classical causation. As for StephenB's LAW OF CAUSATION, no thing just pops into existence in biology. There are specific mechanisms posited for all transformations.
StephenB: and explain it all in the context of methodological naturalism.
Methodological Naturalism is an interesting heuristic, in essence saying not to propose extraneous and unevidenced entities. However, if you can define demons in a scientific manner with clear and consistent empirical consequences, then there appears to be no reason they can't be scientifically investigated.Zachriel
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
----Zackriel: “Um, no. You should always make explicit any terms that may be unclear.” In one part of your post, you tell me that the law of causation is a “quite reasonable supposition,” and, in the same post you ask for a definition. Do you always agree that something is reasonable without knowing what it is that is reasonable?. Although I have probably made the point ten times, I will make it again: Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Have you got that? ----“You seem to be saying that the LAW OF CAUSATION is a working supposition. As such, it can be dispensed with when the evidence weighs against it. If so, then it is not an essential principle of science, much less of reason.” What is it about the fact that it is a non-negotiable principle of science that you do not understand? On the other hand, if you will agree that it is a reasonable supposition, I will be thankful for small favors. ----“That doesn’t mean the movement is caused. Even if the existence is caused, it doesn’t “follow,” that its movement must have a cause. It may be a reasonable presupposition, but it’s not a logical necessity.” If you think that something can move without existing, far be it from me to argue against you. ----Zackriel: “Virtually all biologists work within the paradigm of classical causation. Of course, this has little to do with your ill-defined term, LAW OF CAUSATION. First, you tell me that the law of causality is a “reasonable presupposition,” and now you say that it isn’t. I am sorry, but your general statement here is too naïve to untangle. You must first explain the difference between the two [classical paradigm and the law], describe what you think biologists are doing that exempts them from thet law, and explain it all in the context of methodological naturalism. Are you up to that? I don’t have the time, much less the inclination, to do it for you. .StephenB
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
StephenB: That he cannot distinguish causality [the fact of the movement] from unpredictability [the where of the movement] is his problem.
There is a distinction between causality and unpredictability, but that's not it. Please my comment above.Zachriel
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
----Voice Coil: "When the sun goes down the fact remains that StephenB in 332, and again in 346, allows that certain quantum events may be uncaused." When the sun goes down, the record shows that I explained all the subtle nuances concerning the law of causality and that Voice Call ran and hid from each of my questions, apparently with an intuitive knowledge that he cannot defend his position. That he cannot distinguish causality [the fact of the movement] from unpredictability [the where of the movement] is his problem. That fact that he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to answer my questions confirms the inferiority of his position.StephenB
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
My wife gave my son a list of chores to do yesterday. The laws of chemistry and physics can tell us everything about the ink on the paper but can tell us nothing about how or why the chores got done.suckerspawn
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
1 2 3 14

Leave a Reply