Case for a Creator: Part 6 of 6
December 17, 2007 by rivalarrival
This is part of a series debunking Lee Strobel’s video, “Case for a Creator”. View the rest of the series here:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Starting around 1:50, Meyer claims that all information has an intelligent source. DNA contains information. Therefore, there was an intelligent source for DNA.
The problem is that information DOES NOT need an intelligent source. Information is just data that has been presented to a device capable of processing it, whether it is the human mind, or a few strands of protein. Meyers pointed out three methods humans used to store date: hieroglyphics, text in a book, and computer software. He neglected to mention anything from the physical world: a puddle is evidence that it has recently rained. No intelligence was needed to create a puddle, but it can store the information “It recently rained” in a quite concise format. Depending on the characteristics of the puddle and the environment, one can estimate when it last rained, and how much. One can readily find hundreds of similar, non-intelligent data-stores if one makes an effort to look for them.
Is this sort of information possible in chemistry? Clearly it is: we witness fire, rust, and tarnish - each of these is indicative of the presence of oxygen. The nature if the fire can tell us the type of chemicals burning.
The basic idea that intelligence is required to produce information is soundly refuted, opening the possibility of non-intelligent processes developing DNA information stores.
At 3:00, the pseudo-scientific portion of Strobel’s case comes to a close, non-existent deities are praised, and the narrator sums up.
Strobel clearly fails to make his case: every last one of his conclusions was made either despite significant contrary evidence, or in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.
Dear Rival,
I appreciate your thoughts; very similar to mine at an earlier stage of my life. Yes, there are theories one can come up with to explain how certain fundamental “elements” of life, like amino acids, could be formed from the pre-existing chemistry of the universe. However, I cannot intellectually embrace any theory that says these elements were combined somehow by chance to form a living organism. The probability of life-by-chance is simply unfathomably low given the complexity of even the simplest living organisms.
And, we haven’t even addressed why and how such initial life forms would, also by chance, include the ability to reproduce. It’s one thing to say that, by complete chance, a “living” thing somehow sprang from the soup. It would die eventually, and then you would need to wait another zillion years for a similar fluke to produce another “living” thing. Unless, of course, the “living” thing also had a complete reproductive system. And what’s the chance of that?
Just as implausible as life-by-chance is resurrection-by-chance. To die, then come back to life again is seemingly impossible. Yet, that did happen. And the guy it happened to said it would happen before it happened. And many people witnessed it (yes, many more than those who witnessed the first life springing from the soup by chance). And many believed it so strongly that they would not recant even when faced with execution. NOT something a liar would typically do.
Now that guy said he was God, and that he made the universe and all life. Given that he predicted and carried out his own resurrection, I believe his claim. And every other claim he made. By the way, he did a few more miracles just to further prove his un-worldliness, but the resurrection event alone is good enough for me.
There are alot of people that do not believe his claim. He knows that. He even told a story about it:
19 Jesus said, “There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury.20 At his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus who was covered with sores.21 As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores.
22 “Finally, the poor man died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham.* The rich man also died and was buried,23 and his soul went to the place of the dead.* There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side.
24 “The rich man shouted, `Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. I am in anguish in these flames.’
25 “But Abraham said to him, `Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish.26 And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there.’
27 “Then the rich man said, `Please, Father Abraham, at least send him to my father’s home.28 For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them so they don’t end up in this place of torment.’
29 “But Abraham said, `Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote.’
30 “The rich man replied, `No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.’
31 “But Abraham said, `If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead.’”
So, some choose not to listen, even to someone who rose from the dead.
Good luck. I know you are searching for the truth, and I am confident you will find it if you keep searching. That has been guaranteed.
Chris
[Reply]
Chris,
If you can accept that amino acids can join to other amino acids under certain conditions, and you accept that those conditions could have occurred on a pre-biotic earth, then it is irrational to claim that they could not have possibly formed into a pre-cellular organism, similar to a virus.
If you CANNOT accept that amino acids can join with other amino acids under certain conditions and that those conditions could have occurred on pre-biotic earth, you are either ignorant of the nature of amino acids, or intellectually dishonest. Ignorance is forgivable, dishonesty is not.
Death is a trait of complex organisms, not chains of molecules. Modern science distinguishes living from non-living at the cellular level, so technically speaking, the combinations of amino acids I was speaking of were not alive. Simple chemical chains can assemble copies of themselves without being alive. They lengthen themselves, and eventually break, without any conscious effort. Crystallization is probably the closest example I can give right now, but there are many others.
The line between death and life is very blurry when discussing pre-cellular organisms.
Quite the contrary - when an organism dies, other organisms consume it. Your body is composed of the dead components of millions of organisms. Some studies show that you have more individual bacteria in your body than you have cells! Life and death are philosophically significant, but quite fuzzy in macrobiology.
My son “witnessed” a dragon stomping our neighbors houses. I witnessed David Copperfield make the statue of liberty disappear. I’m not all that impressed with witness statements, especially considering the manner in which the applicable statements were recorded.
There is a Dragon in my garage. She breaths fire. She will chase you down and burn you up if you offend her, but if you please her, she will protect you from harm.
Oh yeah, you can’t see her: she’s invisible. You can’t touch her, she’s non-corporeal. (And trying to touch her makes her angry) Her fire is heatless, but will cause you great pain.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything by touching it with her noodly appendage. Her noodly appendage also affects each and every scientific test, so nobody can really know that she exists. She is worried about the environment: Since all the pirates have been eradicated, there is nothing to prevent global warming.
Odin created man from an ash tree, and woman from an elm.
There are, literally, millions of stories about tens of thousands of deities. As far as the resurrection story, it had been done to death (no pun intended) centuries before it was attributed to Jesus. Read up in Mithra, Horus, Osiris, and Vishnu, among numerous others. These figures are nearly identical to Jesus, yet predate the biblical accounts by several centuries.
There is a reason why every study that compares intelligence to religiosity indicates a negative correlation, and it’s not because religious people are inherently stupid. It is because religion is the easy way out. Why keep looking for the truth when you’ve got the greatest answer of all? “God did it”.
Non-falsifiability. It is probably the worst fallacy a scientist can commit. Developing a theory that can never be proven wrong. Evolution can be proven wrong: show me an organ that could not have developed in small, successive steps, and evolution is blown out of the water. Gravity can be proven wrong: show me an apple floating in mid air where the theory of gravity says it shouldn’t be able to, and gravity is blown out of the water. But the Bible? Even when you prove, absolutely and incontrovertibly that the entire book of Genesis is nothing more than a fairytale, some people still accept it, denying the mere possibility that it could be anything but 100% “God’s honest truth”
But I digress,
Thanks for your comments. You might take my remarks into consideration the next time you recommend Strobel’s work:
Yeah, Right…
[Reply]