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
nullasalus
Determining the “likelihood” of any parameters likely kicks the question out of science and into metaphysics.
Like Determining the "likelihood" of any parameters likely kicks the question out of science and into "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by metaphysics"?Cabal
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
---Voice Coil: “Instruction” and “direction” are both human activities (as is language use), and therefore, while capturing something of the role of DNA, have connotations are unhelpful and misleading, similar to those I identify above with respect to a characterization of DNA as bearing a “language.” What does it matter if "direct" or "instruct" are human activities if they are also cell activities? Humans also "bear" things, so does that mean you are going to rule out your own word by your own standards. Clearly, the information code is doing something, it is performing a function. How would you describe that function and why is that description more informative than my description? ----"My only comment upon causality has been ......................................................................................................." Should I ask the question yet a fourth time? How can you do science absent the law of causality? If one thing can come into existence without a cause, why not a thousand things, why not a million things? How can you interpret evidence reasonably if you can't know which things were caused and which things were not caused?StephenB
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
StephenB:
If that is not a fair abbreviated account of their role, tell me why.
"Instruction" and "direction" are both human activities (as is language use), and therefore, while capturing something of the role of DNA, have connotations are unhelpful and misleading, similar to those I identify above with respect to a characterization of DNA as bearing a "language." My only comment upon causality has been that your use of the term has been no less flexible than Zachriel's above, although bereft of grounding in quantum theory that both defines and constrains the acausal phenomena he has commented upon. Absent any rationale for excusing some classes of quantum events from ironclad causality (as you clearly have) while insisting that others are so bound, your carve-out of the "law of causality" (accomplished by unjustified adjustments to the definition of "event") has exactly that ad hoc quality you deride. Indeed, it is more clearly ad hoc, having (IMO) nothing to do with the physics and everything to do with fortification of your preferred theological arguments. What is that rationale? So far as I can tell, you've never described it.Voice Coil
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
----Voice Call: "Similarly, the operation of DNA is quite unlike “instructions” and “recipes” (not to mention languages) as well, images that both imply features that DNA lacks (such as agents who author the instructions) and omit important elements." It isn't unlike that at all. But if you want to quibble over the verb "instruct," we will use the word "direct," since that means almost the same thing. I submit that the coding regions of DNA "direct" operations within a complex material system through a sequence of chemical characters. If that is not a fair abbreviated account of their role, tell me why. More precisely, tell me why the verbs "direct" or "instruct" are as you imply, misleading and use your own descriptive terms that show how and why the word "direct" is wrong. Also, I have yet to hear from you about the significance of abandoning the law of causality and how science could survive without it.StephenB
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
By the way, the argument is not that causality is an unimportant feature of modern physics, only that it is not axiomatic, and that theories of causation are subject to modification based on evidence. In modern times, this occurred first with Relativity Theory, then with Quantum Theory.Zachriel
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Actually, that’s how you advance a discussion, by granting points when appropriate. StephenB: I have no idea what you mean. What points have you granted? How does your comment justify the Darwinist strategy of selective causality?
Nothing in evolutionary theory requires "selective causality."
StephenB: My comment is not vague at all. We don’t know the exact nature of the causal conditions for a quantum event just as we don’t know the exact nature of most things.
We can show, with reasonable certainty, that you can't know, that there are *no* local hidden variables. We have to abandon classical causation.
StephenB: Also, you are assuming that all things that are caused are also predictable, which is not the case.
That is certainly not our assumption. Something can be completely deterministic, but unpredictable—even if we understand all the forces in play. But that is not the case with quantum phenomena. While wave functions are deterministic, observations of discrete phenomena are not.
StephenB: Further still, you have not yet addressed the fact that quantum mechanics and the concept of indeterminancy in general were conceived and established with the understanding that causality is non-negotiable.
They were found to be violations of classical notions of causation. Einstein refused to accept this, but because he thought deeply about the problem, the EPR paper has been very fruitful in spurring the investigation of the problem.Zachriel
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
StephenB:
You can begin by telling me whether or not the information code provides instructions to the organism.
Assuming you meant "the genetic code" or something like that. "Instructions," like "recipe," is serviceable enough as a loose metaphor, but that's really all it is. Such images are rather like the image of an atom as like a miniature solar system: it supplies some information, but there is no substitute for getting down on all fours with the phenomenon, at which time the limitations of the metaphor become apparent. Atoms are quite unlike solar systems in many respects, an image that has attributes not shared by atoms and that omits much that is important about atoms. Similarly, the operation of DNA is quite unlike "instructions" and "recipes" (not to mention languages) as well, images that both imply features that DNA lacks (such as agents who author the instructions) and omit important elements.Voice Coil
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
StephenB:
VC: —”What I don’t understand is your rationale for excusing one from an ironclad law of causation, but not the other.” That’s true. You don’t understand it.
I've never seen it. What is it?Voice Coil
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
---Voice Coil: Sure. [Do you understand the difference between moving and beginning to exist]. I doubt very much if you do understand it. Indeed, I hold that you were totally confused about it until I educated you on the matter. Otherwise, you would not have gone back into the archives looking for the irrelevant loopholes that you thought were so telling. ---"What I don’t understand is your rationale for excusing one from an ironclad law of causation, but not the other." That's true. You don't understand it. ---"And, in light of excusing quantum “changes in motion” from causality, on what basis you decline to excuse particle decay (Zachriel’s example), which entails nothing “beginning to exist.” No it does not. Since I have provided answers to all your questions, I think it is time that you started answering a few questions. You can begin by telling me whether or not the information code provides instructions to the organism. Also, you can explain how science is possible when the observer can take or leave causality at his whim. Those points have been on the table for quite a while.StephenB
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
---seversky to vjtorley: "According to StephenB, from a naturalistic perspective this is an irrational position, a violation of one of the fundamental principles of Right Reason, the Law of Non-Contradiction. Even a God cannot create something out of nothing." If you cannot debate vjtorley without misrepresenting what I say and trying to use it against him, then please argue against him under your own strength and leave me out of it. Clearly, you do not understrand what I said or what he said. So don't complicate things by adding additional variables to your own confusion.StephenB
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
StephenB:
Yes, and so? Do you understand the difference between beginning to exist and moving?
Sure. What I don't understand is your rationale for excusing one from an ironclad law of causation, but not the other. And, in light of excusing quantum "changes in motion" from causality, on what basis you decline to excuse particle decay (Zachriel's example), which entails nothing "beginning to exist."Voice Coil
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
----Voice Coil: "You’ve also been flexible, although without scientific justification (unlike Zachriel). Quoting me: ["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. If, however, we describe an event as something coming into existence from nothing, then the principle of causality would be violated."] Yes, and so? Do you understand the difference between beginning to exist and moving? 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.} Yes, do you yet understand the difference between beginning to exist and moving. 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." Yes, do you yet understand the difference between moving and beginning to exist. 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. Causality with respect to the cause of existence cannot be suspended.} Same question again and again. [Quantum events (changes in momentum and position) can be uncaused in that sense. Quantum particles coming from nothing cannot be uncaused in that sense.] You are not the first desperate Darwinist who, after having been totally refuted in a debate, tried to go back in time looking for loopholes in past statements. Nor are you the first who failed in your attempt. On the other hand, you may be the first who, after having been given the most patient instruction, failed to understand the points being made long after they were made. So, one final time. Do you understand the difference between unpredictability and movement vs. beginning to exist. When you get through that intellectual threshhold I will take you to the next step, which clearly will require similar remedial attention.StephenB
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
#297 "You’ve also been flexible, although without scientific justification (unlike Zachriel" Voice the above is part of the problem. Do you not understand that what you call scientific evidence is dependent upon certain non provable ( by science) assumptions and presuppositions? First principles come first then science not the other way around. Vividvividbleau
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
StephenB:
To say that the law of causation counts when you want it to count and doesn’t count when you don’t want it to count, is not only to deny the law of causality, it is to militate against science itself.
You've also been flexible, although without scientific justification (unlike Zachriel).
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. If, however, we describe an event as something coming into existence from nothing, then the principle of causality would be violated.
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. Causality with respect to the cause of existence cannot be suspended.
And again:
Quantum events (changes in momentum and position) can be uncaused in that sense. Quantum particles coming from nothing cannot be uncaused in that sense.
All starting here: https://uncommondescent.com/religion/and-there-you-have-it/#comment-332851 Given the above conscessions, one wonders on what basis you insist that the instances of decay cited by Zachriel, which entail nothing "coming into being," cannot also be considered acausal.Voice Coil
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
#295 "According to StephenB, from a naturalistic perspective this is an irrational position, a violation of one of the fundamental principles of Right Reason, the Law of Non-Contradiction." How you come to this conclusion escapes me. "It does not follow necessarily from that, however, that we must default to God as an explanation." Correct however since space time and matter came into existence at the Big Bang you cannot appeal to space time and matter as the cause of itself. You know self causation, the LNC and all that. Hopefully since you brought up the LNC to make your point you are not one of those who deny it when it suits their purposes. "There may be countless other possible Universes, although the number that support living, intelligent creatures such as ourselves may be far fewer." You mean "turtles all the way down'? "All the above aside, a Merry Christmas to you and yours and to all other contributors to this blog." Merry Christmas to you as well. Vividvividbleau
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
vjtorley @ 276
God did not “make-the-world-out-of-nothing” (as if “nothing” was the stuff God used to make the world); rather, He did not make the world out of anything. There was no raw material.
According to StephenB, from a naturalistic perspective this is an irrational position, a violation of one of the fundamental principles of Right Reason, the Law of Non-Contradiction. Even a God cannot create something out of nothing.
The idea I’m defending here (and it is a very old one) is that we are characters in a story created by God, but that we are characters who can do our own bit of story-writing – subject to the constraints of God, the Master story-teller.
This is the predecessor of the hypothesis that we are all part of a vast computer simulation, I take it? It is an appealing idea but is it not also suggestive that a species of inveterate story-tellers would find themselves to be the creations of a God who is a Master Storyteller?
As Dawkins is pointing out in that quote, what we see is what we would expect the Universe to look like if there is no God.
I have to disagree. If there were no God, I wouldn’t expect a universe with laws that are invariant over space and time. I wouldn’t expect laws that are mathematically elegant, either. I wouldn’t expect life, I wouldn’t expect consciousness, I wouldn’t expect science, metaphysics, art or religion, and I certainly wouldn’t expect libertarian freedom. (And if you don’t believe you really possess libertarian freedom, you will at least have to admit that you all do a pretty good imitation of it, in your daily lives.) Above all, I wouldn’t expect me.
If we set aside God as an explanation for a moment, we have to admit that we have no idea as yet why the Universe exists or how it came to be as it is. That is not a failing, of course, it is simply a recognition of the current limits of our understanding. It does not follow necessarily from that, however, that we must default to God as an explanation. Also, if, as we have admitted, we have as yet no explanation of the why and the how of the Universe, then we have no reason to expect the Universe to be one way rather than another. There may be countless other possible Universes, although the number that support living, intelligent creatures such as ourselves may be far fewer. However, if you propose a god as a creator, and if that name is more than just a label but has defining characteristics, then you can observe whether our Universe has features which are inconsistent with such a being as described.
It takes a lifetime of “education” for us to cease being amazed at these unexpected features of the universe, and at the fact of our own existence. Education? I’d call it desensitization.
Personally, I find the opposite is true, that the more science learns about this Universe, the stranger and more wonderful it appears. As Haldane wrote:
I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
In fact, for me, religious narratives, such as those in the Bible, seem to be increasingly inadequate and parochial in the face of what we are learning.
(a) contrary to what Seversky asserts, Adam was given a reason to obey the Divine command (namely, that death would be the consequence of disobedience);
You are equivocating on the meaning of "reason" in this case. Adam was threatened not enlightened. I am sure that you recognize that there is a difference between persuasion and coercion.
b) Seversky’s statement that “Nothing, but nothing, happens except by His will and that must include the serpent” fails to distinguish between the active and permissive will of God;
What difference does that make?
(c) God did not lie when He said that “Adam was told he would die on the day he ate the fruit” unless the word “day” in the Bible always means 24 hours – but if that were the case, then we would expect Jewish rabbis who wrote about the book of Genesis (and who presumably knew ancient Hebrew far better than you do) to freely acknowledge the fact that God lied – yet in fact, none of them do;
Even if they thought it, those scholars were hardly going to admit that their holy texts suggest that God lied right from the start. As for any ambiguity about the meaning of the word 'day', we are talking about the Creator of the entire Universe here. Are we really supposed to believe that He forgot, or was unaware, that the word 'day' means one complete revolution of the planet Earth for the humans which live there, rather than perhaps thousands of terrestrial years? And if he was aware of the difference, was it really beyond His powers to explain: "Yes, I know I said you would die on the day you ate the fruit, but I forgot to mention that 'day' for me means thousands of your years. Sorry about the confusion."?
Merry Christmas to all, whatever your faith may be.
All the above aside, a Merry Christmas to you and yours and to all other contributors to this blog.Seversky
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Hey VC. Good to see you still engaging on a fundamental level. MCtgpeeler
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
[To say that the law of causation counts when you want it to count and doesn’t count when you don’t want it to count, is not only to deny the law of causality, it is to militate against science itself.] ---Zachriel: "Actually, that’s how you advance a discussion, by granting points when appropriate." I have no idea what you mean. What points have you granted? How does your comment justify the Darwinist strategy of selective causality? Science depends on the law of causality. If you are granting that point, then please be specific. If you are not granting the point, then explain how science can proceed if causality comes and goes at the whim of the observer. [The quantum conditions are the cause.] ---"Your comment is so vague that you may as well say the whipplesnapper is the cause. Would you care to predict, based on your knowledge of quantum causation, which atom of radium will decay next." My comment is not vague at all. We don't know the exact nature of the causal conditions for a quantum event just as we don't know the exact nature of most things. Also, you are assuming that all things that are caused are also predictable, which is not the case. Further still, you have not yet addressed the fact that quantum mechanics and the concept of indeterminancy in general were conceived and established with the understanding that causality is non-negotiable. What we do know is that if even one thing can come into existence without a cause, then there is no reason to believe that millions of things that we have not yet discovered can come into existence without a cause. Under those circumstances, we wouldn't even be secure that the things we do think are caused were caused. We wouldn't know which things are caused and which things are not caused or if anything is caused at all. That is why we acknowledge the first principle of science: Nothing can come into existence without a cause. I need not identify or elaborate on all causes to assert that fact. Your objection is unreasonable because you have not considered the ultimate consequences of believing it.StephenB
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
The "Nicene screed." But great penmanship!Voice Coil
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
*God is REASON. I say this based on Exodus 3:14. The background is that Moses has been told to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and Moses is asking God, "who do I say sent me?" God says, I AM WHO I AM, tell them I AM sent you. It occurred to me some time ago that I AM is the most concise way (well, ok, you could say eimi in Greek but you get the point) to summarize the first principles of reason. You have being, identity, and non-contradiction and excluded middle by immediate inference. If I AM then I'm not something else and I'm either I AM or not. I thought it was interesting. Maybe not. But this would explain why human reason always leads us to the truth and why it is the universally valid method for coming to know the truth. It would also explain "why" we can reason in the first place (created in His image). It would answer that "why" question, would it not?tgpeeler
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Here's the thing, we either live in a "Jesus universe" or we do not. That is not a theological or a Biblical statement. It is a propositional truth statement that is undeniably true since it embodies the first principles of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. What I mean by the shorthand "Jesus universe" is that Jesus of Nazareth is who he claimed to be. That is, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Redeemer of all mankind. The contradictory, that we do not, encompasses many other possibilities. As far as I can tell, the most prominent of them in "western culture" is the idea of naturalism with it's various explanations for life (neo-Darwinian evolution), morality (doesn't really exist), purpose (also an illusion), and so on. IF we do not live in a Jesus universe then naturalism, or something like it, is certain to be true. In that case, there is certainly good reason to embrace despair and nihilism. In that universe, there is no reason to do anything because none of us matter. We are merely happy coincidences of quarks and leptons that are amazingly and accidentally arranged into really cool bags of water (basically) that can do some amazing things and apparently some very foolish things, too, like deny the very essence that we have and the fundamental drive we all have to want to matter. Why would we do that in a universe described by naturalism? Ah well, we could, but to my earlier point, it would ultimately be to no avail, since in this universe we DON'T matter. All "why" questions ultimately devolve into blank looks accompanied by a shoulder shrug. (I'm saying if naturalism or something like is is true.) Why is there something rather than nothing? Beats me. Why is there life? Beats me. Why is there human life? Beats me. Why do we have an apparently empty place in our apparent souls that demands to know why in the first place? Beats me. Why is there apparently good and evil in a purposeless pointless universe? Beats me. Why would I care about ever doing "the apparently right thing - remember, no REAL right thing is possible) since I will never, ever be held accountable for what I do or fail to do? If someone says "but doing the apparently right thing makes me feel good for some odd reason," I respond "so what." What does it matter? In a universe that's almost 14 BILLION years old, our roughly 70 years or so, and often much less, are merely the blink of a cosmic eye. How could anything matter, really, in such a world? Well, it couldn't. If we do live in a Jesus universe, however, a different picture emerges. In this universe, God created it, and us, so He could have fellowship with us in an unbroken and perfect state for all eternity. In this universe, man rebelled against the will of God and we call this sin. This sin separates us from eternal fellowship. God, being God, knows this and realizes that we owe a debt we cannot pay. Because He loves us, however, He decided that He would provide a way out. This way is summarized in perhaps one of the most recognizable verses of all, John 3:16, where Jesus himself said: For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall never perish but have eternal life. Wow. How about that? In this universe, God is not a malevolent bully or an evil tyrant. In this universe, all of these creatures made in His image have a power that is, well, God-like, and that is the power to choose. And the ONLY THING that separates any of us from an unspeakably joyous eternity is ONE DECISION that we are ALL free to make. Yes or no. Do we accept the gift or not??? Ah, there's the real question. We are also self-aware, like God is. We also can reason, because we are have reason with a "little r" because God IS REASON.* We also know the difference between good and evil, like God does. There is more but I don't want to lose anyone that may still be here. According to the law of identity, free will means that we have the option to choose one course of action over another. We can choose from among various alternatives and we do so freely. So if God allows us free will and we reject Him and His gift what is He to do? He can either respect the free will He has given us or He can overrule our volition and force us to accept Him, to love Him, to worship Him. But that makes Him no better than a divine rapist. Which, being perfectly righteous, He is not. (In a Jesus universe, mind you.) If God says, believe in Jesus, accept the free gift of eternal life (free for us, it was hardly free for Jesus) and you will spend eternity with Jesus and others of like mind in perfect, harmonious, joyful, productive, fellowship. If we say, NO. We reject that Jesus is any of the things He claimed to be, and we think the whole idea is a ridiculous piece of trash that only fools and idiots could believe. Well then, again, what is God to do? Well, what He has promised to do is to honor the decision that each of us makes. If we declare that we do not want to be with Jesus for ever then we won't. But as an incentive (perhaps) for us to treat this decision with the respect that it deserves, God also tells us that the alternative to being in heaven with Jesus for eternity is, well, not to be with Him. And since this place is going to be populated with everyone who believes in naturalism, or something like it, well, He calls it hell. A place of eternal torment. So what? You may say. This is just Pascal's wager dressed up a little bit. It doesn't prove anything. Indeed it doesn't. You are correct about that. But it should demonstrate that this decision could not be more important. I'm guessing most of us have seen some no-limit Texas Hold 'em on tv. These games in which players often go "all in" with all their chips, sometimes millions of them are on the line. Well, each one of us, every one of us, are going to make a cosmic, eternal "ALL IN" bet on my original propositional statement. We either live in a Jesus universe or we don't. If we do then according to Jesus it is best not to ignore Him or to disobey Him. If we don't, then of course it doesn't matter and, as the apostle Paul said, and I paraphrase, Christians are the biggest fools of all. And he would be right. If we do not live in a Jesus universe, I am the biggest fool of all time (I may be anyway but at least I am a saved fool.) and so is anyone else who believes such nonsense. But what if I'm right? What if we do live in a Jesus universe? It's possible. So on this Christmas morning I urge all of you, I beg all of you, I plead with all of you, to take a real, genuine, rational, look at the claims of Jesus. See if there is evidence for Him and what He did. See if life makes more sense if we live in a Jesus universe or if we don't. And make your choice based on what your best analysis of what the truth is. Don't believe anything that is not true just because you want some "fire insurance." That's nonsense, too. He either is, or He isn't. If He is, then we will be held accountable for our choices and for our actions. If He is, then our choices really do matter because they have eternal, that is forever, consequences. Choose wisely and Merry Christmas. p.s. here are two links to my favorite Christmas carol of all time. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDeXUvWbLp8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jr-2eyRtV4tgpeeler
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
[God doesn’t have parts.] God is existence, unity, life, truth, and goodness and possesses the capacity to share these attributes." ---IrynaB: "And you know this how? More self-evident truths?" No. Self evident truths are the basic principles of right reason by which we make reasoned arguments. The argument above does indeed, require a good deal of reasoned analysis over and above anything that is self evident. The short version is that a "self existent" being cannot be divided. It is a philosophical argument to answer another blogger's assertion that God has "parts," which cannot be true of a self existent being. Also, moving away from philosophy and into theology, God is pure spirit, and nothing spiritual can have parts. That quality is reserved for material things--and yes, that part of it should be self evident. [Either the “something”[time, space, matter etc.] came from an eternal God, or else the something came from out of nowhere. In the first case, we have a cause; in the second case, we don’t have a cause. Thus, the second way is irrational because nothing can come into existence without a cause.] ---"Another self-evident truth I suppose. You are simply assuming your conclusions. It’s amazing to me that you can’t seem to see your own obvious irrationality." No its another argument based on the self evident truth that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. An argument based on a self evident truth is not the same as a self evident truth. It is not likely that I would perceive anything irrational about my comment since there is nothing irrational about it. Irrationality consists in denying reason's first principles or in not knowing the difference between them and arguments that are grounded in them. ----Anyway, merry Christmas! Merry Christmas.StephenB
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Seversky @ 268 "What atheists and agnostics argue is that the nature of the Universe we observe around us gives no reason at all to assume the existence of a deity such as the Christian God. As Dawkins is pointing out in that quote, what we see is what we would expect the Universe to look like if there is no God." I thought this was going to take some time but I see that others have already done a much more gracious job of responding to the guts of your post. I still want to respond to part of it. Dawkins is a fool. He says that the universe we see is what we'd expect to see if there, well, let him say it "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." So he, and you, are saying that in a universe of physics and genetic replication we should, a priori, expect to see creatures that deceive themselves about the existence of everything that makes them what they are. This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. No, really. So what you are expecting me to believe is that in a universe where people are obsessed about purpose (what we want) and morality (who is doing wrong to us) and self-awareness (I am important) the explanation is a philosophy that denies the very existence of those things!!! I mean, we don't expect these things to exist, but they obviously do exist, so we say that they don't exist, and we mock the people who say they do exist, and best of all, we say it's SCIENTIFIC to say all this!! Oh, that makes PERFECT SENSE now. Are you kidding me? Get real for a second.tgpeeler
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Indeed, I said when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, classical causation is sufficient. StephenB: That, of course, is the problem. To say that the law of causation counts when you want it to count and doesn’t count when you don’t want it to count, is not only to deny the law of causality, it is to militate against science itself.
Actually, that's how you advance a discussion, by granting points when appropriate.
StephenB: The quantum conditions are the cause.
Your comment is so vague that you may as well say the whipplesnapper is the cause. Would you care to predict, based on your knowledge of quantum causation, which atom of radium will decay next?Zachriel
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Zachriel: A lump of radium. An atom decays. What caused the decay of that atom rather than its neighbor? vjtorley: OK. What’s wrong with saying: God?
Nothing, unless it's meant as a scientific claim, in which case it's vacuous.
vjtorley: And that doesn’t mean He has to personally split each radium atom that decays, either. He could easily use a celestial pseudo-random number generator, for instance, to decide which atoms decay, and which ones don’t.
Which demonstrates why it is vacuous. God could be splitting each atom individually, or assigning an angel for each lump of radium, or Lucifer could be spinning a wheel, or it could be part of the Divine Plan. But it has all the appearance of utter randomness. It's an extraneous entity that adds nothing of scientific value.
vjtorley: By the way, Zachriel, there are at least 17 interpretations of quantum mechanics... Which one’s yours?
Quantum interpretations may have some scientific utility in guiding hypotheses in an attempt to empirically distinguish between them. At least most are spare, and don't propose extraneous entities. Other than that, they're just pictures in the mind.Zachriel
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
StephenB:
God doesn’t have parts. God is existence, unity, life, truth, and goodness and possesses the capacity to share these attritutes.
And you know this how? More self-evident truths?
Either the “something”[time, space, matter etc.] came from an eternal God, or else the something came from out of nowhere. In the first case, we have a cause; in the second case, we don’t have a cause. Thus, the second way is irrational because nothing can come into existence without a cause.
Another self-evident truth I suppose. You are simply assuming you conclusions. It's amazing to me that you can't seem to see your own obvious irrationality. Anyway, merry Christmas!IrynaB
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
---seversky: "Exactly. In fact, as far as we know, before our Universe was created, there was only God, nothing more." Well, maybe, maybe not. There might have been God and the angels. ---"This means that we have two choices: either God created us out of part of Himself – in other words, we are made of God-’stuff’ and are, literally, a part of Him – or He created something out of nothing, which you argue is irrational." Well, not really. God doesn't have parts. God is existence, unity, life, truth, and goodness and possesses the capacity to share these attritutes. It would be more accurate to put it this way: [Assuming that the universe is not eternal], Either the "something"[time, space, matter etc.] came from an eternal God, or else the something came from out of nowhere. In the first case, we have a cause; in the second case, we don't have a cause. Thus, the second way is irrational because nothing can come into existence without a cause.StephenB
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
----Zackriel: "Indeed, I said when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, classical causation is sufficient." That, of course, is the problem. To say that the law of causation counts when you want it to count and doesn't count when you don't want it to count, is not only to deny the law of causality, it is to militate against science itself. Causality doesn't come and go---except for Darwinists. If anything at all could come into existence without a cause, then there could be no science, no reasoned discourse, or no rational thinking at all. You would have no way of knowing which things were caused an which ones were not. Evidence would be of no use because evidence is interpreted in the light of causality. ---"A lump of radium. An atoms decays. What caused the decay of that atom rather than its neighbor?" The quantum conditions are the cause. If there was no law of causality, there could be no quantum mechanics, the principes of which were established in accordance with and which depend on that very same law. It is irrational to propose "selective causality," just as it is irrational to propose selective logic. It is no more ridiculous to say that causality is sometimes in force and sometimes not in force than to say that the law of non-contradiction applies sometimes and not at other times.StephenB
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
R0b @ 259 "inunison, I can’t speak to the biological realism of ev (can you?), but it certainly achieves the modest goal of showing that evolutionary mechanisms can generate information, as Mustela said." So you don't know about ev's biological relevance, but you are certain that it achieves its goals. Sorry, that type of faith I do not possess. Bottom line is that bogus computer simulation program validates nothing relevant to evolutionary biology. My objection is not with Dr. Schneider's thesis, only that ev is not the evidence validating it, as Mustela Nivalis (and Dr. Schneider) so confidently proclaimed.inunison
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
"I still don’t understand how you can talk about “the way ID uses the term information” as if there’s only one way, and yet acknowledge that different ID proponents use the term in different ways." Maybe there are more than one way of looking at a data set. One as coding but maybe the same data set can be analyzed in a different way. Is that hard to understand. I find all this phony posturing illuminating. You supposedly have the ability to analyze the situation but feign ignorance. You and others are just waiting to pounce if you find the smallest bit of hair out of place and never contribute anything. There is a description for such behavior and it is not pretty. All your comments say more about yourself than they do about the content of the discussion. You are not alone in this. I have commented more than once that the most interesting thing that goes on with the anti ID people is their motivation. They know they cannot attack anything successfully but yet they come here again and again looking for the smallest miscue. Merry Christmas and peace to men of good will.jerry
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 14

Leave a Reply