AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

After reading the primer, I take issue with the seeming argument that seems to be made about the concept of 'created by chance.' The author seems ignorant concerning the fundamentals of chemistry and what the words 'chance' and 'spontaneity' mean in this context. - spontaneity refers to the fact that if the ambient conditions are right for a chemical reaction, it will happen spontaneously, any time the right components are present. In chemistry, this refers to a process that will happen on its own, without any interference. When you take into consideration that the controller of spontaneity is heat, it seems less and less like the notion of chance. In fact, most chemists would tell you that the reaction will be inevitable if these basic characteristics are met. - So, I think that the author needs to more clearly define what it is he is attacking when he refers to the atheist position being about "chance created everything" because I feel it is a very gross oversimplification of the position.

4160 views

Matt S: After reading the primer, I take issue with the seeming argument that seems to be made about the concept of 'created by chance'. The author seems ignorant concerning the fundamentals of chemistry and what the words 'chance' and 'spontaneity' mean in this context. - Thank you for drawing this distinction. I presume the context you are referring to is the origin of life. My focus is on the chemical combination that initially brought about replication and the potential for self-replicating molecules to vary (through chance mutations, collisions and environmental influences) and to reproduce their variations. This combination is of enormous complexity. You say: "Spontaneity refers to the fact that if the ambient conditions are right for a chemical reaction, it will happen spontaneously, any time the right components are present." This merely tells us that if the chemicals are properly combined for replication, there will be replication. The result of the combination may be "spontaneous" and "inevitable" ... like saying if a sperm fertilizes an egg the result will be offspring ... but the difficulty for me as an agnostic is to share the atheist's faith that the initial combination itself could have come about by chance. Unravelling the code of DNA required so much intelligence and scientific skill that Crick and Watson were awarded the Nobel Prize for doing it. And yet I am expected to believe that no intelligence or scientific skill was required to put that combination together in the first place. - You write: "I think that the author needs to more clearly define what it is he is attacking when he refers to the atheist position being about "chance creating everything" because I feel it is a very gross oversimplification of the position." You have put this in quotation marks, but I do not recall ever writing it (can you give me a reference, please). I thought I had made it clear that I accept most elements of the theory of evolution, and natural selection most certainly is not due to chance. I also accept that there are natural laws that come into operation if certain conditions are fulfilled. But, let me repeat, I am arguing against the atheist belief that chance could create the hugely complex combinations necessary to spark off life and drive the process of evolution, from which of course everything else has followed. However, I should also emphasize that it is no concern of mine what people believe. My only objection is to the kind of fundamentalism that causes some atheists like Dawkins to ridicule religious faith while not recognizing the part faith plays in their own interpretation of the universe. I find that every bit as repugnant and irrational as the arrogance of religious fundamentalism.

4121 views

My only objection is to the kind of fundamentalism that causes some atheists like Dawkins to ridicule religious faith while not recognizing the part faith plays in their own interpretation of the universe. I find that every bit as repugnant and irrational as the arrogance of religious fundamentalism. - Right on dhw!

4104 views

Mr. Turell,
I think that what you say probability-wise isn't true when you consider that in the primordial soup, for arguably a billion years several hundred trillion molecules were washing around, in ambient conditions suitable for biological reactions. - Think of it like a coin toss. What's the probability that 10 coin tosses on a single coin creates a sequence of ten heads? 1 in 2^10. - This is how it appears to me that you (and dhw) are reasoning. This reasoning is based on a flawed assumption: That a single event which has a rare probability of happening applies to the entire system under investigation. You assume only one attempt! - Let me ask you then, what is the probability of gaining that same sequence if you flip the coin 2^100 times? The probability of that is much higher, in fact its 100%. If you bought a lottery ticket for every possible combination of numbers you WOULD win. - And in the problem of abiogenesis, we have a finite number of elements with a nearly unlimited amount of time and energy... it's not chance, its inevitability. - Though abiogenesis is a more suitable problem for stochastic probability, discrete probability can provide a bit of insight (and is easier to understand.) The 'faith of the atheist' as stated here by dhw is strictly speaking--not faith, though atheists have their fair share of faith when the make certain claims (such as 'god does not exist.') - There are few things as damning as numerical evidence. We can't know for sure if a creator exists or not, but statistically speaking we can rule out the need for a supernatural origin to life itself, in the respect that it isn't necessary to invoke it to explain how we got here. There might be other explanations but the subjectivity involved does not lend itself to conversation. - Looking at the ratio of molecules to the amount of time on the clock (and I'm being conservative on the 1Bn year statement) it is fully plausible that we came about by chance, as you consider that every nanosecond in solution physical reconfiguration takes place, you would have an uncountable number of trials before you finally got a sequence that was life. So in my perspective, life is/was inevitable here on this earth. That we think we're special for it, is what strikes me as laughable, but that's outside the scope of discussion.

4213 views

Mr. Turell,
> I think that what you say probability-wise isn't true when you consider that in the primordial soup, for arguably a billion years several hundred trillion molecules were washing around, in ambient conditions suitable for biological reactions. 
 
> Looking at the ratio of molecules to the amount of time on the clock (and I'm being conservative on the 1Bn year statement) it is fully plausible that we came about by chance, - You've got some problems in your reasoning. First of all the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and for about 500 million years there was steady bombardment from meteorites and perhaps asteroids, keeping the Earth too hot for life. Life appeared without doubt 3.6 billion years ago and there is substantial evidence for 3.8 billion years ago. So there was only 2-400 million years for your primoridial soup to stir. Further I have not seen your explanation for inorganic to organic, which is not so easy as I have explained just recently. Also I have referred recently to Dr. Robert Shapiro, retired Prof. Emeritus in Biology from NYU, whose book, 'Origins: A Skeptic's Guide tothe Origin of Life on Earth", 1986, outlines all the probems in origin-of-life theories, and he is a devout Darwinian, who is sure one day the research will be successful. He also had a recent article in Scientific Am. in 2007 in which he discussed starting with an inorganic energy-producing cycle, which, in his expert opinion, is a more plausible first step than anything else so far proposed. You may play all the statistical games you wish, but that doesn't get around the chemical problems.

4100 views

Mr. Turell - You dismissed my statistical argument out of hand... I am not engaging in statistical chicanery. 500M years is no deterrent to my argument. Nor is 400M years. - What method did you use to derive your calculation in your previous post? And more importantly, what were its base assumptions? Shapiro certainly didn't provide this information in detail, so bringing him up is a red herring. - I'm not shifting this to an ad-hominem, but the claim here is that the beginning of life (and from dhm, the probability that certain organs arose by chance) is statistically improbable. I've studied probability theory, probably more than either of you. (As I don't know your credentials, I can't say that for certain.) - What makes something more improbable is its base assumptions. Time and time again, I've hit creationists who use an identical line of reasoning. - This is a site that deals with a mathematician answering questions dealing with evolution, but it applies here as the probabilistic perspective of scientists (and many atheists) is this: - http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/probability-one.html - It is long, but if anyone here wants a laymen introduction into what is actually some fairly complex probability, go right on ahead, learning is good!

4156 views

You dismissed my statistical argument out of hand... I am not engaging in statistical chicanery. - I know you are not. 
 
> What method did you use to derive your calculation in your previous post? - Just using a probability bound, for emphasis. - > Shapiro certainly didn't provide this information in detail, so bringing him up is a red herring. - Have you read Shapiro? If not, you need to. He is pure honest skeptic, and a confirmed Darwinist. - > I'm not shifting this to an ad-hominem, but the claim here is that the beginning of life (and from dhm, the probability that certain organs arose by chance) is statistically improbable. What makes something more improbable is its base assumptions. - Our base assumptions are different. I am arguing from the position of organic chemistry, not math. Apply your statistics to organic chemistry and I might learn to agree with you. Nitrogon, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen just don't hop into organic molecules, for instance the basis of life, amino acids. Please note that meteorite research has shown that only eight of the 20 essential amino acids have ever been found occurring naturally from the outer space of this solar system. How do we assume that all 20 appeared here on Earth by natural methods? 
 
> http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/probability-one.html - I've read stuff like this before. One must read all sides. I BELIEVE EVOLUTION occurred. What we are really discussing is HOW? - Since you have not had time to review all of our past discussions, and we are very happy to have you on board, let me introduce myself. I am a retired Internist/Cardiologist who was an agnostic after medical school. Following a careful study of partical physics and the standard model of the universe, I concluded there is a greater power behind it. Studying Darwin only convinced me further. And this from my backgound in medical biochemistry. If Darwin knew how complex the single cell is, he would not have developed his theory as he did, based totally on microevolution. - I'm looking forward to further discussion.

4145 views

a careful study of partical physics and the standard model of the universe, - I apologize for misspelling particle. I'm a terrible typist and did't edit properly.

4124 views

Mr. Turell - I'm taking your advice and grabbing a copy of Shapiro's book from the library. Could you repost the paper you were talking about? I just went through the links of our discussion here and for some reason can't find the post. Thank god I'm not in a paper bag too...

4180 views

Mr. Turell, - At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm going to give you another link that deals with the issue of claims that random evolutionary processes do not increase information. - Again, I recognize your non-dismissal of evolution but that line of argumentation is typically used by creationists so you'll have to ignore that part of the material. The important part is the literature references so that you're not just hearing it from me (who is not a biologist.) - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html - And just to play with the admin... - Matt S. is a fraud for sure! (Just testing to see if I can "Libel" myself...)

4149 views

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm going to give you another link that deals with the issue of claims that random evolutionary processes do not increase information.
 
> Again, I recognize your non-dismissal of evolution but that line of argumentation is typically used by creationists so you'll have to ignore that part of the material. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html - 
Matt: I haven't had time to offer you a full response describing my reasoning, and I apologize. I'll take the time when I can. What you are presenting in the link is microevolution with mutations changing information. I accept every bit of that.

4193 views

Matt: I haven't had time to offer you a full response describing my reasoning, and I apologize. I'll take the time when I can. What you are presenting in the link is microevolution with mutations changing information. I accept every bit of that. - Read the following link. It confirms Reznik's studies from over 20 years ago. - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090602133551.htm Both studies indicated that the DNA/RNA system can in time of danger from environmentdal change mediate rapid change in phenotype.

4187 views

Mr. Turell--I apologize in advance, my hope was to acknowledge your acceptance of evolution in my previous post... I kinda hate email for the reason that it's so easy to sound like a Jackass... I will try to watch myself on that. It's hard. Please continue to be forgiving! - I feel that raw numerical reasoning is safe here as a basic starting point, and ultimately my goal was (by starting this topic) to encourage the author to give a more formal treatment on the topic of chance, as you can tell by my *warning sensors* firing that I don't know what exactly he's basing his argument and characterization of the atheist position on. I realize that my argument isn't holistic, but I would like some assurance that the exploration of chance is given a more formal treatment so that future readers--some of which have as technical a bend as myself--don't feel that he's creating a kind of strawman. To me, even though I agree with quite a bit of his reasoning, his treatment of chance is so sparse that it seems to stack the deck against atheism... the arguments about chance are incredibly compelling once you learn the math behind it. And when you've been exposed to chaos theory, things begin to clarify further. - I'm close enough to being a mathematician that I cringe when someone brings up "chance" in a way that really appears frivolous. I've almost completed the author's treatise, and chance is simply not explored satisfactorily. It's more or less categorized as the "atheist position," and it... very strongly outlines it in a kind of 'magic' and rightly implies faith "that science will find a way..." but that is scientism, not atheism, and this is a separate topic from his main thesis. The only faith you can pin on a bona-fide atheist on is in a statement that 'god does not exist.' - I'm familiar with Shapiro's arguments concerning the energy cycles, but in general abiogenesis is not in the realm of my expertise. I've had a year each of organic and inorganic chemistry before I switched to computers and as you can expect, they don't cover new areas of research in college. - I know that this will sound like a cop-out, but I'm taking summer classes and although this discussion has inspired me to do the exact kind of formal investigation that you suggest... I just don't have the time. But I feel I've found a home here at this web, and I plan on staying awhile. There's plenty of more interesting topics I'd like to talk about, but I only wish to deal with one thing at a time, and at this point it is chance.

4109 views

Sorry, forgot this part. - I'm 29 and was one of those guys that switched majors 10 times before finding something that fit. Presently I'm an information systems major who will (luck permitting) begin graduate studies in computer science next year. Irony: It's what I wanted to do in high school but discounted myself as unable to learn math. - I came to agnosticism after studying Godel's incompleteness theorems, though I would still call myself an atheist by definition: I may claim that we can't know whether or not a creator exists, but I still don't believe in him--therefore I qualify as an atheist. - My personal views on the cosmos will seem very post-modern and nihilistic to most people. I don't think that there is anything intrinsically special about humanity or life--there's 10,000 other suns like our own in our galaxy by itself, and more galaxies than we can count. (New findings now suggest that earth-like planets may also exist around smaller, cooler stars.) I think that humanity's greatest achievement is in the creation of value. If anything is godlike it is man's ability to create meaning for things that never had such value before.

4224 views

I came to agnosticism after studying Godel's incompleteness theorems, though I would still call myself an atheist by definition: I may claim that we can't know whether or not a creator exists, but I still don't believe in him--therefore I qualify as an atheist. - The Intelligent Design theorists use Shannon Information Theory with DNA to strongly suggest there is a designer. I understand that Godel proved math can't prove everything, so I can see where your philosophic thinking came from. With your math background,can you comment on my statement about Shannon?

4141 views

Godel's incompleteness theorem didn't say that... it says that in an axiomatic system involving arithmetic on the natural numbers some propositions will exist that are not provable by using the axioms in the system. His incompleteness theorem is misused all the time by creationists and ID proponents, usually by asserting that evolution cannot be proven by its own assumption. - To show why the theorem doesn't apply to the natural sciences, just note 2 things, that natural science is based on the system of Real numbers (Not natural numbers) and that natural science attempts to build theories by evaluating data... where in mathematics you formulate an idea and try to prove a result, or you look at existing theorems and try to prove similarities or corollaries. The differences are vast! - A joke illustrates this best. An astronomer, physicist and mathematician were vacationing in Scotland, when suddenly the astronomer cried out "Look, in that field--a black sheep! All sheep in Scotland must be black!" - To which the physicist replied "No, statistically, only SOME can be black." The mathematician looked skyward for a moment and then replied, "In Scotland there exists a field, in the field exists a sheep--and at least one side of it is black! - As for the information-theoretic arguments, the most notable author is Dembski (a comment has been deleted here.). There's a website that has tracked his peer-reviewed literature since graduate school and the only two such papers he published were about blood-clotting mechanisms, then his books pertaining to ID and then just things defending ID. No science. No results, just philosophy. When shown that he solved an algebraic equation wrong, he (to date) has yet to fix the result (its still in print). (Comment deleted.) 
For his information-theoretic arguments he tried to unite two unrelated results of information theory, but the most damning issue is that he completely mis-stated one of the theoretic components. He states the Kolmogorov theorem as high complexity/information content, not low complexity/information content--completely invalidating his own result. - From time to time I've come across other claims based on information theory, but they all (to date) have made some egregious error (such as inferring causation from correlation). - The search for design is ill-placed in the realm of physical arguments. Science has a pretty damn good lock on studying physical phenomenon.

4098 views

Whoah... Behe's the biochem guy, not Dembski. Got them crossed. My fault. (A comment here has been deleted.) My critique of Dembski's argument stands however and you can make of that what you will in regards to his own academic honesty.

4117 views

Can you provide proofs of your statement?

4124 views

If you want refutations of Behe's arguments, talkorigins is probably the best place to start. It's run by scientists--people who actually do the research into evolution. - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html - Their refutations of Behe are incredibly thorough and they cite every source and theory to a fault, his arguments are defeated on his science alone. - Other bits of evidence is his typical response to someone challenging his hypothesis (ID is not a theory, refer to scientific method) is not on substantive grounds, but typically Behe launches into Ad Hominem. When a scientist's idea is challenged he either drops it or adapts it... not Behe... not at all. His argument is essentially unchanged over the course of nearly 20 years... - And as for Behe's scientific output:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Michael_Behe - Look at the section "What kind of scientist is Michael Behe." There's two excerpts from a paper published by another researcher comparing Behe's scientific output to those of a scientist universally considered as "top-notch." - If you still find Behe trustworthy and compelling... I'm pretty much done on that topic. We'd do better looking into another area.

4133 views

If you want refutations of Behe's arguments, talkorigins is probably the best place to start. It's run by scientists--people who actually do the research into evolution. 
 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html - Thanks for the reference. I've looked at Dorit's and Orr's reviews of Black Box. 
> Their refutations of Behe are incredibly thorough and they cite every source and theory to a fault, his arguments are defeated on his science alone. - They have refuted Behe in the same way Ernst Mayr refuted mathematicians (who were claiming Darwin theory did not work)at the Wistar Institute Symposium 1966 by saying: "We are comforted by knowing that evolution has occurred". Of course evolution has occurred, which many IDer's deny. I pick and choose from the ID playbook, what I think is appropriate. Dorit and Orr and Mayr are the same breed of cat. There are alternate evolutionary explanations to complex biochemistry and complex organs. Chance hunt-and-peck, step-by-step did not occur in the Cambrian Explosion. CE is saltation. Examples of exaptation (Gould) appear later in complex organisms, to explain jumps like CE.
 
> And as for Behe's scientific output:
> http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Michael_Behe - Have not looked at this just yet. Anything WIKI is often biased from individual input and therefore bias.
 
> Look at the section "What kind of scientist is Michael Behe." There's two excerpts from a paper published by another researcher comparing Behe's scientific output to those of a scientist universally considered as "top-notch." - I'm not noted as a 'top-notch' anything, but I can think and I'll match my IQ with anyone. This is spurious stuff. It doesn't help your point of view. Everyone has the right to interpret scientific results of other top-notch folks. Being top-notch doesn't mean they have the right conclusion. Read Thomas Kuhn. - Kenneth Miller's discussion of the human blood clotting cascade is filled with misstatements and errors, in my opinion. By the way, the feedback mechanism that stops clotting at the right moment for the type of injury has just been found. When I was in medical school there were ten clotting factors, now over 17+. All the feedback loops are still to be worked out.I'll find the reference I just mentioned and post it later.

4166 views

All the feedback loops are still to be worked out.I'll find the reference I just mentioned and post it later. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604144326.htm

4209 views

Mr. Turell,
Wow, coincidentally I was going to post that same link for you when I saw it this morning. - Could I bug you again for that link to the Shapiro paper you mentioned yesterday? I should be doing homework but its on a subject I have a hard time making myself study.

4136 views

Could I bug you again for that link to the Shapiro paper you mentioned yesterday? I should be doing homework but its on a subject I have a hard time making myself study. - It is in my June 4, 19:23 entry, chance and design thread, I think

4101 views

Mr. Turell,
You are correct to be careful on wikis, but the professor who had his work posted on his university website had to pull the page down due to too much traffic (and an excess of 400 emails a day.) I just found this out and am trying to see if he'll let me host it myself on my own web domain. The only place I could find it is on that wiki, as all the websites linked to Dr. Lampe's webpage. Alternatively you could start searching bio databases to see how often Behe's name comes up and how often his work is cited. - I've read Kuhn, his observations don't apply here. Kuhn's great criticism is in how a grand idea appears and then creates a new paradigm that is filled by research within the paradigm, after an intense (and USUALLY short fight--see Astronomy) His observations are quite correct as is evidenced by Crick and Watson, and Einstein. It doesn't work here though because Behe doesn't follow the rules of science. - Part of rating whether or not a scientist is good or not, is in both in the quantity and quality of peer-reviewed research. Behe isn't a good scientist because in 20 years he has never once tried to correct his 'scientific' research. (His output is in writing books in defense of ID, and hasn't written a peer-reviewed paper since Graduate School. When shown he solved an important equation wrong, he didn't fix it in subsequent printing of his books. He has done this time and time again. Real scientists don't allow errors like that to occur, they fix them. This suggests that his motives aren't scientific at all... - For example, Darwin published Origin of the Species, and received intense fight from both scientists and religious figures. In a similar 20 year period, the scientific debate had largely been settled. (Acceptance of a new paradigm.) In 20 years, no aspect of Behe's work is accepted nor cited in the biological sciences. That shouldn't happen if his science was sound--it's just not how the machine of science works. Scientists will fight for their pet theories, but wrong is wrong, and science is self-correcting. - Behe isn't a scientist he's a philosopher who is part of an organization whose goal is place protestant Evangelicalism into the government and school system. Google "wedge document" and the results should surprise you. When Behe testifies it is for this incredibly spurious organization, which he is a part of. ID is a kitchy creationism and nothing more. Borrowing from their playbook will earn you only the company of bad friends. Dembski is part of the same movement, I wasn't lying when I told you that his equation is flatly wrong, using the theorem correctly it asserts the exact opposite of what he was trying to say. Stick to Shapiro.

4141 views

I've read Kuhn, his observations don't apply here. Kuhn's great criticism is in how a grand idea appears and then creates a new paradigm that is filled by research within the paradigm, - Sorry I was implying the other aspect of Kuhn, overturning an existing paradigm. The fight to get rid of a paradigm. I saw that when I was practicing. The GI ulcer problem was thought to be excess gastic acid. The original work on Helicobacter pyelori took 15-20 years for the US GI community to accept. I tried it on hard-to-treat patients when it first appeared and it worked beautifully. Be skeptical of all you are taught and think for yourself, is my personal rule, and you appear to be doing that.

4122 views

Mr. Turell, - I take what you say as a compliment, though usually I prefer to be shown what I do wrong. (My personality type comes with a thick skin.) - I think we were describing the same "Kuhnian" process from different perspectives. In using the Darwin analogy I intended to demonstrate exactly that part of Kuhn's system you were talking about--how a model gets displaced. - In regards to the chance vs. design issue, part of my own problems in accepting design is due to a nuanced logical problem nested in the underlying philosophy of natural science. Of note is a particular assumption in regards to the supernatural, specifically "Supernatural phenomenon cannot be discerned from physical phenomenon." This assumption is accepted by the broadest range of scientists (as you are certainly aware most scientists are theistic on some level, contrary to Dawkins' assertion.) - I know of no scientist that will claim the method can be applied to supernatural phenomenon. Well, Dawkins. But my own critiques of Dawkins' arguments are because I feel he views certain non-binary questions as binary questions. - Would you agree at large that god appears to take no great interest in the day-to-day dealings with people here on earth? - I ask because I feel that the god of deism is best suited as the potential creator, in which case, abiogenesis is a physical problem and the only invocation of a god is in getting the ball rolling in the first place. (Big bang.) But how could you detect the deist God? - Am I also correct in that your leaning towards design is primarily due to your incredulity of our complexities? If I am, how is this reasoning different than the "God of the Gaps?" How can we detect the creator, if we accept a supernatural being? Pascal's torment lies in this area. God is either bound by logic or his ability to influence this world is constrained in some way. Have you investigated Process theology? - Oh, and thank you for your compliment on my general skepticism. I do sometimes let my mouth run ahead of my better judgment but I try to as self-correcting as possible. Thanks again for your patience!

4113 views

specifically "Supernatural phenomenon cannot be discerned from physical phenomenon." This assumption is accepted by the broadest range of scientists (as you are certainly aware most scientists are theistic on some level, contrary to Dawkins' assertion.) - Your second thought first: Surveys in the US find that 90+% of academic physical scientists (National Academy of Science) are atheist or agnostic;while in biologic sciences 40% are believers. I think this is because we work so closely with the amazing complexities of life, which partially answers your words below. I agree that the supernatural cannot be directly detected, but Mortimer J. Adler accepts 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt', and so do I.
 
 
> Would you agree at large that god appears to take no great interest in the day-to-day dealings with people here on earth? - Adler and I both agree with you. 
 
> I ask because I feel that the god of deism is best suited as the potential creator, in which case, abiogenesis is a physical problem and the only invocation of a god is in getting the ball rolling in the first place. (Big bang.) But how could you detect the deist God? - I don't buy deism, on the logical grounds that a supernatural intelligence in creating the universe must have some purpose other than creation and watching. I believe my intelligence is a small part of the universal intelligence, and thus 'we are made in the image of god'.
 
> Am I also correct in that your leaning towards design is primarily due to your incredulity of our complexities? - Yes, as above. - > If I am, how is this reasoning different than the "God of the Gaps?" How can we detect the creator, if we accept a supernatural being? - When the 'gaps' are closed by science we will have 'proof' as Adler above. My expectation is that we will find that RNA is the master control, not DNA, and that RNA has managed evolution since the beginning, that is, the increasing complexity in evolution is coded from the beginning. 
The DNA of an amoeba is longer than human DNA. There is little if any 'junk' DNA, most of it is turning out to be interference-RNA of various functions, currently about six different functions found so far. This my expectd 'proof' and covers all three forms of deism/theism. - > Have you investigated Process theology? - Yes, a little and I'm not impressed. I consider myself a panentheist, a bit more theist than Einstein or Spinoza. As a child my Mother told me there was a God, and I believed her. After medical school I was agnostic, despite the complexities, especially of human biochemistry. I bought into the idea of materialistc reductionism solving all problems. That is now an intellectual mirage in my view. - Studying the advancing cosmology and particle physics of the 20th Century, convinced me, a la' Paul Davies (I've followed his metamorphosis for years), that something was afoot behind the Big Bang. I don't believe string theory and multiverses are reasonable, more like mental masturbation as Smolin and Woit have described in their recent books. And I find John Leslie's conclusion that 'either there are multiverses and/or God' (rough quote) most convincing, since I don't buy multiverses, unproveable and anti-Occam, despite Andrei Linde and others. - My objections to Darwin, I'll cover at another time.

4176 views

Studying the advancing cosmology and particle physics of the 20th Century, convinced me, a la' Paul Davies (I've followed his metamorphosis for years), that something was afoot behind the Big Bang. I don't believe string theory and multiverses are reasonable, more like mental masturbation as Smolin and Woit have described in their recent books. And I find John Leslie's conclusion that 'either there are multiverses and/or God' (rough quote) most convincing, since I don't buy multiverses, unproveable and anti-Occam, despite Andrei Linde and others.-Paul Davies asks the darndest questions. He wants to know where the laws of the universe come from! He thinks scientists have too much faith in what they expect from their studies and their results. At the same time he rejects any supernatural source. He feels that the laws of the universe have a source that must be explained from within the universe, not multiverses.-http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?pagewanted=1

3782 views

Matt, I welcome your involvement in this forum, particularly your initial post on the issue of chance, but since then you seem to have been flailing about a bit from one topic to another. It would help plodding thinkers like me if you could stick to one thing at a time! - On Godel's theorem you wrote: - "To show why the theorem doesn't apply to the natural sciences, just note 2 things, that natural science is based on the system of Real numbers (Not natural numbers) ..." - I'm afraid this won't do. Real numbers include the natural numbers, and are in fact more complicated. There is just a countable infinity of natural numbers, but a higher infinity of reals. (ref: Cantor's theorem of the uncountability of the real numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_diagonal_argument) - In fact, although scientists ostensibly use real numbers, in fact they only really use approximate real numbers, since any measurement is only accurate to a certain number of decimal places. It is on this basis that you are right that Godel's theorem doesn't apply. - I'm puzzled why you raised it in the first place! - Edit: I inserted the link.

--
GPJ

4277 views

Mr. Jelliss, - I raised it in the (introductions) part of my thread and Turell repeated a bit about the theory that is abused by creationists. My discussion of it followed on that line. - As for the Godel's theorem, can you give me some more nuts and bolts to work on in there? Can I use mathematical notation to shorten this? - R = Real numbers (too broad to simply define)
Z = Integers {...-1,0,1,2,...}
N = Natural numbers {0,1,2,...}
a + or - indicates the subset of positive or negative numberrs. - I'm aware of the infinitude's and the general properties of R and N but Godel's theorem had little to do with that. - R of course does contain the set of N, but I don't see why my argument fails here... - I assume its the better ability for measurement that you ascribe to R? That is what I was thinking. Ah... I see my problem. - I said "Natural science is *based* on R." Not true. Natural science *uses* R. BIG difference. A drastic misstep of verbiage. - As to why I brought it up in regards to contributing to my agnosticism/atheism, it showed me in a concrete why that there are certain limits to mathematics, and for awhile I tried to think about physics as an axiomatic system... but I know better than that now.

4177 views

A new review of Godel's incompleteness theorem:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-incompleteness-theorems-work-20200714

"In 1931, the Austrian logician Kurt Gödel pulled off arguably one of the most stunning intellectual achievements in history.

"Mathematicians of the era sought a solid foundation for mathematics: a set of basic mathematical facts, or axioms, that was both consistent — never leading to contradictions — and complete, serving as the building blocks of all mathematical truths.

"But Gödel’s shocking incompleteness theorems, published when he was just 25, crushed that dream. He proved that any set of axioms you could posit as a possible foundation for math will inevitably be incomplete; there will always be true facts about numbers that cannot be proved by those axioms. He also showed that no candidate set of axioms can ever prove its own consistency.

"His incompleteness theorems meant there can be no mathematical theory of everything, no unification of what’s provable and what’s true. What mathematicians can prove depends on their starting assumptions, not on any fundamental ground truth from which all answers spring.

"In the 89 years since Gödel’s discovery, mathematicians have stumbled upon just the kinds of unanswerable questions his theorems foretold. For example, Gödel himself helped establish that the continuum hypothesis, which concerns the sizes of infinity, is undecidable, as is the halting problem, which asks whether a computer program fed with a random input will run forever or eventually halt. Undecidable questions have even arisen in physics, suggesting that Gödelian incompleteness afflicts not just math, but — in some ill-understood way — reality.

***

"Gödel’s main maneuver was to map statements about a system of axioms onto statements within the system — that is, onto statements about numbers. This mapping allows a system of axioms to talk cogently about itself.

"The first step in this process is to map any possible mathematical statement, or series of statements, to a unique number called a Gödel number.

[a long clear discussion of Godel's proof follows]

"However, although G is undecidable, it’s clearly true. G says, “The formula with Gödel number sub(n, n, 17) cannot be proved,” and that’s exactly what we’ve found to be the case! Since G is true yet undecidable within the axiomatic system used to construct it, that system is incomplete.

"You might think you could just posit some extra axiom, use it to prove G, and resolve the paradox. But you can’t. Gödel showed that the augmented axiomatic system will allow the construction of a new, true formula Gʹ (according to a similar blueprint as before) that can’t be proved within the new, augmented system. In striving for a complete mathematical system, you can never catch your own tail.

"We’ve learned that if a set of axioms is consistent, then it is incomplete. That’s Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem. The second — that no set of axioms can prove its own consistency — easily follows.

"What would it mean if a set of axioms could prove it will never yield a contradiction? It would mean that there exists a sequence of formulas built from these axioms that proves the formula that means, metamathematically, “This set of axioms is consistent.” By the first theorem, this set of axioms would then necessarily be incomplete.

"But “The set of axioms is incomplete” is the same as saying, “There is a true formula that cannot be proved.” This statement is equivalent to our formula G. And we know the axioms can’t prove G.

"So Gödel has created a proof by contradiction: If a set of axioms could prove its own consistency, then we would be able to prove G. But we can’t. Therefore, no set of axioms can prove its own consistency.

"Gödel’s proof killed the search for a consistent, complete mathematical system. The meaning of incompleteness “has not been fully fathomed,” Nagel and Newman wrote in 1958. It remains true today."

Comment: this applies to using math to absolutely prove any part of reality. It means we have to accept certain concepts about reality on faith.

627 views

dhw claims that he has not written anything about "chance creating everything". He may not have used that exact phrase but he has certainly implied it. The following are extracts from his text: - The bottom line, then, for the militant atheist is that anyone who doesn't believe in the ability of chance to create all these hitherto non-existent, hugely complex (even in their most primitive form) organisms ... which require all the dazzling talents of human consciousness merely to unravel and comprehend ... is deluded. - Whereas belief in the creative genius of unconscious chance is...ah! Well,
maybe not rational. - The codes have been cracked. But could chance have created the codes? - an agnostic who finds it difficult to believe in the miraculous creativity of chance - it's hard to believe that life came about by chance, - I find all these concepts as incredible as that of chance-created life - the unbelievable creative genius of pure chance (= atheism); - the atheists' god of chance. - atheism (belief in chance). - Scepticism over the creative powers of chance - I have repeatedly objected to this attitude of dhw myself. He thinks chance is the atheist equivalent of god. I have pointed out that even most theists do not deny the existence of chance in the workings of the universe. Even an agnostic surely cannot deny the mathematically established laws of statistics?

--
GPJ

4073 views

Even an agnostic surely cannot deny the mathematically established laws of statistics? - Neither can an atheist or anyone else deny the laws of statistical probability.

4086 views

Mr. George Jeliss, - I thank you for support on this issue, you saved me the time of having to grab those sections of dhw's text. I've spent quite a bit of time studying computers and math, and dhw's position (on chance) seems one based on misinformation. I have posted a reply to someone else on this topic that lays out my argument on why chance actually makes sense. Ultimately, because the starting conditions were right here on this planet, life was inevitable. - I've found that most people rail against the idea of chance from a position of naivete, as they lack knowledge of some of the inescapable and non-intuitive conclusions it brings to bear. - One of my simple favorites is the birthday scenario: - What is the probability that in a room of 30 people two people will have the same birth date? - P = .50 (50%)

4078 views

George: dhw claims that he has not written anything about "chance creating everything". He may not have used that exact phrase but he has certainly implied it. The following are extracts from his text: [numerous quotations from the "brief guide"]. - I'm impressed and touched, George, by the thoroughness with which you've studied my text. Let me say immediately that I stand by every single one of the quotes, and in the context of genesis and evolution I can even confirm your statement: "he thinks chance is the atheist equivalent of God", to which I'll return in a moment. Nor do I deny making repeated references to the creative role of chance. However, I do not like to be quoted as saying something I never said, especially since I regard it as an over-simplification of my views, just as Matt S. regards it as an over-simplification of atheist views. - I'm afraid it all comes back to your pet theory of abiogenesis. Since we both accept the general basis of Darwin's theory of evolution, and since for the purposes of this post I would prefer not to go into BBella's theory of intelligent matter ... which I liken to Pantheism ... we are faced with a choice: something brought into existence the first replicating molecules with their potential for an astonishing range of variations; theists call that something God, and atheists call it chance. Therefore in the context of genesis and evolution, chance is the atheist "equivalent of God", and as all your well-chosen quotes demonstrate, this requires a similar faith. - Once the codes have formed themselves by chance (atheism) or been formed by God (theism) or have somehow come into existence (agnosticism), evolution takes its course. This too is hugely influenced by chance in the form of collisions, environmental influences and mutations ... though I have doubts about the latter ... and as I have said repeatedly in the course of our discussions, I have no difficulty accepting this role of chance, just as I have no difficulty accepting its role in the events that make up our lives. I do have difficulty imagining that chance alone could produce new, hitherto non-existent organs, even in their most primitive form, but I can believe in refinements and improvements arising from natural selection. When the initial codes come into operation, the adaptations etc. may be triggered by chance but are not created by chance, since the mechanism is in place to react as necessary. I see no reason why this part of the process should not be acceptable to theists, atheists and agnostics alike, but the process ... and indeed the whole argument ... hinges on the complexity of the first replicating molecules. On 28 May in your response to David Turell under the James Le Fanu thread, you agreed that "certainly the mechanisms of the cell are mind-blowingly complicated, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have evolved...by natural processes." True, but "doesn't mean that they couldn't..." is no more scientific than "you can't prove there's no God." The atheistic belief that mind-blowingly complicated mechanisms can be formed by chance has no scientific backing and requires faith. I have never understood why you find this so difficult to acknowledge. - So let me replace the manufactured quote "chance creating everything" with a more accurate one, which summarizes all those in your list and which you are welcome to hold against me: "atheists have faith in the ability of chance to create the mind-blowingly complicated mechanism which led to replication and evolution". - However, I'm reluctant to end this post without establishing some kind of balance, so perhaps you will allow me to put one of your quotes in its full context: "it's hard to believe that life came about by chance" in fact reads: "But if it's hard to believe that life came about by chance, it's just as hard to swallow the explanations offered to us by religion and myth." - **** My thanks to Matt S. for his extremely interesting posts, which I have only just read. I shall need some time to digest them.

4124 views

dhw, - Let me try this in another way... - You are correct that biological reactions are complex, but before life began, things weren't quite so complex. Chaos theory is devoted to the study of complex interactions that result from very simple starting events. - I think in this area we have vastly different perspectives, but more to do with mathematical maturity... I'm trained in both computer science and chemistry which has left me with a great deal of mathematical training in the area of statistics. You need to define very clearly--what it is that you think is the atheist position on 'chance.' - Because life only needs 4 elements to come into being, and we can say with certainty that not just our own planet--but other planets and suns also have these elements in massive abundance. If I may be so bold, your perspective is such that, on this earth, the chances that a string of one-time events that leads to humans is preposterous. From the perspective of a chain of single events--absolutely. But it wasn't a string of one-time events. It was a string of billions upon billions of events that failed before hitting upon the one successful thing that allowed it to move to the next part of the chain. - This is why from a chemical perspective, life was inevitable. - The four elements needed for life are Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen. We can demonstrate that all of these elements were in abundance on earth just by looking at our crust. - Think about that... out of all the elements we know of, only 4 are needed for life. That's incredibly simple, in the grand scheme of things. - - Unravelling the code of DNA required so much intelligence and scientific skill that Crick and Watson were awarded the Nobel Prize for doing it. And yet I am expected to believe that no intelligence or scientific skill was required to put that combination together in the first place. - 
Have you ever heard of "The game of life?" - http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/standalone/ - This algorithm was devised in the early 70's as a game, and is used often as a representation that incredibly complex reproducible and beautiful structures can--and do--happen completely by chance, with a very simple set of starting conditions. It is an entrypoint into the mathematical study of chaos and dynamic systems. It won't answer the designer question, but it can show you that when simple conditions are met, amazing things can happen purely by chance. Does it preclude a creator? Absolutely not. But it should inform you a bit more as to why people like Dawkins feel the way they do. I will guess you haven't trained as a scientist... so that's kinda what I'm trying to do for you. If you understand the perspective, it won't seem so alien to you. - 
As for my objection to your use of chance and atheism, you have pretty directly equated chance as the atheist equivalent of God. I have another post briefly showing why your argument against chance needs to be more firmly defined--because you have not done so.

4083 views

When you take into consideration that the controller of spontaneity is heat, it seems less and less like the notion of chance. In fact, most chemists would tell you that the reaction will be inevitable if these basic characteristics are met. - This comment deserves more explanation. Is Matt S discussing inorganic or organic chemisty? They are light-years apart in their characteristics. He is generally correct about inorganic chemistry. Put some inorganic atoms or molecules together and heat and there will usually be reactions and combinations, with simple inorganic catalysts present, or perhaps not present. It is a completely different story in organic chemistry which requires
enzymes (organic catalysts) for generally all reactions. One can apply heat to two organic molecules for millions of years without enzymes and not get a yield of anything. That is why the jump from inorganic to organic chemistry is so difficult. First make the right organic molecules from inorganic, and then get reactions that move swiftly.
 
> So, I think that the author needs to more clearly define what it is he is attacking when he refers to the atheist position being about "chance created everything" because I feel it is a very gross oversimplification of the position. - Not oversimplified at all. Matt S must realize that chance and probability or two sides of the same coin. And probability can be calculated. Spontineity is fine if everything needed is in place, including heat, and in Matt S' view this can easily happen spontaneously. I doubt it to an enormous negative power of 10 to the minus 150th.

4049 views

After reading the primer, I take issue with the seeming argument that seems to be made about the concept of 'created by chance.' The author seems ignorant concerning the fundamentals of chemistry and what the words 'chance' and 'spontaneity' mean in this context.
 
> spontaneity refers to the fact that if the ambient conditions are right for a chemical reaction, it will happen spontaneously, any time the right components are present. - These statements from Matt are his basis for thinking origin of life can be spontaneous. Read the folowing link of a recent lab discovery about artifical DNA, formed by intelligent design, with comments by Robert Shapiro. Note that no enzyme was used after the formation of the artifical DNA-like molecule. - http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090612/full/news.2009.563.html

4116 views

Mr. Turell, - The biggest issue to our disagreement is that you assume life must have the exact same rules and function that it has now... - My argument is that before biochemistry would begin, standard organic and inorganic chemistry would have to apply. And the broader issue of chance... I'm still writing that, but I need to add diagrams to it. I'll post it asap. - I still have yet to read Shapiro's book (I will do that in my august vacation), but in the meantime I want to take a moment to address an issue both you and dhw have raised. - Computer simulation isn't my specialty so I had to go out and read more about it, to deal with the issue that computer simulations have designers. This is true, however, the mathematics that we use within them are so simple that they easily lend themselves to chance. The fern algorithm (displayed on the webpage I'll provide) was made by messing around with different equations in visual sim environment. The key here, is that the mathematician in question wasn't trying to design such a structure, in fact he got it by chance himself. - A recursive algorithm is one that repeatedly "calls itself." The most well known is the Fibonacci sequence, giving rise to the golden ratio. The Fibonacci sequence can also be generated by chance--and it too appears constantly throughout nature. Most fractals are built by people messing around with variations on the Fibonacci relation. The takeaway, is Dr. Schecter's words. "Mathematics has the most certainty of all the sciences." If, we can be certain that complexity (at large) can arise by chance, (and we can-the simplest Fibonacci sequence is the same as the statement x + y, x = 0, y = 1), then we have no reason to assume that life--a recursive process--could not also have such an origin. This does not apply a probability, but it is why there are people engaging in abiogenesis in the first place. - (The fibonacci relation is so easy to generate by chance because its rule requires only two terms where one adds its previous generation n-number of times) - I read the nature article when I get home from work today. - http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/courses/wolfram.html

4189 views

The biggest issue to our disagreement is that you assume life must have the exact same rules and function that it has now... - Correct. There is no evidence that the laws ofthe universe change, escept for some recent debate about the speed of light.
 
> My argument is that before biochemistry would begin, standard organic and inorganic chemistry would have to apply. - I agree. 
 
> I still have yet to read Shapiro's book (I will do that in my august vacation), - Be sure to read his article in the June 2007 Quarterly Review of Biology. It is a great current followup.

4138 views

Dr. Turell, - That is some amazing-sounding chemistry. It very likely is a step in the right direction. - I have to ask you again however, how do you determine what theological claims are valid? - This is vitally important for me to understand your position. Because you assert that life must have had a creator... but I will stress again (as I also wait for dhw to come back from holiday) that such theological claims need to be evaluated objectively--and there are no ways to do so. Science operates under the assumption that we cannot differentiate from natural and supernatural events, and science cannot work without that assumption. - Assume we CAN differentiate. How do we do so? What kind of measurement do we use? What kind of objective things can we test? Surveys? - Thus, we cannot use science when we discuss theology. Because science is neutral in the question of God(s) it cannot really inform either an atheistic or theistic position. Think about it. When we discovered lightning and explored Mt. Olympus, did it really say that Zeus doesn't exist? No. We just have an explanation that doesn't need Zeus. It didn't actually inform us at all about the existence of Zeus, only the properties of lightning. We do however have a reason to doubt him. - What I'm trying to say, is that we may indeed have a creator, but we have no reason to assume he's not natural, and plenty of reasons to assume he is. However, there is no way to evaluate this theistic claim as any more or less valid than yours, or any other theism, for that matter. Because science gives us reasons to believe one thing over another--but not concerning theology and I have yet to find a theological position that has a way to truly differentiate itself. - So again, what do you use to determine what kind of theological claims are valid and invalid?

4105 views

That is some amazing-sounding chemistry. It very likely is a step in the right direction. - Yes, a tiny step. 
 
> I have to ask you again however, how do you determine what theological claims are valid?
> Science operates under the assumption that we cannot differentiate from natural and supernatural events, and science cannot work without that assumption. - But scientific discoveries can be used to argue there is a God. - 
> Thus, we cannot use science when we discuss theology. - Again I agree.
 
> So again, what do you use to determine what kind of theological claims are valid and invalid? - The validity of God is not ABSOLUTELY proven and never will be. That is where faith comes in. But proof can be accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by those who wish to: Read Mortimer J. Adler's "How to Think About God",1980. Perhaps you know him. He was a leading 20th Century philosopher/theologan. Antony Flew, the famous atheist philosopher, now accepts that approach in his book,"There is a God", 2007.

4068 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum