Why I Do Not Believe in Evolution
64
A Walk in the Wilderness
Imagine for a moment that you are walking in one of the remote wilderness areas of Alaska. You are hundreds of miles from civilization walking amidst virgin forest, and along pristine streams. You hear the sounds of the stream and the wind blowing through the trees. You hear the chirping of the birds by day and the howling of wolves at night. The only other living beings are the wildlife native to the area. There are no other signs of civilization. However, in your trek through the wilderness, you come upon a log cabin. Question: What is the first thing that comes to your mind? If you're like me you might start searching for the person that built the cabin. Is he inside or around back? We know instinctively that animals didn't build this cabin. We know that it didn't appear by spontaneous generation. It is not a product of wind and rain on the hard wood and soft wood trees of the wilderness. We know that someone, some person has built this cabin. We know instinctively that someone has made an effort here to design, plan and collect materials. And we know that someone has made quite a physical effort to build this cabin in the wilderness. If you were cold or wet and decided to go into the cabin wouldn't you be on the look out for the owner. So how is it that when we see a "design" like a home, we instinctively know that someone has created it, but when it comes to the most incredible design there is - life - we are led to believe that it is a product of chance. We are led to believe somehow that given enough time and given the right circumstances that eventually life as we see it around us came about.
You don't have to be a scientist
Something I have believed for years is that many major truths about life can be known by ordinary people by simple everyday observations. Because I've been involved in all sorts of design and construction, homes, furniture and cabinetry, I know what goes into building something. I know that I have never seen a house or piece of furniture build itself. House building is a process of designing, planning, organizing, collecting materials, and constructing. The constructing part has to be sequential. You can't put the roof on before the foundation. You can't put in electrical circuitry before the walls are up. Plumbing is performed in three stages - the foundational stage, the "top out" and the "trim out." If you wait to start the first phase of plumbing after the foundation is laid, you will have serious problems. You don't have to understand home construction to make these observations. Every thinking person, in virtually every walk of life, can make similar observations about the unique circumstances in which they find themselves. I don't know anything about radio talk show hosts but I can tell you that what I hear on the radio everyday does not happen by chance. The people involved plan and organize. The sophisticated equipment used by talk show hosts is the product of years of development by intelligent engineers.
What do these observations say about the world around us? IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN!! Home construction is no where near the sophistication or complexity of the human body, animal body or plant organism. Do you remember the "simple cell" that we learned about in high school biology. As it turns out, it is not so simple after all. Home construction is child's play in comparison to the complexity of the "simple cell". We know about cell structure, respiration processes and reproduction through the efforts of scientists. This really begs the question, how can one be so smart and be so stupid at the same time?
Two issues
We are talking about two issues here: 1. The origin of life or how did life begin and 2.How did we get from there to here.
The Big Bang: Let me first discuss the Big Bang. Another common everyday observation that can be made though the help of the network news is the effect that bombs have on buildings. Every afternoon the news carries the images of the rubble caused by suicide bombers, bombs dropped from airplanes, and bombs shot from rocket propelled grenades. I remember where I was and what I was doing when Timothy McVey bombed the governmental building in Oklahoma. I know where I was and what I was doing when the high jacked planes struck the twin towers in NY September 11, 2001. The effect of the explosions on those buildings was to say it mildly - NOT GOOD. Order was turned into disorder. I've seen the similar effect of hurricanes and tornadoes on homes and buildings. A bomb will create chaos out of a beautifully designed structure. It is NEVER the other way around. Those who propose the big bang theory as the way life began somehow think that given a big enough explosive force somehow life would begin. Don't misunderstand; I'm not arguing that the universe is not expanding. From what I've read, it seems clear that it is. I'm not even arguing that possibly this expansion was caused by an explosion or big bang. What seems absolutely impossible is the notion that any ordered thing, especially life, even in its simplest form could have come out of such an explosion.
I remember laughing in high school biology at 19th century scientists who believed in "spontaneous generation." You remember this don't you? When placing food outside people noticed an infiltration of maggots the next day. Scientist concluded that the maggots appeared out of thin air, and coined the phrase "spontaneous generation." What a hilarious concept!! Is the notion of life coming from nothing really that different from spontaneous generation? I'll ask the question again, "How can someone that smart be that stupid?"
But on to the second issue - Once life was there how did it "evolve"? Or from my perspective did it evolve? Did you see the movie Jurassic Park? When the mathematician (I can't remember his name) makes the statement, "life finds a way". I wanted to scream out...HOW?... HOW DOES LIFE FIND A WAY? And why does life find a way? What is guiding LIFE to "find a way"? How does life find its way on its own? Is this how we find our way? If you're lost do you sit there and wait for your "way" to suddenly and magically appear. Or do you call someone? Do you look for clues about the "way" you need to take? If you had a map wouldn't you use it? So how is it that life just somehow "finds a way"? I guess this is what one should expect from Hollywood. But why do we get this from scientists.
Murphy's Law: You know about Murphy's Law don't you? "If anything can go wrong, it will, and usually at the most inopportune moment." OK, I know this is not science. But there is a truth here about life that I have observed. Every day I go to work and try my best to bring order out of disorder, to produce something useful out of raw materials. And it is a fight because so many things go wrong. It's like a resistance that I have to push through everyday. THINGS TEND TOWARD DISORDER NOT ORDER. Isn't that your experience as well? So back to the question I posed above: How does life find a way? How could order come from disorder by its self? How could a "simple cell" evolve into a complex human being? Isn't this contrary to your experience in normal everyday living? If not, I WANT TO LIVE WHERE YOU LIVE!!
Winning the Lottery I was listening to a local radio talk some time back and the radio guy was talking about evolutionary concepts and he said," I guess mankind just won the lottery..." So did mankind win the lottery? Did we just get lucky? I have to believe that if we did, we didn't just win the lottery at one point in time at the dawn of mankind. Since evolution is a continual process, wouldn't we in effect be winning the lottery continually day by day, hour by hour and moment by moment. Have you heard the saying that, "Someone is going to win the lottery; it's just not going to be you."
The Incredible Irony The incredible irony to this is that people believe in evolution just like many people have faith in their religion. It is what they were taught. I used to tell my kids that if you were born in India you'd probably be a Hindu. If you were born in Japan you'd probably be a Buddhist and would be eating raw fish. If you born in the Middle East you'd most probably be a Muslim - in the US probably you would most likely be a member of one of the many Christian religions. I don't really see any difference in most people's adherence to the theory of evolution. It's what we were taught. We don't consider an alternative. I don't believe it is any better in the scientific community. It seems to me that there is naturally a disdain for faith in the scientific community. I understand this. After all, what does the scientific method have to do with faith? Scientist hypothesize, they collect, they measure, they weigh, they observe, they compare data in controlled environments WITHOUT PREDISPOSITION to what they observe. There should be no bias on the part of the scientist toward one conclusion or another. When one speaks of wearing "tinted glasses" he is speaking about a particular disposition toward a particular conclusion. There is no place for tinted glasses in the scientific community. Faith has no place in the scientific method. When a scientist walks into a lab for an experiment he has to leave faith outside the door. So what is the "Incredible Irony"? The irony is that no truly rational person can believe life happened by chance. IT TAKES MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE EVOLUTION than to BELIEVE LIFE CAME ABOUT THROUGH AN INTELLIGENT BEING!!!
Appreciate your comments.
Expelled trailer - a Ben Stein movie regarding ID
- Survival of The Fakest
This is an article by Jonathan Wells that appeared in the American Spectator magazine regarding "evidence" of Darwin's theory that continues in Scientific text books known to be erroneous. - Intelligent Design.org
Links to articles giving scientific explanations of intelligent design, and scientific critiques of evolution at IntelligentDesign.org which is a gateway portal website introducing people to the scientific debate over intelligent design and Darwinian
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Thanks for your comment.
I agree that there are observable simple examples of disorder to order. But what you are describing is like driving a car around the block. What I am talking about is the impossibility of taking that same car for a drive to the edge of the universe. It just won't get you there.
Regardless of the subjective levels of complexity you may decide to assign the examples from passitforward, the fact remains that it's order from disorder. Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are only applicable to open systems, which the Earth is not. Also, as far as you may believe that common sense and simple mundane observation can get you, you do need to have deeper understanding of certain matters to completely comprehend them. While you do not need to be a scientist with lots of studies, knowledge, and experience to be able to comprehend some of the science behind evolution, you do need to be one if you're going to try to debunk it.
sandwiches: thank you for your comment.
To rephrase my first idea: If you were in the Sahara desert and came upon a gold pocket watch... to be intellectually consistent wouldn't you have to say that the watch was a product of CHANCE and not the product of intelligent engineering and manufacture? What would you say about the watch? Would you discuss entropy - closed or otherwise? Or would you have to acknowledge that someone made it.
There's nothing disorderly about the composition of crystals. Even to the nth degree, they have a repetitive structural pattern. Consider fractals. They are the essence of orderly chaos! Archturn is correct. Order does not arise from disorder. Your examples of disorder are each, in fact, orderly, and prove the point. People who believe in evolution are simply running away from what they know instinctively to be true.
Appreciate your input Jason
Darwin had a "horrid doubt" that he was wrong. http://www.newchristian.org.uk/darwinsdoubt.html
True science should not be afraid to explore those doubts and let the fittest of the ideas survive. Kudos to archturn - an excellent builder himself - for sharing these thoughts.
For an interesting detour, consider how Richard Dawkins answered the question: "can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase in the genome?" Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
Resubmitted to fix formatting:
If you see a watch in the middle of the desert. How is it that you came to the conclusion that the watch was designed and made by an intelligent being? You use past knowledge and experiences.
1) You've seen people make watches, if not, you CAN see people make watches2) You can find blueprints and instructions on making watches, which can also be verified to have been made by people.3) There is no known natural process that can create watches.It's not just inherently "obvious" unless you possess certain knowledge.
Common sense comes from experience and wisdom. For example, an indigenous person upon seeing giant stones atop thin rock formations, as can be seen in the US, Canada, or Greenland, might believe that a god put them there since he lacks the knowledge necessary to understand how a rock of such size could have ended up balanced on a seemingly impossible spire. We now understand that most of those formations are the result of erosion or glaciers.
When it comes to the Earth, for instance:
1) We cannot see a God creating Earth.2) We can't find the blueprints that can be verified to be of divine origin.3) There are known natural processes that can explain the creation of the Earth.
Lacking information in some part of science doesn't diminish or disprove the rest. We didn't know about the constitution of cells until this century, but that didn't make antibiotics any less effective.We couldn't go into space less than 200 years ago but now we can.
So, just because we don't have the answer for some questions now, doesn't mean we never will and saying "Well, since you can't explain X or Y, then it must be God" is more than a little simplification. Again, we didn't know the existence of Quarks but we didn't think that since we couldn't understand the behavior of subatomic particles God must be manipulating them.
Sandwich - thanks again for your input.
I can appreciate your argument that over the centuries people have attributed natural causation to God because of a lack of understanding the laws of physics and natural processes. What I am saying is the MORE we understand, the unavoidable HONEST conclusion is that intelligence had to do it. The more I understand, the more confident I am that life is an intelligent design. We do indeed know more than we did even thirty years ago and the more we know, the greater our understanding of the complexity of living organisms.
We did not know about DNA before the 60's but we now know that the information required in the reproduction of a cell is staggering. The question is, "Where did the information come from in the beginning." These are issues Darwin never could have imagined.
You are right in saying that my conclusion regarding the watch in the desert or the cabin in the wilderness is based precisely on my experience that complex ordered systems do not put themselves together. This is not only my experience but the experience of any thinking person. Things do not get done on their own. Neither do simple things order themselves into highly complex entities. Like I said above, if this is your experience I want to live where you live.
Brig Klyce has said it better than I could in his article contrasting thermodynamic entropy and logical entropy: http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
It is true that crystals and other regular configurations can be formed by unguided processes. And we are accustomed to saying that these configurations are "organized." But crystals have not been spontaneously "furnished with organs.”[from the definition of organized] The correct term for such regular configurations is "ordered." The recipe for a crystal is already present in the solution it grows from — the crystal lattice is prescribed by the structure of the molecules that compose it. The formation of crystals is the straightforward result of chemical and physical laws that do not evolve and that are, compared to genetic programs, very simple.
The rule that things never organize themselves is also upheld in our everyday experience. Without someone to fix it, a broken glass never mends. Without maintenance, a house deteriorates. Without management, a business fails. Without new software, a computer never acquires new capabilities. Never.
Charles Darwin understood this universal principle. It's common sense. That's why he once made a note to himself pertaining to evolution, "Never use the words higher or lower”. (However, the word "higher" in this forbidden sense appears half a dozen times in the first edition of Darwin's Origin of Species.)
Even today, if you assert that a human is more highly evolved than a flatworm or an amoeba, there are darwinists who'll want to fight about it. They take the position, apparently, that evolution has not necessarily shown a trend toward more highly organized forms of life, just different forms:
I guess the conclusion one derives from scientific knowledge may differ depending on personal convictions. Personally, I find that the more I know about nature, the less a deity seems necessary for its function.
On a note and I'm sure you've heard this before because it's true: Evolution makes not comment on the origin of life itself or the universe.
And I think you misunderstood my use of the watch analogy. I meant that you assume that a watch, in the middle of a desert, is man-made because you've seen SPECIFICALLY how watches are made, not because "complex ordered systems" cannot exist without an intelligent creator.
To say that "complex ordered systems" is not possible without a deliberate designer is an argument of ignorance. What that means is that your argument is essentially this: "Since I cannot understand how something this complex and organized could have arisen through natural means, it must have been a supernatural being."
Now, Brig Klyce obviously does not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics or he is being deliberately obtuse. Like I said in another post, the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, a living organism's genome is not a closed system, etc. So while the available energy is decreasing overall in the universe (i.e. entropy is increasing,) the available energy on Earth is constantly being renovated through the sun and various other preocesses.Also, "organized" doesn't not mean to be furnished with organs any more than "paralyzed" means to become stone. It means the following:1. Formed into a structured or coherent whole2. Methodical and efficient in arrangement or function; "how well organized she is"; "his life was almost too organized"3. Being a member of or formed into a labor union; "organized labor"; "unionized workers"; "a unionized shop"4. Arranged into definite structures.
The only reason crystals came into the debate is because we argued that order cannot be derived from disorder, which it can. Whether a crystal can evolve or not is irrelevant. It is still a naturally, spontaneous organized or ordered system.
And to touch on your last point, the problem with using the words "organization" or "order" is that they're subjective states. I know relativism is not something that's well-accepted among most religious people, specially those of judeo-christian backgrounds, but the fact remains. What is "order"? How do you define it? What is the defining line between a state of order and one of disorder? Are there degrees of one or the other? What's more organized two cubes, one on top of each other, two cubes, one next to the other, or three cubes, forming a line?
The answers to all of these are completely subjective. Order cannot be quantified or qualified. There is no absolute for measuring order. The answer always corresponds with the convictions, experience, and knowledge of those answering. For example, most religious people will regard humans as being "above" or better than animals. The question, of course, is above what or better in what respect? Again, the answer is subjective depending on whatever conclusion the person wants to draw. Intelligence? Speed? Strength? Size? What's better smaller or bigger? Skin color? Hair? Hearing? Sight?
I think most scientists you speak with will answer that humans are merely different from other animals because, again, what makes something more or less evolved is a matter of opinion, as well.
Yes I know that evolution says nothing about origin. That is why I talked about the Big Bang in my essay.
You said, "To say that "complex ordered systems" is not possible without a deliberate designer is an argument of ignorance. What that means is that your argument is essentially this: Since I cannot understand how something this complex and organized could have arisen through natural means, it must have been a supernatural being."
What I am saying is that your argument for an ordering of the simple to the complex is an argument that defies common sense. I will guarantee that this is not how you live. The ordering of the words you are using, the logic in your argument, the keyboard, the computer you are using, the internet connection, the complex system for getting your written words to the comment section of this essay all depends on intelligent engineering, programmers and a host of scientific discoveries by intelligent people. But when it comes the incredible complexity of living organisms you’re going to tell me that it happened by chance. This is not where you live nor is it where I live. It defies common sense.
Anyone who finds a watch in the desert will correctly conclude that it is a product of human - yes based on his life experiences. Living organisms are vastly more complex. Can we HONESTLY conclude that we are not the product of a designer?
In reference to your last statement would you say that a watch is more complex or ordered than a human? Do you seriously think that a dog, for example, is as complex as a human? Are you being honest?
You have concluded that I am a religious person and that is why I believe in intelligent design. Should I therefore conclude that you are an atheist and that is why you believe in evolution? Just a thought- ha. Nowhere in my essay have I made a religious augment only appeal for common sense. Thanks for your interest.
Again, the difference is that all the things you listed have no known natural method of creation and you know that these things are man-made not just from looking at them. You and I know they're man-made because we have previous experience of how these things are made and they can be proven to be man-made at practically any time by almost anyone.
Common sense is very subjective and can only get you so far when it comes to science. Talk to any quantum physicist and watch common sense being thrown out the cosmic window. Mere hunches, feelings, common sense are irrelevant if they cannot be backed with quantifiable and falsifiable evidence.
Can we honestly conclude that because we're so complex, the only answer is that we are intelligently designed? Can we not concede that we simply don't know our origins and leave the question open until we have more knowledge?
I was being completely honest about the questions. Tell me exactly how you measure complexity. Common sense is not enough. I need quantifiable qualities and measurements.
I do think your assumption would be correct about most atheists. I believe in evolution because it's the most sound scientific theory on our origins. Now, let me ask you something else: is there any reasonable evidence that would make you believe in evolution?
Now, if a theory, any theory, wants to be taken seriously in science, the scientific method has to have been followed:
1. Observe: "Life is really complex and organized."
Observe a phenomenon.
2. Hypothesize: "There's a greater intelligent being who designed life."
Formulate a hypothesis. Usually this is a causal mechanism (e.g. "If I do X then Y will happen.)
3. Test: "???"
This is where you hypothesis is put to the test through experimentation and repetition. Keep in mind that a hypothesis which cannot be test because it has no observable ramifications does not qualify as scientific hypothesis. For example, if I say that an undetectable turtle is holding up the Earth. If it's undetectable, the turle has no effect, it's untestable, and, therefore, not a scientific hypothesis. Again, common sense is not scientific evidence. You need tangible, falsifiable, and quantifiable proof.
4. Analyze result: "???"
If your experiments were positive, then you've confirmed your hypothesis. If not, then you need to reevaluate it. If positive, you can now formulate a theory (i.e. model) that can be used to predict further findings and results.
5. Debate:
Have your work analyzed and almost literally be torn apart by your scientific peers as they review your findings, repeat your experiments, and confirm you results.
I think it is obvious you have not been in a scientific 'community.' If you had, you would find almost all members have a faith, and practice their faith. I believe the percent would be even higher than in the general population. If you want to find atheists, agnostics, or people hostile to Christianity the better place would be in a State University's departments of philosophy or religion. Most scientists recognize that the creation is marvelous, and marvelously complex. It is just that the arguments by "creationists" who now have called themselves "intelligent design" advocates (they do not adhere to the original ideas of ID) put God in such a small box that many of us have trouble discussing our concept of a truly omniscient God. Your arguments for disorder are completely misplaced, entropy only works in a closed system. Our earth is an open system, for example sunlight enters every day, and therefore the idea of entropy and disorder do not apply.
If you do not allow that evolution is a reality, you surely have to ask yourself what process can have led to the observable phenomena. Darwin found that finches on one island had much heavier beaks than finches on a neighbouring island, and he also found that the seeds they fed off on the latter island could not have been eaten by the small-beaked finches. The obvious answer was that the finches with slightly heavier beaks would survive and thrive, whereas the rest would not. That is what evolution is - the slow development of a species as an adaptation to changing circumstances. It seems to me to be such a clear and demonstrable explanation that any other seems superfluous.
Exactly Doctor Bob. In fact according to a Gallup poll in May 2006, when asked about evolution Americans responded the following way:
46% believe that God created man in present form
36% believe that man developed with God guiding
13% believe that man developed but God had no part in the process
5% had opinion
So, the great majority of believers in evolution are in fact religious people. In fact, Microbiologist Doctor Ken Miller who testified agaisnt intelligent design in Kitzmiller versus Dover is a Catholic.
Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I am an atheist but not because of evolution. Although I would venture to say that probably most atheists believe in evolution.
Dr Bob
I am not sure if you read carefully my essay or comments. I know many educated people - some PHD’s that believe in God and intelligent design. As for the principles of entropy I did not use the word in my essay. My appeal is to common sense (Common by definition - common to all - not the subjective thing Sandwich is talking about)
A few scientist that believed in God: Einstein:
On the subject of Einstein and God Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." 2 I do not believe these references to God can be dismissed simply as a façon de parler, for God had a deep, if rather elusive, significance for Einstein which was not unimportant for his life and scientific activity. It indicated a deep-seated way of life and thought: "God" was not a theological mode of thought but rather the expression of a "lived faith" (eines gelebten Glaubens). http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_
Newton:
Like many of the founding figures of early modern science, Newton (1642-1727) was also a religious man. In addition to his pathbreaking work in mathematics, astronomy, and physics, he wrote copiously about theology and the Bible, including a 300,000-word treatise on the Book of Revelation. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/faith-matters/2007/6/1 A few others:
Georgias Agricola (1494-1555) Founder of metallurgy Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Discoverer of the Laws of Planetary Motion Johannes Baptistavan Helmont (1579-1644) Founder of Pneumatic Chemistry and Chemical Physiology Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618-1663) Discoverer of the Diffraction of Light Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Mathematical Prodigy and Universal Genius Robert Boyle (1627-1691) Founder of Modem Chemistry John Ray (1627-1705) Cataloger of British Flora and Fauna Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) Newton's Teacher
Sandwich
It is remarkable that you would admit you are an atheist. Since you are appealing to science and the scientific method can you tell me how you arrived at this position? Isn’t your position a position of faith (in reverse)? This is not part of the discussion but I‘m surprised you would take such a position. One observation I have made about human nature is that people will assume a position first for whatever reason and try to justify it afterward. I think your argument for evolution is really a smoke screen to justify your untenable faith in a Godless universe. I don’t want to be personal here but I think you’re at best inconsistent in what you are saying.
I believe in God but I would never say that I could prove it scientifically. The scientific method is dependant upon things that are measurable. There are places that science cannot go. Do you realize there would be no scientific method apart from an orderly universe? Why do we expect order at all? I think we just accept that this is the way it is but why should we expect it?
Why do I believe in God? To use an analogy, I cannot see the wind but I can see the effect of the wind. Leaves move - I can hear a sound of the wind. In effect I believe by inference. Because in my world, Sandwich, things do not happen on their own. I have to organize my world or nothing gets done- things do not repair themselves - ask my wife. Things do not organize themselves or produce themselves. This is the world I live in. I’m thinking that I want to live where you live since it is not that way for you. I’m thinking that you don’t have to go to work because it gets done on its own.
It's totally unacceptable to think this way:God OR science.The religion that is in opposition to scientific facts is not a right one.But is there a right one?I think EVERY religion has a "grain"of truth,but you shouldn 't take old writings literally. Though yes, I also think that there have been several religions that got closer to Truth(God) than Jewish/ Christian ones.Have you seen my Hub about THE Absurd Debate About Religion And Evolution?It's about this very problem
I've heard the "faith in atheism" argument numerous times and unfortunately it just doesn't make sense. First off, that argument is an argument of semantics. So, if we're going to argue semantics, we have to have some definitions. Here's how I use the words:
Faith: Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not demonstrable through experimentation or reason.
Belief: Content held as true through cognitive reasoning.
If we cannot agree to what the words mean, then we can stop the discussion, right now as it will go nowhere. If you agree with the above definitions, we can proceed.
Now, when you say you're theist, you're saying the following: "I accept that God exists without need for demonstrable evidence." So, theism requires faith, as defined above.
Let me give you a little background on how and why I became atheist. When I first started doubting, I was 14. I simply saw the inconsistencies, in congruencies, and contradictions in the Bible. Now, I was really scared to question the Bible, at the beginning; I was afraid I'd be struck by lightning for being a heretic. Little by little, however, I saw how scientific and natural explanations explained differently a lot what was in the Bible and the evidence just piled up. Eventually, and against my own will, I had to accept that I was no longer sure God existed.
(By the way, I don't really need an explanation or sermon on how there isn't a single contradiction or inconsistency in the Bible. I've heard many interpretative arguments and since I don't believe the Bible is a divinely inspired book, arguments using it are little more than an academic exercise.)
With my faith diminished, I decided to try and renew it. For the next 6 years, I went to a Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, and Non-Denominational church. All of them treated stupendously, never pressured me, but always encouraged me to participate.
At almost 21 years of age, it was time to accept that I couldn't believe in God as presented by any of those churches or Christianity, in general. I became an agnostic.
After many years of more studies, reading, and discussions with friends who studied theology at the local Southern Methodist University, I had to accept that I was not an agnostic but an atheist. I no longer believed a god existed.
Why did I go from agnostic to out-and-out atheist? Because I reasoned that I cannot disprove the existence of God any more than I cannot disprove the existence of fairies. However, I don't believe fairies exist and I'm not agnostic when it comes to fairies, either. So, what logic could I possibly use to remain agnostic of God but not of fairies? None.
To say I am atheist merely says that I don't believe in God. It is a belief and doesn't require faith any more than NOT believing in fairies requires faith. I believe that the sun is about 149 million km from Earth because, while I haven't gone with a measuring tape myself, most of the scientific and empirical data supports that claim. I also believe that ketchup si the best condiment and that doesn't require faith either. While some beliefs require faith, faith is not the same as belief.
As far as scientific proof of God is concerned, anyone can claim that there's a giant undetectable turtle holding up the Earth. People can claim to "just know" it exists, to "have faith" in the turtle, or to be able to "feel its presence," and whatnot but without scientific proof, they're just words.
Basically your argument boils down to "I know something exists that I can't prove to you. If you don't believe in it, you're just the same as me and I know it exists because there are so many pretty things and I can't understand so many others."
The wind analogy is a rather simplistic one in that you can measure wind speed, you can see what wind is made of, and you can do repeatable and verifiable experiments using wind. But like you said, you must be living in a different world, because in this one, many things happen on their own: plate tectonics move, wind blows, tides change, planets orbit, quarks vibrate, suns burn, gravity pulls things, atoms bond, etc, etc, etc, etc. Again, common sense is subjective to experience and knowledge. For me it's common sense that declaring a variable outside of a function (in most cases) will make it a global one, but unless you have the programming knowledge, that might not make any sense to you. Trying to apply your knowledge to a field which you can barely understand using your common sense isn't the same proving or disproving something scientifically or even logically. You completely oversimplified the argument, started on a false premise, and, inevitably, ended with a false conclusion.
Whether one believes in evolution or not, the baseline question is this: who created the ability to evolve in the first place?
Hi Frica
Thanks for posting. I will read your hubpage. My hub though is not really about religion. It is about why I cannot believe evolution. In the nut shell - since I have to work at bringing order into my world, I believe someone had to bring order into the universe. This is my experience about my world and I am certain it is your experience as well.
I can't disagree Rob. If evolution IS, then it had to be a part of the design.
Frica
The issue is not science vs God. Science is wonderful- The uncovering of the secrets of the universe must be mans destiny. Like I said above the more we know the more convinced I am the universe had to created by a designer. Their would be no science apart from the order the the designer has created since science depends on the consistent properties of the world around us. If I weigh a pound of iron it will weigh the same tomorrow. Its metallic properties will be the same unless something has altered them. The spinning of the galaxies is similar to the spinning of atomic particles. There are 7 days in the week, 7 musical notes 7 colors in the rainbow. Does anyone seriously believe this is simply chance or coincidence? Try playing the lottery, like I said above, and see how often you win. The lotto is nothing in comparison to the complexity of the universe.
I love science and believe there is no conflict. There are just some places that science cannot go.
archturn,
I think your difficulty is the belief that order can only about through the application of intelligence, which could indeed be true, depending on your definition of "order". You may be guilty of a circular argument here, similar to that of my old Sunday School teacher whose proof of the existence of God was "you can't have a creation without a creator" - of course you can't, because you have assumed the answer in the question!
In your article, you expressed doubt that a big bang, defined as an instance of disorder could lead to order. However, astronomers see "mini-big bangs" happening all the time as stars explode with massive violence, and they also see the process of star formation happening as the force of gravity brings material together into new bodies. This is also how planets form, and how our own planet would have come together as the accretion of materials that were at some very distant time ejected in the explosion of a long-disappeared ancient star.
Gravity is therefore the force that creates order from chaos. If you cannot accept evolution as a process operating without any recourse to intelligent direction, do you say the same about gravity? Is God necessary for gravity (and the other fundamental forces of physics) to work?
I am assuming you won't respond to my points on my last post, then, archturn.
Sandwiches
Been working. Your post was longer so I responded to the shorter posts first at lunch time. I'm just getting home for the day and want to take my time and read your post. Thanks
Oh OK. I was feeling left out =P
Sandwiches
I am sympathetic to your background. I think religion has killed the faith of many a young person. Though you may not say that is what happened to you. Most denominational religions do more to hide the truth than to bring a real genuine knowledge of God. There is a disconnect between what people say they believe and the way they live. We tell on ourselves by our actions. On the other side of the issue, you may have heard about the atheist that thought his plane was going to crash and cried out to God - the point being sometimes our emergencies bring forth a belief we denied all our life.
According to the dictionary belief and faith are synonymous but I understand the distinction you mean.
The sad think about not having a faith in the Almighty is that there is no purpose in life except what you invent. All rules are only arbitrary. No real reason to follow a moral code or a societal one either unless you just don’t want to go to jail. If you want o kill or rape just don’t get caught right? Of course, no one would want to believe in God just to trick themselves into having a purpose. Just a sad state to be in I think.
When you said you were atheist I wanted to hold you to the same scientific standard you are putting on me. You say there is no God then prove it. I don’t hold myself to a scientific standard because it is not provable just as surely as a Godless universe is unprovable. I am satisfied with my interpretation of the way things work and the impossibility of a coincidental or by-chance explanation for what I see around me.
You said, “you must be living in a different world, because in this one, many things happen on their own: plate tectonics move, wind blows, tides change, planets orbit, quarks vibrate, suns burn, gravity pulls things, atoms bond, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Of course things happen on their own. They just don’t organize on their own - not in my world or yours.
You said I am starting with a false premise and have ended up with a false conclusion. Can’t I say that since you are an atheist you have started with the premise that since there is no God the universe and life must have all happened by chance?
Hi Indexer
Thanks for you interest. I am using the word order but a better word I think would be “organize.” I am aware that mini big bangs in outer space can be observed but one thing that has never been observed is life coming forth in the midst of one. My brief mention above was to separate evolution from origins. I know they are different. My observation is that explosions cause disorder not order. We can make this observation virtually every night on the evening news. Certainly an explosion changes things structurally and chemically but to expect an organized living cell to be a product of such an explosion is tantamount to believing in the fairies Sandwiches has written about.
I think your question about the laws of nature is an interesting one. You may recall that the founding fathers apparently believed that God was the God of nature and thus the God of the laws of nature. Do you recognize these words?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
It seems absolutely reasonable to me that if God is the Designer then He is also the One who upholds the Laws of nature.
While I guess it is possible that I could ask God for help, in an emergency, I have been in a situation where I felt like I knew I was about to die. I had no doubt about it; I was certain I would die. Moment before the accident was about to occur, all I thought was, “Well, this is it.” Obviously, I didn’t die from that accident and in fact avoided it at the very last second, somehow but in that particular accident, I didn’t change my mind, at the last minute. Again, not that it couldn’t happen in some other accident but I think it’s unlikely.
Well, I never quite understood why it’s sad to have your own purpose in life. Is it because it needs to be told to you by someone else or it needs to be written somewhere for it to have any validity?
Regarding morality is that rules are already arbitrary. Humans don’t need to be skeptics to be arbitrary in their morals and ethics. People even use the Bible to justify just about every action conceivable. Of course, you might say “Well, then they’re really following the teachings of Jesus and they’re twisting the Bible to their own ends.” EVERYONE twists the Bible to their own ends and EVERYONE thinks they have the right interpretation of what the Bible is trying to say. I guarantee you that, a generation or two from now, less than 1% of Christians will believe that homosexuality is bad just like many other things that used to be advocated in the name of the Bible and Christ are now considered ridiculous. Again, you might say “Well those people didn’t have the right interpretation of God’s word.” They knew they did, just like you know you do. What does this all mean? It means we make up our own ethics and morals regardless of what the Bible says depending on cultural, social, and even scientific pressures and we’ll reinterpret the Bible or any other holy book or story to back up those beliefs.
Humanism offers a much more logical and stable set of morals than that of the Bible. I think most humanists and atheists go by ethic reciprocity: “Treat others as you would like to be treated.”
You might say “That’s the Golden Rule from the Bible.” Well, the Bible also has something similar, yes, but this philosophy has been around at least since around 600 years before Christ and probably much much longer. Buddhism, Jainism, and Confucianism, to name a few philosophies that have endorsed ethic reciprocity.
At any rate, the fact remains that this is a much stable and fair moral philosophy in that people use logic to arrive to it instead of just saying “Well, it says that such and such is wrong in this book.” Don’t even get me started on what the Bible says it’s wrong to do.
One thing few people understand is that even evolution favors those creatures that cooperate and are altruistic even outside of their own species. For a more detailed explanation, look for the video on altruism by Richard Dawkins on youtube or get his book "The selfish gene."
I guess if you can’t find your own purpose in life, it is a little sad. However, I – like most atheists – have a purpose in my life and, in fact, I have several. Again, I don’t need a book or preacher to tell me what my purpose should be.
It is illogical to prove the non-existence of something. Because to be able to do that, you have to be omniscient which is, in and of itself, illogical. It’s fine to be satisfied with you believe so long as you understand that those beliefs are not scientific and they do NOT replace scientific theories and explanations. When it comes to existence of anything, the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim as, like I told you, it is illogical and impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.
Again, two things you’re forgetting:
1) Organization is subjective. What you consider disorganized might be organized to someone else. Sometimes, we perceive things as chaotic, if we don’t understand them. In reality, one could say there are only degrees of chaos and only degrees of order.
2) Again, there are examples of things that most reasonable people would consider spontaneous organization. The stratification of matter into layers, crystal formations, stars, planets, fire, protons from quarks, nuclei from protons and neutrons, atoms from nuclei and electrons, molecules from atoms, gravity causes planets to form planetary systems, etc.
Again, that would be an incorrect premise and lead you to an incorrect conclusion. I didn’t start with knowledge that there was no God. In fact, it was the very opposite. I started with the premise that I KNEW that God existed. The more I learned, the less necessary a god seemed. Here’s why I reasoned that God is unnecessary using Occam’s Razor:
Let’s imagine you see a glass of water on your kitchen table. You don’t know who put it there. So, who will you think put it there? You’ll think that probably your wife, children, a relative, or roommate put it there. Now, why didn’t you think “Wow, a person from Argentina dressed in blue must have come all the way here to place this glass of water on my kitchen table?” Why didn’t you think that? Because you made the explanation unnecessarily complex when the simpler explanation is simply more reasonable, logical, and likely to be right. You could even test to see if your family members put the glass there by asking. Of course, you could claim that the Argentinean in blue did put the glass of water on your table. However, no reasonable person would think it’s logical to assume that without some proof.
It’s the same with God. We know through observation and experimentation that other stars are billions or trillions of light-years away. That means that for us to be able to see them, billions of years must have passed. However, some religious people will have you believe that God put the light of those stars and galaxies closer to us so that we could see them when we invented telescopes.
See? We have a simple, logical, reasonable, and testable explanation about the age of the universe and someone came in and added an extra layer of complexity where none was needed by introducing God.
Sandwiches
I think I will only respond to the water analogy you give. In your analogy, it is entirely reasonable to say that a family member put it there. To be consistent with most everything you have said to this point, however, you would have to say that the glass of water put itself on the table.
Here's exactly how I see the universe question:
1) Observation: There is a universe.
2) Question: How is there a universe?
3) Possible answers (not exhaustive):
a) It created itself out of nothing
b) It has always existed
c) A powerful being created it
The simplest answers are 'a' and 'b.' With 'c' being we're left with the question we started:
What created that being?
a) It created itself out of nothing
b) It has always existed
c) A powerful being created it
If God created himself, why couldn't the universe have created itself and if it's possible for something to have always existed, why couldn't the universe have always existed? Usualy the answer given by religious people boils down to the following: "It's illogical to think that something came out of nothing or has always existed, except for God." That statement is logically contradictory, of course, except to religious folk.
Also, if God created the universe, someone else could claim that another being created God. But when you start complicating things unecessarily, if you stop at one extra layer or five, it's a matter of opinion.
In the end, you could simply answer, "I don't know," but arbitrarily adding an extra layer of complexity where simpler explanations suffice is not logically sound.
Indexer
I wanted to respond to an earlier post you made regarding Darwin’s Finches. If I recall correctly it was noted that the beaks of the Finches in the Galapagos islands adapted to enable them in dry seasons to break the hardened seeds to keep them alive in a season where the foliage was sparse. What you may not understand is that the DNA was already present in the finch to make the adaptation. That is, the information was already present in the cells of the finch. My question to you is where did the information come from? Did you know that the DNA in our cells has lots of information that is not used? This is similar to the argument above about the ordering of crystals. Everything is present within the solution to form crystals. Similarly everything was present in the finches to make the adaptation.
There is no question that the strong survive and that the stronger species propagates. This is easy to observe. Weaker animals will die off and stronger one will survive and prosper. This is not the issue. The issue is: Where did the survivor come from in the first place? Survival of the fittest comes in to play after the stronger of the species is already in play. Survival of the fittest does not explain ARRIVAL of the fittest.
Sandwhiches
I stated something to the effect above that we often make a decision about what we believe and then try to justify our decision intellectually though that is not how we arrived there in the first place.
I think too that once we are “invested” in our decision some of us will defend it to an extraordinary degree. Since you referenced the bible, I am mindful of the story Jesus tells about Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man being in agony in hell wanted Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers about the agonies of hell. Abraham said “even if someone rises from the dead they will not believe.” There’s just no convincing some people if they are invested in their belief system.
I hoped you would debate my point and not just quote the Bible.
Hi Sandwiches
Don’t you see that there is no debate when everything is subjective from your standpoint? You are saying it is really subjective whether we say a human is more complex and ordered than a dog (or I guess an amoeba). How can I debate your point when ANYTHING GOES from your perspective? I’m reminded of Bill Clinton’s response to the judge regarding the Monica Lewinski issue. Do you remember what he said? “It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.” His convoluted meanderings were incongruent with any common sense meaning at all. And so in his desire to justify himself, he had to reason against all COMMON sense.
Ho do you debate such a response? This is where your world view takes you. The wisest answer will never convince you that you could remotely be wrong. You could question your very existence if it suited your argument. It’s sort of like building a house on shifting sand. You just can’t do it.
I mentioned above somewhere that an atheistic worldview will logically produce a purposeless life with arbitrary morals and ethics. I was reminded by a friend yesterday that one of the Columbine shooters wore a T-shirt with the words “Natural Selection” on it. The shooter in Finland had a T- shirt saying “Humanity is Overrated.” There actions were logical results of their worldview. If we’re nothing more than animals after all then why not. When you are ready to checkout of this life why not take a few with you and get even with those who caused you pain. What difference does it matter anyway.
I've made dozens of points and you're telling me you can't debate any of them because of the meaning of complexity?
Like I said earlier, if you want to argue semantics, then simply define "complex". That's all. We'll start from there.
If you don't want to debate semantics, then simply respond to my dozens of other points I've made. If not, I'll assume you don't have a response for them.
I agree that if humanity is simply a product of naturalistic evolution with no purpose or design than it's tough to arrive at any meaningful ethic to live one's life by.
Sandwiches
Do you have a dog?
To answer a couple of questions raised by Archturn. You assume that the words of the "founding fathers" have a certain significance for me, although, as I am British, they did not form part of my education. As I understand it, their thinking was strongly influenced by the philosophies prevalent at their time, namely the age of rationalism that gave rise to the French Revolution and Utilitarianism. I'm not saying that they were wrong in their judgements, merely that they need to re-assessed in the light of more recent thinking and scientific knowledge, and not taken as being necessarily correct. The same applies to any statements made in the distant past.
On the question of the formation of life, the complex chemical compounds that are believed to be the precursors of life are indeed created in cosmic events such as supernovae. It takes enormous energy to fuse elements together into the components of DNA, and only today I read that the Hubble telescope has detected some of these components in the atmosphere of a planet in another solar system. Given the vast number of stars and galaxies, and the tiny amouint of progress we have made in discovering their planets, it would be far more surprising if life was not present on a proportion of these than if it was. The very forces that you consider to be destructive are the very opposite - they are where life comes from.
On the question of the finches, it did of course take Darwin some time to move from his concept of "the survival of the fittest" to formulating his theory of evolution. That concept was eventually seen as the mechanism that drove evolution. I am aware that DNA is immensely complicated and that there are many elements in it that are redundant in any individual. You also have to remember that each individual will have DNA that is different from that of its parents, and that this will give rise to features that differentiate an individual from its parents. Sometimes those features will be useful in terms of survival, and the survivors will carry those features forward to succeeding generations. I don't see any problem here with where the features come from. You also have to bear in mind that evolution has made many false turns in the course of the history of life, and that many branches have come to nothing because the necessary mutations in DNA did not occur that enabled individuals to survive in changed circumstances. Of course, Darwin did not have the benefit of knowledge about DNA when formulating his theory. Had he been so armed, i am sure that he would have developed the theory much more quickly.
Jared
Consder John's Haught's words in "Why the New Atheism isn't Serious"
In this respect the new atheism is very much like the old secular humanism that was rebuked by the hard-core atheists for its mousiness in facing up to what the absence of God should really mean. If you're going to be an atheist, the most rugged version of godlessness demands complete consistency. Go all the way and think the business of atheism through to the bitter end. This means that before you get too comfortable witht he godless world you long for, you will be required by the logic of any consistent skepticism to pass through the disorienting wilderness of nihilism. Do you have the courage to do that? You will have to adopt the tragic heroism of a Sisyphus, or realize that true freedom in the absence of God means that you are the creator of the values you live by. Don't you realize that this will be an intolerable burden from which most people will seek an escape? Are you ready to allow simple logic to lead you to the real truth about the death of God? Before settling into a truly atheistic worldview you will have to experience the Nietzschean madman's sensation of straying through “infinite nothingness.” You will be required to summon up an unprecedented degree of courage if you plan to wipe away the whole horizon of transcendance. Are you willing to risk madness? If not, then you are not really an atheist.
Hi Indexer
Re: the founding fathers of our country: The strength of the American civilization is a testament to their wisdom. And our decline is indicative of our moving away from that foundation. But that is another topic for another day.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it takes enormous energy to fuse elements together into components of DNA." From what I understand about the DNA, it is a complex molecule that stores the information that assembles amino acids and proteins that form living cells. The information in the DNA molecule is used in the reproduction cycle of the cell.
Consider that a word is a meaningful assembly of letters, a sentence is a meaningful assembly of words, and novel is a meaningful assembly of sentences. What do you think the odds are of finding a novel that has written itself. Don't you think that this is utter nonsense? Of course it is. On a scale of complexity a DNA molecule is like the novel. It contains highly organized information needed in the replication of the cell.
Do you understand that "Natural Selection" or "survival of the fittest" is a retroactive process. As I said above somewhere, the issue is not survival of the fittest but the ARRIVAL OF THE FITTEST. Natural selection cannot explain the beginning of the first living cell. It cannot explain how the first cell replicated itself? And it cannot explain the ever increasing organization of one cell into a group of cells or living organism.
I don't have a dog, now. Although I had some hot dogs, last night. Funny you'd ask.
Archturn, I think you are suffering from the "God of the gaps" way of thinking. There were many gaps in knowledge that our distant ancestors explained by recourse to the deeds of the gods, but as science provided more of the answers, divine activity was no longer needed to explain them. For me, the theory of evolution is quite sufficient to explain how life has reached its current stage, although i agree that we do not have all the answers yet. That does not mean that we need God to supply the missing bits that we do not yet understand, as I am sure that science will supply those answers in time. Incidentally, it is perfectly feasible for a computer to be programmed to sort words into meaningful sentences and chapters. DNA is a "computer program" that sorts the elements of life into living creatures. So no, I don't think that it is utter nonsense at all!
Indexer
You prove my point. You said, "it is perfectly feasible for a computer to be programmed to sort words into meaningful sentences and chapters." Yes the computer can do this and more. An INTELLEGENT MIND programed the computer and, in fact, engineered and built the computer! This is the point I've been making all along. The computer can not do this by itself.
Sandwiches
I thought maybe you'd like to bring your dog into the debate.
My roommates dog was definately not intelligently designed!!! He is as dumb as a brick!
Appreciate your comments Jared and your sentiments as well.
Evolution is a fact. To put it as nice as I can, you do not understand it because you do not know the facts, properly understand what you do know, and you are not a scientist. I am glad you got that right at least.
Your "Walk in the wilderness" was a cute story; however, William Paley beat you to it in his book "Natural Theology" written 50 years before Charles Darwin published "The Origin of Species." In Paley's argument, he compares finding a watch on a beach to the complexity of life and the idea of a divine creator. Scientists study this idea all the time. That is exactly the point of evolution; things did not just suddenly appear. It is a gradual process that, starting at the most simple organism that we as humans can not see with a naked eye, developed over time. These tiny organisms with just a ring of DNA and a few other organelles began to develop chloroplast and utilize photosynthesis. In time mitochondria would appear, oral grooves developed, and they began consuming small particles. What is guiding LIFE to "find a way"? Natural Selection, the foundation of Darwin's theory of evolution. Populations evolve to increase their fitness, or their ability to survive. An allele that is more likely to survive will be passed on and gradually these populations will "evolve" to gain this genetic characteristic. Its common sense. If I am a green bug living in green grass I am more likely to survive than a yellow bug of the same species. I am therefore more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on my genes. Populations will gradual evolve to all green over time in theory. This is all basic genetics and the idea behind natural selection. It is not a "force" directing these organisms to change, it is statistically more likely that they will. Evolution is not perfect, does not always work for the best, is not always perfect, but it happens.
If you were a scientist you would have taken biology classes and maybe even and animal diversity lab. The big bang did not create us, but it was the beginning. It is proven, through easy to replicate experiments, that chemicals in the atmosphere, such as carbon hydrogen and oxygen, could combine with electricity to form amino acids. Amino acids are the first step to DNA, genetics, and life. If you look at all the organisms you could make a path from a single celled prokaryote all the way to us. It is easy to see the evolutions path from simple celled organisms all the way to complex eukaryotes. From gills to lungs, fins to arms, you can find a species that fits almost every niche. I hope some of this information helps you, most of it can be found in any advanced biology book. I also recommend reading "The Blind Watch Maker" or "The Selfish Gene." Also by studying Mendelian genetics you can see how these genes can be passed on and why it is the organisms that are better suited for its environment can pass on these genes. There is a variety of ways, including mutations, crossing over of genetic information, and other various ways that these new "ways of life" could develop and be passed on.
There is no question, no debate. Challenge my information, its all there and its all facts.
TB (Can I refer to you as TB)
Another member of the Church of Darwin.
Do you also believe that magicians really pull rabbits out of hats? (Oh I know – “given enough time”). No I’m sorry, that’s not right - what you are really saying is that there is no magician (intelligence). The rabbit has pulled himself out of the hat. What you and your parishioners believe is magic.
What you will never demonstrate with your “facts” is that
1. Something came from nothing and
2. That “something” organized itself into a vast array of complex self propagating organisms.
I’m sorry; I just don’t have that kind of faith.
Think about something for a moment: If you could assemble the best scientists and engineers in the world, do you realize they could not make a living being. (If they could, wouldn’t it be reverse engineered anyway?) What all of that brain power CANNOT do, you are telling me, in “fact”, happened by chance all by itself - “given enough time.” Your religion is on thin ice. The more we discover - the thinner the ice.
You may have missed my comment above. The issue is not survival of the fittest but the ARRIVAL of the fittest. Survival of the fittest presumes there is a FIT ONE. It is a retroactive process. Oh I know, given enough time the rabbit will pull himself out of the hat.
I refuse to recite your creed - neither will I bow down to your god!
First of all, you may not call me TB.
Second, I don’t have a god, that’s the point. It is not a religion, it is science. It is obvious that I can not, nor will any one else, convince you to remotely accept the idea of evolution if you are not willing to try.
There are very few people who, at any respectable institution, would argue the idea that evolution does not exist. There is ABSOLUTLY no question that evolution happens and is taking place still today. We can clearly see through the study of genetics, historical records, and the example seen on the Galapagos Islands that evolution is real. You can not tell me that a creature that, by random chance, develops a characteristic that helps it to better survive will not pass these traits on and gradually change. We know that genes are passed on through DNA, made of amino acids. These double helixes are split apart by DNA polymerase and copied during DNA replication. This process is fairly failsafe; however, mistake and mutations in the amino acids do take place. In the millions and billions of organisms that have lived on this world, the ones with mutations that just happen to help out, pass on these genes. This is just one of many examples regarding the process that leads to evolution. You must understand that it is a complicated process. You would need 8 years of school and a PhD to be able to be able to understand all the fine details.
Next you need to forget that we are trying to “arrive” somewhere. Evolution is not a directional process, any biologist will tell you this. There is no force telling the frog it should turn green, it does because that’s how it survives! Your comment about “a fit one” is ridiculously and ignorant. Webster defines fitness as “the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms.” There will always be an organism more fit than the next, it’s the reason one survives and one doesn’t. If one is faster because it is a little bigger, it will out run the predator and pass on these genes while its slower friend gets eaten. If an organism is not fit, this could mean it is going extinct. This happens all the time, and evolution will sometime travel down this path. If I eat a certain type or plant and external forces kill this plant or I can not get to it, I die and maybe all of my species does too. Secondly, If one isn't more fit, it still survives and reproduces. Something happened that it was able to pass on its genes and the other was not. Don't forget, individuals do not evolve, populations do.
I do not claim that magic does anything. If anything, the idea of a divine creator commanding “let there be light” involves a lot more magic than I do. As I said before, we can make amino acids from simple elements. We can see how it is feasibly possible for life to begin. Where did these elements come from? Maybe a meteorite? Where did that meteorite come from? That’s pretty complicated question that at this point, I don’t think either one of us has an answer that is perfect. But you are right; man can’t create a living being from nothing. So how can anything else? God is more powerful, we aren’t capable of understanding? Don’t take the easy way out. Explain to me how life began. Where did these elements come from? How did god create life? I have yet to see an explanation on how our divine creator put together amino acids and where they came from. You are right sir, it is too complicated. That’s exactly why it is the result of a 4.6 billion year process that gradually put these pieces together little by little, not 7 days of magic. I challenge you to present me with factual, proven, data that I can physically see that shows the intelligent life created us. Wait, life created us? How did that happen? If you can show me the comprehensive parts of the beginning of life and how we suddenly, magically appeared I will no longer argue with you.
Again, there are many theories and proven expirements that expain how these atoms could come together and create something and how these something could come together into something else. There is no way I could ever explain to you in detail how things happen. But then again, I have yet to see you propose a better solution.
Something came from nothing? Then where the hell did it come from. And if something did come from something, where did this something come from. And if all this something didn't come together through science, how the heck did it? You can continue to question me, but there is no way you will understand without taking a biology course, You say you don't need to be a scientist to understand, but I believe that is where you are at fault. Its complex and it takes more than an afternoon of internet searching to understand. Magicians don’t pull rabbits out of hats; it’s a trick, an illusion. The magician has no magic at all. You propose that someone or something created us, from what, how? I propose a very sensible process that has pages and pages of factual data to back it up, with a start and…well its still happening my friend. If you refuse to accept my idea of how life started, you should as least try and accept evolution. Even if you disregard the first few billion years, there is no question that life changes, grows, evolves, and survives. I dare you to question the educated, as in post-high school, public at large and they will agree that evolution is a real process.
The Biologist
Sorry I referenced you as TB earlier. When you referred to the “facts” of evolution I didn’t think you were serious about your ID.
You’re obviously very passionate about what you are saying which implicitly proves my point regarding the church of Darwin. What does passion have to do with science? It has a lot to do with religion, however. (Please refer to “tinted” glasses above).
My whole essay was an appeal to common sense - the common sense that you and I live by every day. I don’t know what you do for a living but even if you make bb’s in a bb factory surely you would agree they would not make themselves on their own. Is this not common sense? And Secondly, you could wait for one year or two or a hundred or ten thousand or 50 billion years and not one single bb would make itself. Surely you will agree that this is true? Living organisms are infinitely more complex. Yet you still insist on telling me that there is a self creating, self directing, self organizing process that just does this “given enough time”- HOOEY!!!! This is not where you live nor is it where I live. Your life contradicts the very thing you are saying. If you disagree, go to work one day and do nothing to see how much gets done – and then wait a few years to see if anything changes “given enough time”. This is comparable to saying that given enough time rocks would fly and defy gravity.
As for preexisting elements: It seems apparent by your comments that you acknowledge something HAS preexisted for all time (if you want to call it time). What seems more reasonable to you? (Obviously science cannot go here) - That matter has always existed or that a living God has always existed?
As for your appeal to a consensus of scientist that believe in evolution, I say that there was a consensus as well in the days of Copernicus and Newton and that they were dead wrong.
Mr. Archturn: I live in Donaldsonville, Louisiana. All people with intelligence and design know that we are a cut above. As such, I will enlighten this page:
* successive cellular placement, even in the "simpler" parts of the human body, such as the vascular system (with bevelled construction, branches, rejoining at capillaries, consisting of about 500 million cells) is impossible (don't even go into the texted DNA means of construction, and don't even think about going into reproduction, and for sure don't go into the nervous system, and the brain, wow! <well, SOME brains, anyway>). It aint gonna happen by random cellular upcomance, assisted by selective breeding, not in a trillion generations.
* dreams: duh, don't it tell us that there is "somebody" "out there".
OK, Mr. Archie Turner. I TOLD you we were smarter here in Donaldsonville.
Mr Archie Turner:
For the record, the above post concerns basic probabilities. Each successive cellular placement (use common sense, as you suggest) has a probability (charitably), of occurring randomly, about 1 in 10 AT UTTER BEST.
For 500,000,000 cells to align correctly would be 10 to the 500millionth power.
Impossible.
Now, an utter evolutionist (versus a reasoned evolutionist) would argue that selective breeding would influence the outcome. But you STILL have to have the linear inheritance strain having appropriate cellular placement.
An utter evolutionist (versus one with reason) would also say, possibly, that the chain of the the vascular system was repetitive. But that aint so, as a) the system is bevelled and b) there are the millions of branches and c) the downward bevelled arteries are EACH joined in the upwardly bevelled veins.
And, as I said in the first post, the vascular system is relatively simple in the human body.
We also have the ever-changing defense system, where the immunological changes of antibodies takes place with newfangled genetic changes to MATCH the ever-changing attacks by viruses and the like.
And as far as reproduction DNA et al, my hunch is that they are only at the tip of the iceberg.
Biological organisms, the inward frontier, seem, in their tininess, to be a bigger frontier than outer space.
Mpaul
It took me a while to figure out the identity of Mr. Archie Turner. It is me!
I appreciate your comments though I have to confess that I don't know anything about it. I do know that living organisms are incredibly complex and I also know that spontaneous generation should be enough to make a (barely) thinking person laugh out of his chair. That this nonsense is taught in higher education is nothing short of remarkable. I am confident that eventually the foundations of evolution will crack, the thin ice will break and the priests and prophets of the church of Darwin will be shown to be fools.
"say that there was a consensus as well in the days of Copernicus and Newton and that they were dead wrong." Are you attempting to say that Newton and the laws of physics are wrong? Have you ever gone to school?Spontanious Generation? What is all this nonsense? No one believes in spontanious Generation! Any general biology class (The study of Life) will tell you organisms do not spontaniously generate. Maybe 200+ years ago, but that obviously has been disprooven.Biologists don't make BB's. Any dumbass off the street could tell you that nothing would happen if you just sat there with your head up your ass waiting for something to happen. Outside influences are what caused the beginning of life, a sort of catylist if you will. You don't understand the process, you don't know what evolution is, that is why you can not accept it. It is a very complicated process, it has reasons and they are prooven. Your argument about rocks is stupid and makes me believe that you are too.And who ever talks about cellular placement and alignment clearly does not understand the development of an organism. Cells don't suddenly come together in a mass, they start as one and slowly, through mitosis, spilt and cleve into many. Its a complicated process that I could never explain it here, nor do i think you would understand.I'm sorry I can not convince you to understand the process. If you go out and by a college biology text book, many of your arguments could be disprooven. Please don't go out in public and say evolution is not real because rocks can't fly if you give them time. Newton is wrong? Please get help.
The Biologist
No need to get angry here. You fail to see the point I am making because of your own predisposition. My point is very simple.
The issues you bring into the argument are irrelevant.
1. Time is irrelevant
2. Consensus is irrelevant
3. Complexity is irrelevant
You will never be able to demonstrate with your “facts”
1. That something came from nothing and
2. That something self organized, self propagated.
You deny these two common sense principles by the way you live and so do I. I produce specialized wood turnings for a living. It takes designing, planning, organization, and other skills (many of which I‘m not very good). In short, it takes intelligence. Whatever you do takes intelligence as well. This is the world we live in. Nothing organizes by itself - NEVER. The computers you and I are using, the internet, and the software are all products of intelligent engineering and scientific discoveries.
TIME - does not change this simple fact. It’s not more likely “given enough time”. Hence my gravity analogy – the laws that Newton discovered transcend time and so does the two simple principles that I have outlined above. Time will not change the fact that 1.Something will never come from nothing
2. That Something will self organize, self propagate, etc.
Again this is like believing in magic.
COMPLEXITY - makes what you say MORE UNlikely not more likely. If I were to build a model airplane that would be one thing. If I were to build a Boeing 747 that would be altogether different. What you are saying is that “nature” has built an airplane (or bird) I submit more complex than a 747 – not just one bird but multiplied species, sizes, colors, habitats, abilities. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! I don’t need 8 years of education to understand the principles involved here. I will agree with you that to understand cell structure on the level you say would of course take a long time for me. It is precisely this complexity of life that makes your augment laughable.
CONSENSUS - It seems hard to imagine on the surface that so many “experts” could be wrong. I would first submit to you that.
1. Not all “reputable” scientists believe what you say.
2. I would also submit that “group think” is a very powerful social phenomenon.
3. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the scientific method but scientists have to worry about mortgages, tenure and other social forces that prevent them from marching to the beat of a different drummer.
If you’re thinking that we are too “enlightened” now days to make such an enormous mistake, I beg to differ.
4. Scientists, like all of us, have predispositions. It is what we were taught, hence my allusions to religious systems. Many have naturalistic predispositions. (I.e. since there was no intelligent designer how could this have happened on its own) They begin their search with a godless beginning. This assumption, however, leads to some ridiculous conclusions – namely that something DID come from nothing AND that this something self organized, etc.
The Biologist
BTW, I have to completely agree with your statement above: "Outside influences are what caused the beginning of life." The only meaningful possibility is that an Intelligent Designer caused it. Otherwise, what you are trying to sell me and yourself is indeed spontaneous generation!
So, the earth is flat? Its at the center of the universe? Gravity is not real? The idea of evolution not exisiting will soon be amoung these famous questions; however, if you believe Newton was wrong I can understand why you can't believe in evolution.Regardless of your beliefs, all of this something still had to come somewhere. Even with Intelligent Design, this Designer had to get this material somewhere. Did it just magically appear? The wood that you work with, you must get it from somewhere. There will always be the idea of something coming from nothing. This does not justify Intelligent Design.I can understand why you think that comparing a jumbo jet to life makes sense... you can't compare life to material objects. Obviously a plane can not build itself, but then again it is not alive.Let me explain what I believe, and what many many otheres do, in fact a am willing to say the majority of scientist. There are obviously many many details missing regarding the beginning of life. No one knows, clearly we would not be have this discussion if we did. But just listen with an open mind to what I have to say. There is a theory tought in most biology classes know as the primordial soup. Imagin billions of years ago, there was no life on earth; however, the atmospher was full of oxygen carbon hydrogen, ect... There is an experiement that proves ( the Miller and Urey experiment 1953) that an electric spark in this "soup" would produce via chem. reaction organic compounds including amino acids. Heating mixtures of amino acids is shown to produce polymers (long strands) of amino acids. This suggests the creationg of RNA (like DNA but a single strand) RNA nucleotides associate with amino acids, in other words, a polymer would produce another polymer. Under the right conditions, these polymers can form stable cell-sized droplets in water, seen in the Oparin example. These drops have been seen to take up materials, grow and bud off new droplets. Now the first cells would have been a "soup" of organic compounds and obtained their nutrients through them. Selective pressurs would have resulted in the development of synthetic pathways. Cells are seen to ingest "stuff" like the introduction of mitochondria by prokaryotes. Now obviously ingesting a prokayote doesn't mean it is now there forever. But it is likely that some of the DNA would get mixed up, and little by little it would become part of the organisms over many generations. This is just the start of the single cell organism. Soon selective pressers would effect what cells survived and died, and the lucky ones may have adapted just enough to survive. Soon there would be multicellular organisms. Organisms would slowly addat from prokaryotes, to organisms like amebas, to hydra, to jelly fish, skip a few to star fish, to veterbrates, to sharks, to amphibia, to reptiles, to birds, and to mammals. Even in the development of a baby you can see how one cell become two, three. Its the same process that took place for 4.5 billions years.Please excuse any typing mistakes.
I really don’t think you’re reading my posts. Come on now - I’m putting careful thought into this and you’re just reacting and not reading what I am saying. Newton wrong?
Something coming from nothing is, of course, preposterous. Spontaneous generation is, of course, preposterous. I wrote in a previous post that SOMETHING (I think you agree) has preexisted - either matter and energy OR an Intelligent Being. Which seems more reasonable to you? If you say matter and energy then you still have to overcome the impossibility of matter and energy creating itself, directing itself and self organizing into a living cell and over the countless ions of time evolving into complex self propagating organisms. Does this seem reasonable to you given your life experience? In the end you are, indeed, arguing FOR spontaneous generation!!!
I make the assumption that there was and is a preexisting Intelligent Being. And that matter energy and the laws of nature come from Him. This in NOT the “easy way out.” This is the most REASONABLE explanation of how we got here.
Your example of what possibly happened in the beginning is an example of what I said in my last post. You have a “naturalistic” predisposition. You are presupposing that there are only the laws of nature, material and energy. There is no intelligence. Given your assumption, you have to figure out how we got to where we are now.
1. You cannot account for where these came from (i.e. matter, energy, laws of nature)
2. You have to rely on CHANCE, matter, energy and the laws of nature to react in a specific way in a specific point in time to get the outcome you describe in the beginning.
3. Then you have to rely on CHANCE to account for this one organism (cell) to become MORE ORDERED over eons of time.
You’re right that a living organism is different than a machine. Living organisms are more complex. They are highly ordered (organized). Our cells have been compared to miniature factories. The respiration process and reproduction process is more complicated than most man made machines. A living organism (bird) is more complex that a machine (airplane). Again, this complexity does not make evolution more likely but LESS likely. Nothing self organizes!! Never!!!
At the end of the day, my friend, you are the one who believes the world is flat.
Your reasoning is circular. You are attempting to fill in the puzzle pieces and the pieces will NEVER fit. It does not help to be more emphatic. Nor does it help to explain it in more detail. It does not help to tell me how many people believe it. Evolution is a fundamental impossibility!!!
Personally, I am quite happy to accept that something can come from nothing. I am also happy to accept that the Big Bang created time, space and energy. It makes no sense to talk of what existed before the Big Bang, because, without time, there can be no "before".
I think that your difficulty is that you have limits to your imagination, and you cannot conceive of a situation in which there is absolutely nothing. There are plenty of cosmologists who can, so which of you is right?
Indexer
Then you also believe that magicians pull rabbits out of hats (less the magician, of course).
I do believe in the laws on nature, energy, and physics. They are "Laws." I believe these are the driving forces that maintain life itself; without them, life could not exist. Although, I do not believe something can exists when there is nothing. It is not reasonable to say intellegent life was there to create life itself. Then again, what is an atom? It is little more than a few protons and neutrons with electrons flying around it. An election is not really a piece of matter, its really just a wavefunction. The buildingblock of...everything... is really not much of anything.
I agree with the indexer, it is beyond the capacity of the human mind to imagine a situation before life, before anything. We can not and do not have the ability to understand what "before something" was or is.I have also yet to hear you present a better theory besides that statement "intellegent life." It is beyond me to be able to grasp a theory of something that we can not see nor proove suddenly created a organism that we as human beings can not equally do. In my mind, it is more logical for these things to come together because thats the way it worked out. If it didn't work, they would not have stuck. It wasn't just pure chance, it happened because it works. I will say though, it was chance, but an inevitable chance at that. You do not need to tell be again that its too complicated to happen. I clearly understand your argument, yet I still believe it is possible. I don't know any way else it could have. Something else sure didn't build us and the billions of other organisms on this giant earth, then also the millions of other planets in the universe, and then the universe! WOW, that is really hard to imagine. That just doesn't make any sense. Now I know you are going to tell me that the rabbit can't do it itself or at all. But I promise you, if i put a rabbit in a hat, it would jump out.Again, I just can't comprehend intellegence without life, and life had to have a beginning. Thse intellegence that created us had to come from somewhere. Help me understand how that happened.
I think I’ll respond to you closing remarks regarding "inevitable chance". It reminds me of a video I watched a year or so back. Part of it was an interview with a scientist named Dean Kenyon. He and a partner were convinced that they had the scientific answer to how life began. Their text book Chemical Predestination was a best seller for 20 years. But five years after having published the book, he had serious doubts about his own theory.
His own words:
“It is an enormous problem in how you could get together in one tiny submicroscopic volume of the primitive ocean, all the hundreds of different molecular components you need in order for self replicating cycle to be established...and so my doubts about whether amino acids could order themselves into meaningful biological sequences of their own without pre-existing genetic material being present just reached for me the intellectual breaking point near the end of the decade of the 70s”
And so in the end he abandoned his own theory and has come to be an intelligent design advocate. This, my friend, is a “reputable” scientist in the thick of it disputing the “facts” of evolution.
You would do well to read some of his writings. It is as I said - the more we know, the more implausible evolution appears to be.
I would be glad to read something meaningful with an open mind if i could understand your view; however, i do not believe I will ever agree. I stress that you should consider thae same.
Come on, "I don't believe I will ever agree." is not exactly open minded. I'm actually considering buying Dawkins book on Atheism though I have to confess I'm not really open minded either. It's remarkable to me than intelligent people can arrive at such a conclusion. Someone has said that not all evolutionist are atheistic but evolution is atheistic at its core.
You are right, I know of many people who believe in the process of evolution but also think it began with a divine creator. I myself do not rule out this option. As I said a while ago, evolution is a real thing, moreover, natural selection is a real thing. We can watch it happen everyday. When I say we will never agree, I mean that you are confident in your believes as am I. I know I have repeated myself many time, but its a complicated process, involving not only behavior, but genetics and the core of bioloby itself. I don't know how much biology and genetics lessons you have had, but when you understand it at a general college level, it seems to make alot of sense. High school biology is a little more general though, and I do not think someone can gain a full understanding of the system untill they look a little farther into it.
I' ve said it before that if you are right and there there is no God and evolution is true and that we are really no different than animals than all morals and any presumed purpose in life is completely arbitrary. There was nothing wrong with what happened at Columbine High School or the VA tech shootings. There was nothing wrong with what the nazis did to the Jewish people. If you are right and there is no God then what's the matter with killing and raping, just don't get caught. After all isn't the only cause in life Survival of the Fittest. You can't say there is not God and then borrow the morals of Christainity and other religions of the world. If I kill my neighbor it means I was smarter or a better shot than him right? Just think about the implications of what you are saying.
That is insanity. There is no connection between evolution and the horrible events you brought up. I am appauled that you would even consider such a thing. First of all, you have yet to understand that evolution does exist even with a god. It happens, there is no disputing it. I don't understand why you wont accept that. An organism that is better suited will survive. That the way it works. We can physically see it happen. Also I am willing to say that we really are not alot different than animals. Yes we are more intelligent, but we are nearly identical in all other ways. "Animals" have complex social structures, care for their young, and and physiologically the same. BUT there is absolutly no connection and no accepting what the Nazis did. Yes I have morals, but that does not mean god gave them to me. People 100 years ago did not have the same morals and values we do today, you could say they...evolved. You could look at the example of war. If I am stronger and a better shot than the guy on the other side, I will kill him and survive, then go hame and pass on my genes. I think that is a poor example, but and example at that. What is the purpose of life? Just because life tends to select for the better fit, doesn't mean I should throw everything out the window.
You said, "An organism that is better suited will survive. That the way it works." This is the law of evolution. There is no morals in a material universe without God. Morality is an arbitrary invention - I would argue that atheists disdain the religion of Judaism and Christianity and turn around and borrow their moral system.
You just can't have it both ways.
You surely have not thought atheistic evolution through - neither on the front end(how life began or where matter, energy and the laws of nature came from)or in terms of its (evolution) ramifications.
You said, "What is the purpose of life?" - COME ON!!!! What kind of question is that? For you there is no purpose. You and I and everything and everyone else are strictly products of chance according to your world view. There is no purpose. Who would be giving us a purpose since there was no intelligent beginning. There is no purpose or reason to live really. Nothing outside ourselves. How can you even think about purpose? You are completely inconsistent.
And how can you talk about "throwing it all out the window." You don't have anything to throw out the window. You deny it with your world view.
Just because someone doesn't tell me what to do, doesn't mean I don't have a purpose, I gave myself a purpose, just like everyone else does. You make all your own decisions, you decide your fate. The morals that control my decisions were not borrowed by a religion, it was created by the culture and thousands of years and hundeds of generations. We today clearly do not hold the same morals and values of our past ancestors. Why can't you have evolution and morals? I refuse to believe that some one else must tell me what to do and what to believe before I can do it. There is no reason that someone needs to tell me how to live my life. The church was created to do exactly that; and though I think it was an excellent institution to control how the world thinks, I don't think it can explain to me how all this matter, energy, and laws came about. The church has had a huge effect on the morals of everyone, but a group of human beings put these commandments together. Yes, god gave them it, but I have only been told that. I could have created that story. Your theory of a devine creator supplies very little evidence for the creation of...everything. In the past weeks I attempted to explaint to you, in a VERY breif summary, how the everything could have come together. All you have done is denied my ideas, claimed they are too complicated, and said its not possible. I have yet to see an explanation how a devine creator, however you beieve its form may be, was able to do this same thing, out of nothing. I can't comprehend something creating everything from nothings. It is the laws of physics and, lets say, nature. These laws are laws because "thats the way they are." They became laws because thats the way we can understand them, but they are nearly forces that have formed because of the way our world has formed. Newton's laws exsist because of the way the earth form. Laws do not need a god to be so. Just because someone had to write the constitution doesn't mean someone had to write the laws of nature. This is just an idea we apply to these forces, forces that would exists whether we described them or not. Evolution exists because someone has to die and someone has to live. I have a liver because it so happened that some number of organisms begane to develop parts of a liver and it worked. So it stayed with us. My appendex is worthless, and over generations it is getting smaller. Whales have traces of hind legs, that didn't work and therefore did not stick.Could you explain to me how someone or something created all this stuff out of nothing, but science can't? I still can't grasp the idea that there, according to you, was a divine creator around to create everything when there was nothing. You and I may not be able to fully grasb this idea of the creation of life, it may be beyond are grasb. But it makes alot more sense to me that scientific forces were the deciding factor and the cards fell together accordingly.
The LAW you conveniently overlook is the law of probability!!!
Consider this statement from someone listeniing to a recording of a group of scientist considering the probability of evolution producing a single strand of DNA:
"This is the question that (52) leading evolutionary bioligists and mathematicians meeting at the Wistar institute in Philadelphia in the '80's set out to discover. The institute had a super computer that could handle the complex computations. . As the final result was read to the assembled participants; that the best odds of a DNA modecule coming into existence through evolutionary means is one in 10 to the 80th power; someone in the gathering yelled out " you mean special creation...". another speaker then shouted "...no...". then the whole audiance joined in shouting "no,,,,no...". [I actually heard the recording from that day broadcast on the radio.] It makes one question the term 'scientific objectivity'.... when researchers will not accept the results of their own work, apparently due to religious prejudice.
consider reading this interesting article similarly related: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?
You may interested in reading about the growing list (currently 700) of scientists from around the world who are NOT convinced the theory of evolution adequately explains life as we know it today. See, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" here: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
A list of scientists does very little for me. I find it hard to believe that this "list" is composed completly of credible individuals from the scientific community. Someone would not spend years in school to become an evolutionary biologist if they didn't believe in evolution. I am sure there are people out there who call themselve scientists and do not believe in evolution. But out of 6.5 billion people, 700 is not impressive. Also, I see on that website a list of physicians. Doctors are very intelligent people, but to get into med school doesn't take and enormous amount of biology. I also believe a recording from the 1980's is not practicle. We have advance far beyond what we knew in the 80's. And even with those odds it is possible. I don't view the beginning of life going towards a goal. You must not look backwards to see how we got here. But look at the beginning and see what happened for various reasons. Evolution is not working towards anything. Billions of years ago, it wasn't attempt to create "us" it was coming together in the particular way that worked well for its needs. The stats do not prove it is not possible. I still believe it is more likely for that to happen then something else to create life.
There are also many"scientists" who do not believe in global warming. Maybe you don't either, but there is no question in my mind. Sometimes you must wonder if people are willing to go against the common beliefe just to get attention.
Again, I ask you to present an alternative. You also only present information why it is complicated for life to begin. The goes without saying. But why can't eveolution happen after life was already created. Like I have said, evolution itself isn't just about the creation of life and does happen. Even with a creator to start it off, we could have evolved into what we are today.I would like to present you with the odds of a divine creator, oddly enough there is nothing to study. No physical evidence to collect, no traces of its orgin. No timeline to study. I could look at the 7 day theory, but that only gives me a couple paragraphs, and i'm not sure who i would cite as my source and how they would proove their evidence. "it just is" or "he told me so" isn't quiet a credible source.
My suspicions were right when I referred to you a member of the church of Darwin. You might even rank as a deacon. Thanks for your comments.
There's nothing unreasonable about self-organisation. In fact, there are many examples of this phenomenon, among which I'll focus on the formation of soap bubbles. I use this example first because contributors to this debate are apparently obliged to appeal to "common sense" and everyday experience, but more importantly because it's understood completely: there is no need for a "let there be light" moment; we understand exactly how simpler units, obeying simple rules, and subject to simple forces, give rise to an instance of symmetry and beauty. admitted, we can ask where the units came from, where the rules came from, where the forces came from -- and full answers may not be available -- but these questions do not have implications for self-organisation. these questions instead figure in the something-out-of-nothing debate, in which i'm not interested. godless or otherwise, the system in of itself is self-organising.
I suspect archturn's jump to the conclusion that self-organisation is unreasonable has to do with the fact that he is only satisfied with "common sense" arguments. the fact is that there is not much in anyone's day-to-day experience to inform a "common sense" argument because the vast majority of phenomena are not self-organising. and whatever examples are out there require a little effort on the observer's part. for example, i've already pointed out that there's a counterargument waiting at the bottom of his kitchen sink. i'd also note that there's a small self-organising miracle in the fact that millions of people have arranged themselves in such a way that one's ready behind the teller when you're shopping and another's happy to teach your children algebra -- all without any direction from "higher powers" of one form or another.
i know i'm not offering anything novel or innovative but it seems as though an unreasonable kind of mystique has attached itself to the notion of self-organisiation in this forum.
having done my best on the topic, i'll now submit that there's very strong evidence of self-organisation in some of the sciences, particularly in areas relating to the origin-of-life discussion. the folding of proteins is a good example, as well as the replication of dna. in both examples -- at least in simpler cases --- there isn't need for a deus ex machina, just as for soap bubbles; that is, we know enough about the underlying science to understand the conditions under which organisation will occur, the components in play, the forces acting on them, and the ways in which they respond. (my previous reference to "simpler cases" is of course a necessary qualification since there is more work to be done on these fronts.) as before it's fair to ask how necessary conditions evolved (pun unintended), why the forces and components exist and act as they do etc -- but i would argue that these are questions for the something-out-of-nothing debate. they fail to detract from evidence in favour of these natural self-organising systems.
this is the reason why i'm not satisfied with archturn's argument that everything life needs is "already" in the system. (for example, his emphasis on the fact that crystals form by virtue of the molecules in the solution and their behaviour subject to unchanging physical laws.) first of all, it can sometimes by demonstrated that the traits exhibited by fit organisms are the product of mutations which were not part of the initial system, rendering moot his point as to the arrival of the fittest. more importantly, to make much of the fact that the components "just happen to be in place" has no implication for my assertion that evolution is the process that brought these components together to make life.
i'm leary of clock-in-the-sand (or cabin-in-the-woods) arguments. no evidence exists suggesting that clocks or cabins have any self-organising potential, but we've got lots of experience with human beings building these things. so when you come across the clock in the sand, the assumption that it has an intelligent creator seems reasonable.
however, the analogy doesn't work for life. admitted the options are the same -- intelligent design or self-organisation -- but the evidence and logic on either side vary dramatically. for this reason i think it's unfair to suppose that advocates of evolution are obliged for the sake of "intellectual consistency" to agree that the cabin built itself. insisting on how complicated life is compared to the cabin doesn't alter the fact that we're now balancing very different arguments.
on the one hand, we have no evidence of god ever having built anything. on the other hand, i will admit that we don't yet have conclusive evidence. however, we have indisputable evidence about the way that species behave and reproduce, along with a logical model explaining how this behaviour could give rise to human life, even in all its complexity. we have a good literature -- though by no means a consensus -- in favour of this model, and, hopefully, we've learned a little humility from our previous experiences with other self-organising systems -- systems that are naturally occurring but difficult to spot, that do not frequently agree with "common sense", and often require deep thought in anticipating how simple components might interact to give rise to startling emergent effects.
hopefully i can continue these thoughts later on.
Let me answer your first paragraph by saying
1. The examples of “self organization” that you refer to are self ordering not self organization. No thinking person would call this evolution nor would an evolutionist call this the building blocks of evolution. The molecular structure inherent in a salt solution will cause it to crystallize for example. This is not self organization.
From http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
It is true that crystals and other regular configurations can be formed by unguided processes. And we are accustomed to saying that these configurations are "organized." But crystals have not been spontaneously "furnished with organs." The correct term for such regular configurations is "ordered." The recipe for a crystal is already present in the solution it grows from — the crystal lattice is prescribed by the structure of the molecules that compose it. The formation of crystals is the straightforward result of chemical and physical laws that do not evolve and that are, compared to genetic programs, very simple.The rule that things never organize themselves is also upheld in our everyday experience. Without someone to fix it, a broken glass never mends. Without maintenance, a house deteriorates. Without management, a business fails. Without new software, a computer never acquires new capabilities. Never.Charles Darwin understood this universal principle. It's common sense. That's why he once made a note to himself pertaining to evolution, "Never use the words higher or lower"
(However, the word "higher" in this forbidden sense appears half a dozen times in the first edition of Darwin's Origin of Species.
I heard a scientist talk about the glue secreted from clams yesterday. There are two glands in this particular clam that produce a two-part glue that works perfectly in water - something that engineers have had little success in. This glue enables the clam to adhere to rocks and other hard surfaces to keep them from the turbulence of the tides and currents. Examples of this sort of thing abound in nature. What is even more amazing, however, is that there are some that believe these “abilities” are a product of random chance, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. As I stated above I just don’t have that kind of faith.
2. Secondly, it’s interesting that you want to remove the “something out of nothing” issue out of the debate. This is like discovering the watch in the desert and saying, “I don’t care where it comes from. Let’s study its movements. Look how this thing works all by its self. It has certainly gotten here on its own. You have a presumption of no God and therefore have to figure out how something could order itself – a ridiculous notion.
In the end we are both arguing from faith. We both are stating something that neither of us can prove to the others satisfaction. My point is that my faith is more reasonable than yours. My life experiences tell me that something does not come from nothing. And that “something” does not organize itself.
I love the statement that you made above, ”i'd also note that there's a small self-organising miracle in the fact that millions of people have arranged themselves in such a way that one's ready behind the teller when you're shopping and another's happy to teach your children algebra.” I’m particularly intrigued by your use of the word “miracle”. But if even if the word “miracle” was a slip of the pen, you acknowledge the intelligence of the millions ORGANIZING themselves. You are implicitly acknowledging their “intelligence”. This is my point exactly – it takes intelligence to organize!!!
From above:
...It reminds me of a video I watched a year or so back. Part of it was an interview with a scientist named Dean Kenyon. He and a partner were convinced that they had the scientific answer to how life began. Their text book Biological Predestination was a best seller for 20 years. But five years after having published the book, he had serious doubts about his own theory.
His own words:“It is an enormous problem in how you could get together in one tiny submicroscopic volume of the primitive ocean, all the hundreds of different molecular components you need in order for self replicating cycle to be established...and so my doubts about whether amino acids could order themselves into meaningful biological sequences of their own without pre-existing genetic material being present just reached for me the intellectual breaking point near the end of the decade of the 70s”
And so in the end he abandoned his own theory and has come to be an intelligent design advocate. This is a “reputable” scientist in the thick of it disputing the “facts” of evolution. You would do well to read some of his writings. It is as I said - the more we know, the more implausible evolution is.
i want to begin by explaining my decision to distinguish between the debate on evolution and the something-out-of-nothing question, which i use as shorthand for the existence of god. it's an important distinction in that you can believe in god yet embrace evolution as your explanation for the way in which new species have come into existence.
as for the existence of god, i haven't the skill or the conviction to argue one way or another. however, i expect anyone who does believe in him to choose whether he is active or deistic -- either he is willing to emerge ex machina or he has laid down some fundamental rules and now lets the world govern itself.
archturn clearly comes down on the side of the active god. it's a strong argument if only by virtue of the fact that human knowledge is incomplete. there will always be gaps (or at least for the very long forseeable future), and thus room for let-there-be-light moments.
however, human knowledge is also growing. every so often, a gap closes and men of archturn's sympathies are forced to shift the let-there-be-light moment a little further down the line. there was no god on the mountain, nor spirits in the stream -- maybe among the stars? in the math? etc. this is the infinite retreat.
i think there are two lessons to be learned from this retreat. first of all, we may well never close all the gaps -- and thus we'll never be ble to dismiss the ex machina hypothesis categorically. however, secondly and more importantly, we haven't been given any way to predict which gaps will persist. this really matters since intelligent design is a very specific argument -- it's not about god's existence in general; it's about picking a very specific gap and standing by it. archturn believes very specifically that god actively intervenes in the process by which new species come into being.
suppose we had a complete narrative for this process. it's fully documented and wholly secular. we identify the components and the forces acting upon them, understand the responses these forces evoke and the interactions that follow etc. the case for intelligent design would fail, but we could still ask where the components come from, why the forces behave as they do etc. god's existence would still be an open question. there'd be room for him in other gaps. something-out-of-nothing would remain debatable.
of course, we don't have such a narrative. but let me point out some of the things we do know: (1) central dogma - our explanation as to how dna and proteins form is secular and nearly complete; likewise (2) meiosis -- that is, how inheritable traits pass between generations. Also, (3), we have full proof of small scale natural selection, if only in microbial populations placed on selective media etc.
this list is certainly not exhaustive, but it's enough for my purposes. together, they give us an empirical example of small scale evolution. from day one, starting a random sample of bacteria exposed to ultraviolet light, through to the point at which only adaptive mutants survive on the selective medium, the process is secular and can be documented completely.
i don't expect this example to move archturn, but i hope it will lead him to recognise how specific he has to be about his argument. you can't argue with central dogma -- you can't argue with meisos -- you can't argue with small scale natural selection -- and finally, you can't argue with my test tube example.
so what room is left? something about the way that the narrative scales up. archturn very specifically needs to give us a reason to embrace as more plausible the ex-machina hypothesis while rejecting the notion that a mechanism that's been proven on small scale somehow becomes invalid at larger scales.
this is why i take issue with the argument that evolution somehow requires greater faith from its adherents. as i mentioned earlier, we have no evidence of the ex-machina phenomenon, but a plausable model that's been proven on a small scale. furthermore, we do not want for any reason to suspect that the model should fail to scale up and in fact have good evidence to the contrary (eg, the fossil record). for these reasons, though the matter is certainly far from settled, the "burden of faith" falls harder on proponents of intelligent design.
admitted, archturn has offered a few examples that he hopes we will read as evidence against the model's scaling up. in general, each example emphasises how complicated life is, in contrast to an apparently impoverished model. the self-organising (or "self-ordering") examples from my previous post are intended as a counter-argument to this line of thought. each was meant to demonstrate that organisation (or order) can develop naturally in the absence of any commanding or controlling presence. millions of moving parts acting independently, without direction and in apparently simply ways give rise to an organised (or ordered) outcome in a way that no "common sense" observer would anticipate. in this sense, my case is more general than semantics on organisation vs order will suit. similarly, the retort that economic agents are themselves intelligent misses the point that they act independent of a central planner, leaving no room for the intelligent designer in this analogy.
the fact is that appeals to "common sense" are not evidence -- they're misleading. archturn has made much of his experience building things -- the sort of muscular day-to-day that left mankind convinced of aristotlean physics for centuries. simply put, sometimes you *do* have to be a scientist -- not literally, but rather in the sense that we shouldn't rest on our inductive laurels. we don't have enough experience with rare events to rely on induction alone in their connection. for example, a lifetime of tossing die might leave you convinced that a sequence of four million two's is categorically impossible -- whereas a little time spent "scientifically" examining the die and its behaviour would clearly suggest otherwise.
i will follow up with a few more points later on.
Others have referred to this gap in our knowledge. There certainly are many gaps. The assumption however is that where there are gaps in knowledge I and other “believers” tend to say “God did it” because in our ignorance or naiveté we have no other recourse. My argument has always been the MORE we know the more convinced I am that life is the product of an intelligent designer. The “filled gaps” point to God. Do you think that since the Darwinian Theory arrived on the scene that the evolutionist model is stronger or weaker. From what I have read there are more doubts in the scientific community now than there were 100 years ago. Have you noticed that what we learn about biological systems is always more complex and sophisticated than what we originally thought? I believe Darwin himself would have rejected his own theories had he known what we know today. He knew nothing of the complexities of the cell. He knew nothing of DNA. You have presumed that the more we fill in the knowledge gaps, the more humanity will see that life was and is the product of some random fluke of nature. I don’t buy it and neither should you.
Every time I read one of your sentences in response to mine I know that an intelligent being has written me. I have never seen your face but I KNOW you are there. I don’t know where you live but I KNOW you live somewhere. It doesn’t really take a whole lot of faith. I see God’s creation the same way. Everything around me exudes order, symmetry, incredible organization and beauty. I have to believe that if you can’t see it, it is because you have made a choice not to see it. It has nothing to do with your rational but only your choice. Many, I am convinced, do not like the moral implications of the existence of God and so choose to deny the possibility of His existence.
I stated above somewhere that there is often a disconnect in many religious people between what they say and what they really believe. What they really believe is played out in the way they live. This is why I refer to Darwinism as a religious system because its adherents display the same religious disconnect. Do you, for example, wait for your home to clean itself? Does your work (whatever it is you do) happen by itself. Yet you tell me this is indeed possible.
I have to confess, however, that you are at least intellectually consistent when you say that a die cast four million times could display a sequence of twos. I can safely say, though, that there is not a scientist or mathematician on the face of the planet that would agree with you on this but as I said I appreciate your consistency. In the end you have to acknowledge such things and probably do believe that magicians do indeed pull rabbits out of hats. This is what you are saying is possible but I’ll bet you would not stake your life on it. I suspect that you do not live your life as though such things were possible – hence the disconnect.
passitforward says:
2 years ago
sorry you believe everything tends toward chaos. but you are misinterpreting entropy. there are lots of examples of order coming from disorder. crystals, self striating mixtures, and many others.