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
tgpeeler, While I appreciate the time you put into your response @ 366, my question was actually quite narrow. You said that information is abstract, and therefore cannot be explained by physical laws. My question is: Why would explaining a DNA molecule not also explain the supervening information, i.e. the genetic sequence? Note that this question has nothing to do with the genetic code or any other aspect of gene expression. I'd rather stick with one point at a time than cover a host of points superficially.
Surely you jest?
Not at all.R0b
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Mustela Nivalis @ 334 Repeating your claims many times does not make them true. Of course Dr. Schneider claims that his thesis and it's validation via ev simulation software relates to real biological scenario. The only thing that was demonstrated is that his and your claim of his thesis validation is false. It is very simple actually, you only need to let us know to which real world biological organism ev simulator applies.inunison
December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
Please excuse the essentially duplicated posts at 348 and 355 (the latter a reconstructed version of the former). Additionally, the post numbers referenced in those posts are now incorrect, as the appearance of other moderated messages (Zachriel's) has changed the numbering of subsequent messages. The posts referenced were at 330 and 332. All this an artifact of much delayed appearance (something like 24 hours in this case) of moderated messages. (God knows when this one will appear.) (Edited by Moderator) Voice Coil
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
ROb @ 357 "... although I wouldn’t classify myself as a materialist. Quite honestly, I don’t know what the word means." That's an astonishing admission coming this late in the conversation. Surely you jest?tgpeeler
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
ROb @ 353 "It seems to me that if information can be said to exist in any meaningful sense, it must be an abstraction of a real physical state. Why would an explanation of this physical state not also explain the abstraction that supervenes on it?" The laws of physics can describe in detail the physical state of every letter that is appearing on your computer screen. They can describe the 1s and 0s at the physical machine level. They can describe the switches. They can describe the flow of electrons across the buses. They can describe EVERY physical aspect of why the letters that you are reading are displayed on your monitor or iPhone or whatever. What they cannot describe is how or why those 1s and 0s are coded to represent letters and punctuation marks and so on. They cannot describe how or why certain arrangements of the symbols (1s and 0s) mean something, eventually, once converted to English, but others do not. And having described every physical state of every letter in detail, how have they possibly explained the content of the letters themselves? That is, the message? A particular arrangement of symbols (letters in the case of English) only makes sense within the context of a mind (human in this case since we are talking about human language) that undestands a set of symbols and the rules for organizing those symbols so that a message can be originated or encoded, and a mind on the receiving end that also understands that same set of symbols and the same rules so that the message can be "decoded" and understood. The message being a representation of something else that may be physical or abstract and may or may not be real (unicorn). I think the key word in all of this is "representation." A symbol is the representation of one thing for another. If you see a Marine Corps emblem (eagle, globe, and anchor), that represents the Marine Corps. If you see the word "rain" that represents precipitation or moisture falling from the sky. In other words, even to have a represenation of one thing for another means that something abstract exists. The rocky mountains aren't inside my head when I think about them. This means that there is something apart from the the mountains themselves and that is the idea of the mountains. Or whatever else. This is fundamental and it goes to the heart of the naturalist/materialist error which is that nothing beyond the natural or material world exists. Clearly it does. And equally clearly, abstract minds provide a perfectly coherent explanation for all aspects of language, the creation of symbols, the rules for their use, and the actual creation of messages. Those who try to explain information, on the other hand, by means of the laws of physics, are committing a category error. They are trying to explain the immaterial solely in terms of the material. This doesn't make sense on the face of it. To deny the existence of the abstract, and then to try to explain the abstract as though it were physical, is absurd. The same problem exists in the realm of morality, say. See my thread with Seversky for more on that. The moral law, if one exists (it does), is abstract. It's not material even though it is conveyed by means of language. It's not measurable. It doesn't weigh anything. It doesn't have mass or inertia. It can't be smelled or tasted or felt or heard or seen. It's not extended in space and time. It can't be converted to energy or used to heat or move matter. In other words, it's not empirically detectable (and therefore it's outside the realm of science). Yet it's real. It's also not related to space or time and in that sense it's transcendant. It's wrong for me to be rude to a waiter, or Seversky, for that matter, today, yesterday, and tomorrow. It's wrong whether I do it online or in Houston or New York or on the moon or in some other galaxy. What accounts for this? Even Seversky, in spite of his vehement denial of a moral law (at first, because, I think, it's just the "thing" to do), recognizes that one exists. Indeed he calls it axiomatic. So the naturalist has a problem here. How to explain, by means of physics or physical laws, something that is not physical? Clearly, that is impossible. So what do "they" do? They make the only move left to them and they deny the existence, as Seversky did, of a moral law. Now, this does not create an internal contradiction. If I say that "a moral law does not exist" I have said something that can be true or false but I have not said something that contradicts itself and is therefore necessarily false. So in this case, of a moral law, we we must weigh the evidence for each position and draw our conclusion from that. However, to claim, as Seversky did (without even realizing it, I'm sure), that a moral law (objective morality was the term he used, I believe) exists AND does not exist is to be irrational. It either does or it doesn't. But not both. In the case of information, however, the naturalist has no escape. They cannot deny the existence of information without using information. When I say: "information does not exist" I am using information. It's as if I denied my own existence. I would have to exist to deny that I exist. "They" also make the same move when it comes to design and purpose. They deny their real existence, metaphysically, yet the evidence for design and purpose is overwhelming. So what is the move there? Why they say it's only apparent design or apparent purpose. This is, of course, utter nonsense, as I hope you can see. It's also contrary to the scientific method which "they" claim to worship. If there is evidence for design, well then, so there is, but since design has been declared out of bounds a priori, before evidence has been examined, well then, they MUST deny its existence. There is a vicious circularity here that I have been trying, unsuccessfully, I must say, throughout this entire thread, to try and expose. There is no objective, rational, evidence based reason for assuming the FOUNDATIONAL PREMISE of naturalism. It's just not true that all there is is nature and that all there is is material. But they declare it to be true, then they reach a conclusion that isn't true, but they say because my premise is true my conclusion MUST BE true, even though it defies common sense. Richard Lewontin gave the most candid statement of this I have ever seen in print. Here it is: "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. He goes on to say: "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 an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” This is from a book review he did of a Carl Sagan book in the New York Review of Books back in 1997. I give him an A+ for candor and an F in intellectual integrity. Go ahead, read it carefully again and see how rational it is. Not very. All of this gets back to the point that reason has first place when it comes to truth. It is impossible to reliably come to truth apart from reason. Our senses can and do deceive us but reason never does. Thus, the denial of reason by someone claiming to be interested in the truth rings hollow. They either misunderstand, have not thought it out, or they are an intellectual hypocrite of the highest order. I sincerely hope that you are none of these. I also sincerely hope that this helps make sense of what we are trying to explain. If not, I can try again.tgpeeler
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
#358 Is this about the definition of information or the definition of poetry? Must information must be an abstraction of a real physical state? I can draft plans for a building that doesn't and may never exist. Not that it matters. What matters is that information describes a thing apart from its physical implementation. That's why it's irrelevant whether the thing described exists or not. If I encode something in a language, it requires planning and foresight, because I have a plan to retrieve it at some point. If I do so with the intent to communicate, it requires all of that plus at least one agent to decode the communication, and quite likely some cooperative intent on the part of that agent to act accordingly. And some random series of chemical reactions figured that out? A bunch of molecules that hadn't even evolved the will to keep living constructed an abstract language tp define their components and a plan to encode and decode themselves for replication? It's reasonable and rational to assume that such things never happen until someone convincingly demonstrates otherwise.ScottAndrews
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
#356 Try thinking of a poem without thinking of the words in some form (written or vocal).Mark Frank
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed:
Think about what an “explanation” is made of and from where it comes.
I interpret tgpeeler's "explained by" to mean "explained in terms of". If it's intended in the sense of "Brownian motion was explained by Einstein", then I'm not sure what tgpeeler's point is. Obviously physical laws, which are themselves abstractions, don't explain anything in that sense. tgpeeler's point seems to be that Dawkins' "life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information" shows that biological information cannot be explained in terms of physical laws, a position that Dawkins clearly does not hold. My question is: Why would explaining a DNA molecule not also explain the "CTGACTTCGACAA..." sequence that supervenes on it?
As it is, the materialist camp produced exactly one.
That's very kind, although I wouldn't classify myself as a materialist. Quite honestly, I don't know what the word means.R0b
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
354 "Can a poem be said to exist if it has never been thought of, or spoken, written or any other way made physical? I don’t think so." There you go Mark, I fixed that for you.Upright BiPed
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
#352 That was just poor. You don't necessarily owe it to the people in a conversation to know what the hell is being said before you start talking, but you might consider it anyway. #353 Slow down and re-read your comments. Take special note of what is an abstraction and what is physical reality in your first sentence, then ask yourself again the question you posed in the second. Think about what an "explanation" is made of and from where it comes. (BTW, R0b, thanks for your review of "Signature in the Cell" on Amazon. I completely disagree with your assessment, but if you hadn't posted it, then the entire materialist camp wouldn't have produced a single thoughtful review of the book on the entire Amazon site. As it is, the materialist camp produced exactly one).Upright BiPed
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
#353 It seems to me that if information can be said to exist in any meaningful sense, it must be an abstraction of a real physical state. Can a poem be said to exist if it has never been spoken, written or any other way made physical? I don't think so.Mark Frank
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
I'll ask a brief question as a non-philosopher in a philosophical discussion. tgpeeler:
Which, of course (God, I hate to be so tedious but there is no other way) brings us back to INFORMATION and how that is ABSTRACT and thus not explainable by physical laws and yes, is ALWAYS explained by mind.
It seems to me that if information can be said to exist in any meaningful sense, it must be an abstraction of a real physical state. Why would an explanation of this physical state not also explain the abstraction that supervenes on it?R0b
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
tgpeeler: Posited? Posited? So what? It used to be posited that the ether was real and that phlogiston was real.
A valid scientific hypothesis entails specific and distinguishing empirical consequences. Ether PhlogistonZachriel
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
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. StephenB: Since you have agreed in your second comment that the law of causality is a “quite reasonable” supposition, I gather that you don’t need the definition requested in your first comment.
Um, no. You should always make explicit any terms that may be unclear. 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.
StephenB: … then it follows that nothing can move without a cause. Zachriel: It doesn’t “follow” at all. Existence is not a property such as momentum is. StephenB: Existence takes logical precedence over movement. If something doesn’t exist, it can’t move; if something moves, it exists.
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: A Darwinist is [A] Someone who believes that solely naturalistic forces can explain the apparent design of life or [B] Someone who insists that evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind, or [C] Someone who insists that biology is the science of things that only appear to be designed, or [D] someone who reads comments like [A], [B], and [C] on past threads, notices that the words don’t match, concludes there must be a contradiction somewhere, and shouts out in triumphant stupidity, “I gotcha!”
Among biologists, a Darwinist is someone who believes that Natural Selection is the primary mechanism of evolution. By your definition, nearly all biologists are methodological Darwinists.
StephenB: Inasmuch as the law of causality applies to all science, and inasmuch as biological science is a subset of all sciences, biological science is dependent on the law of causality. I think you might be on to something here.
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.Zachriel
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Zachriel: No, it’s because the Explantory Filter relies on an argument from ignorance, and that there may be overlaps between the categories. Joseph: Clearly it was based on the current state of KNOWLEDGE at the time of the inference.
Ignorance always overweighs knowledge. If there is a Gap in knowledge and no explanation in law or chance is known, then the Explanatory Filter returns a (quite possibly false) positive for design. If we don't know why the planets trace their complex dance in the sky, it must be angels moving crystal spheres.
Voice Coil: Additionally, I’ve now been placed into moderation.
That's hardly seems fair. There can't be a reasonable discussion when some participants—who have done nothing but contribute positively to the discussion—have their comments delayed or silently banned.Zachriel
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
When the sun goes down the fact remains that StephenB in 332, and again in 346, allows that certain quantum events may be uncaused. Because the "law of causality" is silent on the matter, the only remaining source of adjudication regarding the causality/acausality of those phenomena is the science. And it so happens that the science asserts with both sound theoretical and ample empirical justification that the phenomena in question are in fact acausal. Biped claims that StephenB's admission is a peripheral issue. But I think it central. It is an admission that there are facets of causation that ONLY the theoretical and empirical tools of science can affix, facets on which the "law of causality" is silent. Moreover we have what amounts to an admission (by omission) that other claims regarding the reach of the "law of causality" within the quantum domain (e.g. to particle decay) are made with no rationale whatsoever. Biped likes battle metaphors, but others are more appropriate. For example, we need only find one hole in a bucket to know that it doesn't hold water. What the above establishes beyond dispute is that the premodern "law of causality" is poorly equipped to contain quantum phenomena. With the declaration that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause," the law again comes into contact with quantum phenomena that arguably indicate otherwise. We know from the examples above that, with respect to quantum phenomena, the "law of causality" at times fails to hold water and at others is applied in an arbitrary and ad hoc manner. We also have the precedent that it is the science that must ultimately adjudicate these questions. Because there is no law that tells us when the "law of causality" applies and when it does not, I'll go with the science.Voice Coil
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
Confirmation.Voice Coil
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Existence takes logical precedence over movement. If something doesn’t exist, it can’t move; if something moves, it exists. Do you find this assertion controversial or do you insist that I provide “evidence” for it?
I miss a demarcation between the material and the non-material world. I am sorry, my mind boggles. Information exist, therefore information moves. When it moves, can it move other existing objects too? What is an object? Is God an object? Have any books been written by people possessing the ultimate answer? Just curious, but maybe it is just that my mind can't cope.Cabal
December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
re presumably Z quoted by StephenB @ 350 “ life and mind are posited to be rearrangements of existing matter." Posited? Posited? So what? It used to be posited that the ether was real and that phlogiston was real. Guess what? Have you decided to completely ignore your own advocates such as Dawkins, Crick, Kuppers, and others who say: "life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information" and other such things? Which, of course (God, I hate to be so tedious but there is no other way) brings us back to INFORMATION and how that is ABSTRACT and thus not explainable by physical laws and yes, is ALWAYS explained by mind. Or in the case of life (biological information), Mind. (Slaps his forehead in mock amazement) Of course you have. What else would I expect? Information and mind are inconvenient at this stage of your discussion so you decide to "posit" them away. That is just so,,,, typical. Ah well, everybody makes their own choices in the end and lives or dies by them. Good luck to all.tgpeeler
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
----Zackriel: “Please state the Law of Causality. That will presumably also require a clear statement of causation. ----As a working principle in science, [Law of causality] it is quite reasonable to make that supposition. Since you have agreed in your second comment that the law of causality is a “quite reasonable” supposition, I gather that you don’t need the definition requested in your first comment. So, moving ahead, do we agree that the universe had to have a prior cause? If so, you are one unusual Darwinist and I may just end up tipping my hat. Or, is it the case [please don’t let it be so] that you do not understand the significance of what you just said. -----“It doesn’t “follow” at all. Existence is not a property such as momentum is.” Existence takes logical precedence over movement. If something doesn’t exist, it can’t move; if something moves, it exists. Do you find this assertion controversial or do you insist that I provide “evidence” for it? ----“It’s unclear whom you mean by “Darwinists,” but biologists rarely have issues with causation as normally construed. The biological sciences are underwritten on classical causation.” A Darwinist is [A] Someone who believes that solely naturalistic forces can explain the apparent design of life or [B] Someone who insists that evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind, or [C] Someone who insists that biology is the science of things that only appear to be designed, or [D] someone who reads comments like [A], [B], and [C] on past threads, notices that the words don’t match, concludes there must be a contradiction somewhere, and shouts out in triumphant stupidity, “I gotcha!” On the matter of causality, well, let’s look at that. Inasmuch as the law of causality applies to all science, and inasmuch as biological science is a subset of all sciences, biological science is dependent on the law of causality. I think you might be on to something here. [Insert smiley face] Thus, if a “biological scientist” denies the law of causality, that person is less of a scientist and more of an ideologue, or, come to think of it, a Darwinist. Wasn’t it cute of me to work that in. ----“While the existence of the Cosmos is a conundrum,….. I don’t know what that means, so I cannot respond. ----“ life and mind are posited to be rearrangements of existing matter. Posited by whom? Darwinists? The passive voice is not serving you well here. I, for one, do not believe that the mind is a rearrangement of matter, nor do most ID advocates.StephenB
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
No, it’s because the Explantory Filter relies on an argument from ignorance, and that there may be overlaps between the categories.
THAT is an argument from ignorance. The explanatory filter relies on our KNOWLEDGE. The explanatory filter mandates a thorough investigation into causation- ie cause and effect. And yes, as with all scientific inferences the inference made via the EF can be falsfied or confirmed with future research. However that does not mean that inference was based on ignorance. Clearly it was based on the current state of KNOWLEDGE at the time of the inference. IOW anyone who says the EF is an argument from ignorance is ignorant of the EF and science.Joseph
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
#344 tg outstanding post.Some of what you wrote echo's what I wrote in #94 "Furthermore when we analyze their responses we find they are doing two things. 1) Thay are giving their REASONS why REASON does not apply. 2) One can further breakdown their responses as a list of causes why causality need not be absolute. Cannot one say that alll their resposes can be reduced to “we reject the principle of causality beCAUSE…” So they use reason to argue that reason can be abandoned and causality to argue that there need not be causality. Talk about nonsense!!! And they do all this with a straight face." Vividvividbleau
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
When the sun has set, it remains the case StephenB in 332, and again in 345, states that certain quantum events may be uncaused. Because the "law of causality" is silent on the question, the only remaining source of adjudication regarding the causality/acausality of those phenomena is the science. And it so happens that the science asserts with both sound theoretical and ample empirical justification that the phenomena in question are in fact acausal. Biped claims that StephenB's admission is a peripheral issue. But I think it central. It is an admission that there are facets of causation that ONLY the theoretical and empirical tools of science can affix. Moreover, we have what amounts to an admission (by omission) that other claims regarding the reach of the "law of causality" within the quantum domain (e.g. to particle decay) are made with no detectable rationale, and are entirely ad hoc. Biped likes battle metaphors, but others are more appropriate. For example, we need only find one hole in a bucket to know that it doesn't hold water. What the above establishes beyond dispute is that the premodern "law of causality" is sometimes ill equipped to contain quantum phenomena. With the declaration that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause," the law again comes into direct contact with quantum phenomena that arguably indicate otherwise. We know from the examples above that, with respect to quantum phenomena, the law at times fails to hold water and at others is applied in an arbitrary and ad hoc manner. We also have the precedent that it is the science that must ultimately adjudicate these questions. Because there is no law that tells us when the "law of causality" should and should not be applied, that is where we are left. I'll go with the science.Voice Coil
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
StephenB: It depends on whether you are talking about the “where” of the movement, which, according to the uncertainty principle, is unpredictable, or whether you are talking about the “fact” of the movement, which would, indeed, seem to follow from the law of causality.
Well, no. Momentum and position can't both be known with certainty, hence if we know where a particle is, we don't can't know whether it is moving or not.
StephenB: On the other hand, the law of causation does not contain the word, “movement” in it, so my above comments are deductions, not laws.
Please state the Law of Causality. That will presumably also require a clear statement of causation.
StephenB: I submit that if it is true that nothing can come into existence without a cause, ...
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.
StephenB: ... then it follows that nothing can move without a cause.
It doesn't "follow" at all. Existence is not a property such as momentum is.
StephenB: You will never hear Darwinists make the kinds of distinctions that I just made, [except to criticize them from a safe distance] because, given their disdain for the law of causality, those distinctions never occur to them.
It's unclear whom you mean by "Darwinists," but biologists rarely have issues with causation as normally construed. The biological sciences are underwritten on classical causation.
StephenB: Universe’s just pop into existence from out of nowhere, life comes from non-life, mind from matter, natural causes create information, or anything at all can happen that one might hope to be true.
While the existence of the Cosmos is a conundrum, life and mind are posited to be rearrangements of existing matter. No one claims life or mind just popped into existence anymore than the Earth just popped into existence.
StephenB: If he claims, for example, that the explanatory filter doesn’t work because law, chance, and agency may not explain all possible causes for a given event, the ID proponent may say, “Well fair enough.” a fourth cause is logically possible.
No, it's because the Explantory Filter relies on an argument from ignorance, and that there may be overlaps between the categories.Zachriel
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
----Zackriel: “So the “Law of Causation” doesn’t apply to motion? That’s a rather odd exception to such an iron-clad rule isn’t it? Doesn’t it seem that if a photon veers one way or the other, it should have a cause?” ----“In a vacuum, sometimes an electron will pop into existence, sometimes a muon, or some other particle. What causes this distinction?” It depends on whether you are talking about the “where” of the movement, which, according to the uncertainty principle, is unpredictable, or whether you are talking about the “fact” of the movement, which would, indeed, seem to follow from the law of causality. I submit that, given what we know, the “where” of the movement is likely not governed by the law of causality but the “fact” of the movement is, indeed, governed by the law of causality. On the other hand, the law of causation does not contain the word, “movement” in it, so my above comments are deductions, not laws. I submit that if it is true that nothing can come into existence without a cause, then it follows that nothing can move without a cause. However, I can only state that the first clause in that previous sentence is an incontrovertible fact, while I hold that the second clause is a reasonable conclusion to draw. I don’t claim that my conclusions are infallible or non-negotiable, but I do claim that the first principles upon which they are based are non-negotiable. If my reasoning is sound, then the fact of movement is always caused, but the location, destination, and path of the movement may well not be caused. Why should I say that I know something that neither I nor anyone else knows. What I do know is that something cannot come into existence without a cause. You will never hear Darwinists make the kinds of distinctions that I just made, [except to criticize them from a safe distance] because, given their disdain for the law of causality, those distinctions never occur to them. In fact, they seldom say anything at all; they just respond and react negatively to what ID advocates say. I have never known a Darwinist on this site to state a proposition, develop it, and follow through with a defense. Not even once. What does that tell you? The more we are grounded in the first principles of right reason, the deeper is our capacity to probe the issue and understand all possible paradoxes and ironies---and there are plenty of them. The truth sets us free; it is error that enslaves us. If we abandon the laws of reason, we can’t probe the issue at all, or even get started. Among other things, we cannot distinguish between a paradox and a flat out contradiction. It is hard enough to do that from a foundation of solid logic and reason. Abandon reason, and there is no hope at all. From that vantage point, everything seems simple and uncontroversial. Universe’s just pop into existence from out of nowhere, life comes from non-life, mind from matter, natural causes create information, or anything at all can happen that one might hope to be true. Why do I fuss about this so much? Because many [probably most] of the errors Darwinists make in their debates with ID proponents about science can be traced back to the fact that they have chosen to abandon reason’s first principles. We should focus, then, on the cause of those errors, not just the errors themselves. Notice, that I didn’t say that Darwinists are unintelligent. Some of them are quite intelligent. Their inability to reason does not stem from some kind of congenital deprivation but rather a willful choice to reject reason’s principles so that they can avoid the kinds of conclusions that reason dictates. If anything at all can come into existence without a cause, then the Darwinist always has an escape clause. If he claims, for example, that the explanatory filter doesn’t work because law, chance, and agency may not explain all possible causes for a given event, the ID proponent may say, “Well fair enough.” a fourth cause is logically possible.(For my part, that is too much of a concession). Still, we think our position is reasonable because after thousands of years after Plato first made these causes evident, a fourth cause has never been found or even hinted at, so we can safely assume three causes until someone proves otherwise. We are prepared to adjust our paradigm if that fourth cause should be found. To that, the Darwinist says, “No, you don’t understand. Even at that, we will still not be satisfied until you concede that NO CAUSE IS NEEDED AT ALL. This is madness. It is impossible to demonstrate intelligent agency in an irrational atmosphere like that, and that’s the whole point. Take away reason, and intelligent agency automatically goes with it. Thus, Darwinists attack ID with a series of mindless challenges informed by but never acknowledged as a denial of causality, but they never, and I mean never, address the challenges that are sent their way.StephenB
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: And this is what you have posited as the last gasp of a dying strategy to show that the law of causation is so obviously flawed.
Um, no. The point is that StephenB's position on "causation" is incoherent because his use of the term is inconsistent.Zachriel
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Seversky @ 320 You say: "You are jumping the gun here. The fact that physics has no explanation for something now does not mean it never will have. As a species, we have only been doing science for a minute fraction of the estimated age of the Universe. You can surely afford to cut science a little slack. If God exists, it will make no difference to Him or you relationship to Him." Is it possible that after all this you still miss the fundamental point? 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? 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. You say: "So, are they actually evidence of design or do they simply look that way to us?" This is laughable. For someone who alleges to be, if not a scientist, at least someone with a concern for what is true, this represents some pretty shoddy head work. A couple of questions for you Sev. What is science allegedly all about? Isn't it data, observations, empirical evidence, i.e. FACTS? AND making inferences to the best explanations of those facts, i.e. REASON? So when you say "look that way to us" you are talking about THE DATA. If it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck then we are reasonable to infer that yes, it's a freaking duck. Yet 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? Let's say you are trudging through the desert and you see "water" off in the distance. Aha! I'm saved, you think. Alas, when you get there you realize that it was only a mirage. It was only "apparent water." But how would you know about "apparent water" unless there was real water??? To speak of "apparent design" while ignoring real design betrays a mind either careless of reason or indifferent to it. Either way, too bad for you. Here' Dawkins on the subject: "The true process that has endowed wings and eyes, beaks, nesting instincts and everything else about life with the strong illusion of purposeful design is now well understood. It is Darwinian natural selection." From River Out of Eden. page 98. NO YOU IDIOT IT'S DESIGN. The true process that gives "everything else about life with the STRONG illusion of purposeful design" IS DESIGN. Gaaaahh. 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. Eat $hit, 5 billion flies can't be wrong. Is that it? Is that how your mind works? It's allowed to have an independent thought from time to time. I recommend it. You said: "Naturalism as a methodology has proven to be more fruitful than any of the alternatives which also provides support for the metaphysical claims of philosophical naturalism. How much of the knowledge, the science and the technology that we now take for granted was the product of naturalistic research and how much was the direct result of divine providence?" Well of course science is effective when it comes to discovering the truth about the physical world. Who is arguing against that? Ontological or metaphysical naturalism has nothing to say about science either. What naturalism says is that all that exists is nature, i.e. the material or physical universe. So what? That is an a priori assumption that is not a first principle. Therefore, it is not intellectually defensible to maintain its truth in the face of overwhelming evidence. (Laws of physics and economics and tennis and diet, all laws and rules in other words, mathematics, information, language, purpose, design, consciousness, etc...) All of these things are immaterial yet real. So naturalism is false. What I'm goint to talk about next is what does it for me. And this is why this will be my last post on this subject. In the beginning I claimed that the naturalists/materialists/Darwinists/ whatever you want to call yourselves, refused to make intellectual commitments. I took a little flak for that but, oddly enough, no one from your side of the issue has still been williing to do that (300 or so posts later). Now you have, inadvertently, I'm sure, given evidence of the truth of my claim that you have no intellectual commitments. Here it is. And I quote you again... You say: "I reject the claim that there is any objective morality." AND YOU SAY, virtually in the same breath, "Yes, I think killing millions of people, who presented no threat to the survival of those who killed them, was “really” wrong." In one sentence you reject the assertion of objective morality (when you are spouting the naturalist nonsense) and then you say that these murders were "really" (with your own emphasis for God's sake) wrong. Well excuse me for saying WTF, over? How can you possibly be so blind as to claim on the one hand that something does not exist and on the other to claim that it does??!! But "you people" do this all the time. Thus my comment in post #33 about the lack of intellectual commitments. Thanks so much for making my point so clearly and forcefully. Of course, now you will deny it somehow and I look forward to reading it. It will be most funny, I'm sure. In case others are reading, this is the perfect example of what I am talking about. When it suits "them" to talk about morality or design or purpose, they do. When it suits "them" to deny the existence of those things, they do. And they apparently do it without suffering from any kind of intellectual constipation or indigestion. It's an amazing thing to see. And the kicker, WE are the irrational ones. Man, it doesn't get much better than that. And finally, you have the gall to say: "they completely ignored the Golden Rule, which I believe is axiomatic," So now you are telling me, again, that not only do you believe in an objective moralality, but that it is "axiomatic." That is to say, a foundational assumption, one that is unquestionable because it is so obvious and apparent to everyone. You are killing me. You really are. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So your almost final words to me betray the idiocy of the statement that you made (with your own emphasis, no less) that there is no objective morality. See what I mean about trying to have it both ways??? You stress words in both of those claims!!! There IS NO objective morality . There IS TOO objective morality. That's what you are claiming in the same post. Post #320 for anyone who thinks I'm making this up. Happy New Year Seversky and the rest. When you are prepared to actually stand for something I'll be happy to engage. When I started out in apologetics, Norman Geisler told me (us) that unless you could get agreement from people about the primacy of reason in matters of truth - in other words, the law of non-contradiction - you were wasting your time. I think he is correct. How much sense does it make to reason with people who reject the very idea of reason? And how much more evidence does one need that reason has been rejected? There is and isn't a moral law. That is just too much for me to contend with. Regards.tgpeeler
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Zach, -- "And here I thought it was a discussion." Yes Zach, the competition of ideas often takes place within a discussion. I personally suggested skywriting...uh...but what was your point again? -- "Here’s an example of StephenB’s muddled position." ... "Leaving aside the specifics, notice the use of “cause” within the context of the modification of already existing components." Geez man. No let's not leave out the specifics. The quote you pulled comes from an exchange about the transformation of the four-character DNA pattern into a twenty-character amino acid pattern. Stephen wrote "I know that you are used to accepting the fantasy that transformations like that just happen without a cause, but here is a clue–they don’t". The discussion then morphed through "language" and "meaning", and eventually into one about whether quantum events have a cause. And this is what you have posited as the last gasp of a dying strategy to show that the law of causation is so obviously flawed. And the truly entertaining part is that when you wrote your post, you actually made a point to suggest that we should just ignore the specifics around what you are saying. I think the reason for your request is rather obvious.Upright BiPed
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Upright Biped: it seems you completely forget that this is a competition
And here I thought it was a discussion.
Upright Biped: Stephen stated a position and was willing to defend it.
Here's an example of StephenB's muddled position.
StephenB: I know that you are used to accepting the fantasy that transformations like that just happen without a cause, but here is a clue–they don’t.
Leaving aside the specifics, notice the use of "cause" within the context of the modification of already existing components. In other words, his use of the term has changed through the course of the discussion.Zachriel
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden: I don’t think you’re really grasping what “nothing” means in the formulation.
If StephenB were merely saying that there is something rather than nothing, that's a rather obvious axiom. Rather, he seems to be using his own definition of causality that only applies to existence, when causality is normally construed to mean the relationship between events such that one event is a consequence of another event. Apparently, StephenB's "causality" comes and goes for Darwinists (which is rather odd considering Darwin posited specific mechanisms of evolution, including descent with modification and natural selection). And yet, StephenB insists that his muddled use is essential for doing science, even for the very use of reason, when it's not clear he is *saying anything* at all.Zachriel
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 14

Leave a Reply