Case for a Creator: Part 6 of 6
December 17, 2007
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.
Case for a Creator: Part 5 of 6
December 17, 2007
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
Behe’s is credited as the creator of the Irreducible Complexity argument. He brings up the Bacterial Flagellum as an example - The wikipedia article on Irreducible Complexity (which cites a total of 67 non-wikipedia sources) cites 6 separate documents as evidence that the parts of the flagellum have other purposes within the bacterium. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover the various tasks the parts of a flagellum can perform.
The mousetrap argument for irreducible complexity is similarly debunked: A common mousetrap can be reduced to a catch, a spring, a hammer, a holding bar, and a platform. Each of these parts existed long before the modern mousetrap existed, and served numerous roles in other, earlier devices. Not one of these parts was specifically created for the sole purpose of catching mice. All of them were adapted from previous components, and have since been specialized to their current purpose.
At 6:30, the narrator quotes Darwin as he stated the criteria necessary to falsify evolution:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
As the individual parts of these “irreducibly complex” devices perform functions themselves, it is not only possible but exceedingly likely that these devices could form from these parts and thus be subject to the laws of natural selection.
The fallacy with Behe’s argument can be demonstrated by applying it to ANY complex part of an organism. For example: “Before there was a liver, there was no liver, thus anything that required a liver could not have existed. Therefore the liver and everything that required the liver must have been simultaneously created. ”
Behe himself denies this logic - he is on record in support of evolution, but believes that the earliest organisms must have been created.
At 7:30, we move on to DNA, and discussion with Stephen Meyer. Nothing all that controversial through the end of part 5, just a couple unfounded claims that Evolutionary theory cannot survive the information age.
Case for a Creator: Part 4 of 6
December 17, 2007
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
At the start of part 4, Strobel raises a strawman argument, claiming that our universe is just one of many, having been created by a giant “universe factory” - I’m left thinking “WTF?” and as Strobel discards the idea himself, I’m not even going to bother with it.
At 3:00, we approach the earlier, chicken-and-egg, environment-and-life argument, but this time from the standpoint of “astrobiology”. Guillermo Gonzalez states his case; that life is only possible on a planet with earth-like characteristics. Again, evolutionary theory suggests that organisms are the product of their environments, not necessarily the other way around. If it is possible for amino acids to form spontaneously, life forms based on amino acids can potentially form. What is necessary is a concentration of amino acids, not a specific gravitational force or a single, orbiting moon, or any other specific criteria.
They keep raising arguments from improbability (using fantastically large numbers as if numbers created reality instead of reflected it) until 8:30, then another break, then we move into biochemistry.
Michael Behe is the expert of choice for this portion, but gets cut off when we go to part 5.
Case for a Creator: Part 3 of 6
December 17, 2007
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
Part 3
At 2:50, Craig states the “Kalam Cosmological Argument”:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The problem is that at 1:44, Craig himself said that time came into existence with the rest of the universe!
Let me explain why this is a problem: The universe has existed as long as time has existed: Time came into existence with the universe. Nothing can occur “before” the universe existed, because “before” depends on time. Without time, there can be no “before”.
Time is a VERY complicated subject when we start talking about physics. Take three synchronized atomic clocks. Put one on a plane flying east around the globe, put one on a plane going west around the globe, and leave on at the airport. When you bring all three clocks back together after their journey, they will differ by specific, tiny fractions of a second, due to the phenomenon known as Relativity. As you approach the speed of light, time slows down for you while it continues normally for everyone else. But you don’t experience it slowing down: from your standpoint, everyone else would appear to be speeding up. Gravity also has an inverse effect on time, and if we’re assuming a singularity approaching infinite density, we can assume that the passage of time would approach zero.
A physicist has few problems with the “variable” nature of time. I can’t say the same about the average philosopher or layperson. I don’t know enough to speak very intelligently on the subject, but I do know that a philosophy that ignores these facts is, at best, incomplete, and at worst, completely wrong. The Kalam Argument ignores this fact, so we cannot rely on it without further scrutiny.
5:10 or so, another short break, and we move into an interview with Robin Collins (Philosopher with degrees in mathematics and physics)
Collins’ first argument is that the laws of physics are “balanced on a razor’s edge” and that if these laws were ANY different, life would be impossible.
Douglas Adams offered a simple challenge to this:
imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’
The puddle formed in the way it did because of the nature of the hole. Similarly, life formed the way it did because of the nature of the environment. Evolutionary processes pressure creatures into adapting to the environment, not surviving in spite of it. If the environment changes significantly, those creatures that cannot survive in the new environment die off, while those that can adapt will thrive. If the change isn’t enough to kill off less adapted organisms, it is insignificant with respect to those organisms.
The rest of part 3 reiterates this argument from improbability.
Case for a Creator: Part 2 of 6
December 17, 2007
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
Part 2 continues Wells’ challenge of Miller’s experiments. Wells conducts a thought experiment: Take a sterile test tube, fill it with the “perfect” conditions for life, insert a single-celled organism, and puncture it. The test tube now contains all the molecules necessary for life, but no life can be developed from this condition.
First, the early Earth consisted of a lot more than a glass tube and a static solution.
Second, I suggest that Wells actually conduct this experiment. If it does fail, try doing the same thing in a large flask with a few trillion shredded single-celled organisms and various energy sources. Don’t expect cellular life, or anything beyond self-replicating patterns of amino acids, unless you have a couple billion years to dedicate to this experiment.
Third, contrary to popular belief, the “Cell” is NOT the basic form of life. Viruses are much simpler than cells, and are indisputably biologically active, if not completely alive. Various amino acids, captured in a lipid bubble, could operate much like a virus. A self replicating protein, inside a lipid bubble, would incorporate any other amino acids the bubble happened to absorb. If the bubble were punctured, all of these newly formed proteins could then be captured by other lipid bubbles, to repeat the cycle.
Aside from the lipid bubble, there are numerous theories that offer similar results, and some combination of these various theories is the likely origin of cellular life. Unfortunately, we do not have definitive proof that any of these theories is actually true, but we have absolutely no evidence that there was conscious thought behind any of it.
At about 1:30, they begin on the “Science doesn’t know how these non-living components could become the first cell” argument, and at 2 minutes, Strobel concludes (at least twice!) that lack-of-evidence equated to evidence of the contrary: Science cannot (yet) explain a “materialistic” origin of life, therefore Science is wrong. There is (as of yet) no evidence for Darwin’s “Tree of Life”, therefore scientific explanations must be wrong.
First, science DOES have plausible theories about a natural origin of life, and Second, while there may not be sufficient evidence to say that all life spawned from a single organism, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that various modern species had a common ancestral species. In fact, domesticated animals demonstrate that this can occur: All breeds of dogs can trace their ancestry to a wolf-like species. Domesticated dogs separated (speciated) from this line about 10,000 years ago. Monkeys, Apes, Orangutans, and Humans can all trace their ancestry back to a common species of primates. DNA evidence shows us how long it has been since these speciations occured.
The “Cambrian Explosion” argument basically says that evolution suddenly accelerated, from unicellular to multicellular, to complex life forms in the span of a few hundred million years, and that this rapid period of change disproves a natural origin for some reason. The evidence does little more than suggest that multicellular life forms evolve more rapidly than unicellular, a fact that is easily demonstrated. Asexual reproduction is far less conducive to evolutionary processes than the sexual processes common in the “higher” lifeforms that originated in the Cambrian era.
At 7:40, Strobel says “Darwinism would require me to make a blind leap of faith that I had no good reason to make” - once again, lack of evidence is not evidence of the contrary. Certain facets of evolutionary theory are as-yet unexplained. Do we conclude that we simply haven’t absolutely proven all aspects of the theory, or do we conclude that any contrary theory must be true?
Finally, at 7:50, we allude to to so-called “positive evidence” - cosmological evidence supported by philosopher William Lane Craig, then a break, and part 3.
Case for a Creator: Part 1 of 6
December 17, 2007
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
Chris commented on this post, and recommended Lee Strobel’s “Case for a Creator” as something a “truth loving person” should read or watch. He claimed: “You will see proofs of God’s hand in creation that no scientist or Darwinist can explain away.”
I’ll take that challenge!
I located Strobel’s video on Youtube in 6 parts, and I’ve written rebuttals for each of Strobel’s major arguments. The 6 parts into which it was cut do not line up with the transitions as Strobel intended. I’ve included an embedded video and my arguments against the contents of that video in each post.
Before we start watching, let me point out that Darwin’s theory and modern evolutionary theory are not exactly equivalent. Many parts of Darwin’s original theory have been discredited, and later discoveries have expanded other parts of his theory far more than Darwin ever predicted. Darwin may have originated evolutionary theory, but it is in the same manner as Ford originated the automotive industry. Ford would probably be lost inside a modern vehicle with all its switches, buttons, knobs, glowing indicators, and computerization. Similarly, Darwin would be quite surprised about certain aspects of modern evolutionary theory.
The intro is 8 minutes of part 1, and can be skipped without missing Strobel’s arguments. Stanley Miller’s old experiment about building amino acids is mentioned, and we discover that Strobel’s motivation was to understand positive changes in his wife, which she attributes to God after her “conversion” from agnosticism to Christianity.
At about 8:30, Stanley Miller’s experiment - which built amino acids from hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water, is allegedly discredited because science no longer thinks that these elements and compounds were predominant in the atmosphere.
Hydrogen is H2, and can be readily extracted from other compounds through chemical or electrical interactions. Ammonia is NH3 - nitrogen currently makes up 70% of our atmosphere, and to the best of my knowledge, nitrogen has always been the predominant atmospheric gas. Methane is CH4. Carbon is found in just about everything on the planet, and water is H20.
What we can conclude from Miller’s experiment is that amino acids can be built without a purpose, and without design. Miller could not predict the exact types of amino acids that would be built, nor could he predict how those acids would subsequently interact. Wells statement about the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere narrows the possible locations as to where amino acids could have developed as in Miller’s experiment, but it does not refute that conditions can occur where amino acids develop without a conscious effort to create them. That the experiment failed using the alternative gases mentioned is immaterial: it merely indicates that life could not have originated in this manner above the Earth’s Surface. As far as I know, no significant scientific body presents “flying” as the initial state of life on earth, deferring to either inland swamps, littoral areas, deep-ocean volcanic vents, or even the open ocean.
Jonathan Wells, credited as “Biologist, Discovery Institute” is hardly an objective party. In his book, “Why I went for a Second Ph.D”, Wells writes:
Father’s [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.
Was Texas intelligently designed?
December 12, 2007
In Texas, just promoting a speaker that is critical of Intelligent Design can cost a person her job.
Read more
8th Grader kills himself for God
November 30, 2007
A 14-year-old boy, Dennis Lindberg, killed himself under the instructions of a sadistic cult. This action was blessed by Skagit County (Washington) Superior Court Judge, John Meyer, who prohibited the State of Washington from interfering in the youth’s suicide pact.
Unfortunately, no criminal action will be brought against either the “Cult” or Judge Meyer, because the “Cult” is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the method of suicide the youth chose was to refuse treatment that would have given him a 70% chance of survival.
TJM author Luci recently wrote about another senseless death associated with Jehovah’s Witness prohibition on accepting blood transfusions.
Basically, JWs are prohibited from consuming the blood of an animal. “Church” leaders decided that hospital patients can be fed intravenously, a blood transfusion is food.
What?
TJM reader Jerry Jones (his link) commented:
Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body’s circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body’s digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item.
Before you start thinking that I’m singling out JW’s, remember that MANY religions/dogmatic beliefs require the individual to harm himself/herself in the name of worship and/or conformity. Judaism (and others) requires the partial amputation of male genitalia. Sects of Islam require adherents to flog and/or lacerate themselves as a part of their worship. (Check out “Ashoura”) Female Genital Mutilation is still widely practiced in several locations around the world. Foot Binding, an old Chinese custom, has crippled millions of women.
Dogmatism turns otherwise rational people into lemmings. Religion is the single largest source of Dogmatism. Religion is also the most “Protected” in its application. Without Religion to back up this boy’s decision, his parents would have been brought up on child endangerment charges, he would be declared a ward of the court, and his doctors would be ordered to begin treatment.
Read more:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/religion_kills.php
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/29/jehovahs.witness.ap/index.html
NEW THEORY SUGGESTS PEOPLE ARE ATTRACTED TO RELIGION FOR 16 REASONS
November 20, 2007
People are not drawn to religion just because of a fear of death or any other single reason, according to a new comprehensive, psychological theory of religion.
There are actually 16 basic human psychological needs that motivate people to seek meaning through religion, said Steven Reiss, author of the new theory and professor of psychology and psychiatry at Ohio State University.From Ohio State University:NEW THEORY SUGGESTS PEOPLE ARE ATTRACTED TO RELIGION FOR 16 REASONS
People are not drawn to religion just because of a fear of death or any other single reason, according to a new comprehensive, psychological theory of religion.
There are actually 16 basic human psychological needs that motivate people to seek meaning through religion, said Steven Reiss, author of the new theory and professor of psychology and psychiatry at Ohio State University.
These basic human needs which include honor, idealism, curiosity and acceptance can explain why certain people are attracted to religion, why God images express psychologically opposite qualities, and the relationship between personality and religious experiences.
Previous psychologists tried to explain religion in terms of just one or two overarching psychological needs. The most common reason they cite is that people embrace religion because of a fear of death, as expressed in the saying ‘there are no atheists in foxholes,” Reiss said.
”But religion is multi-faceted it can’t be reduced to just one or two desires.”
Reiss described his new theory which he said may be the most comprehensive psychological theory of religion since Freud’s work more than a century ago — in the June issue of Zygon, a journal devoted to issues of science and religion.
”I don’t think there has been a comprehensive theory of religion that was scientifically testable,” he said.
The theory is based on his overall theory of human motivation, which he calls sensitivity theory. Sensitivity theory is explained in his 2000 book Who Am I? The 16 Basic Desires that Motivate Our Action and Define Our Personalities (Tarcher Putnam).
Reiss said that each of the 16 basic desires outlined in the book influence the psychological appeal of religious behavior. The desires are power, independence, curiosity, acceptance, order, saving, honor, idealism, social contact, family, status, vengeance, romance, eating, physical exercise, and tranquility.
In fact, Reiss has already done some initial research that suggests the desire for independence is a key psychological desire that separates religious and non-religious people. In a study published in 2000, Reiss found that religious people (the study included mostly Christians) expressed a strong desire for interdependence with others. Those who were not religious, however, showed a stronger need to be self-reliant and independent.
The study also showed that religious people valued honor more than non-religious people, which Reiss said suggests many people embrace religion to show loyalty to parents and ancestors.
In the Zygon paper, Reiss explains that every religious person balances their 16 basic human needs to fit their own personality.
”They embrace those aspects of religious imagery that express their strongest psychological needs and deepest personal values.”
One example is the desire for curiosity, Reiss said. Religious intellectuals, who are high in curiosity, value a God who is knowable through reason, while doers, who have weak curiosity, may value a God that is knowable only through revelation.
”People who have a strong need for order should enjoy ritualized religious experiences, whereas those with a weak need for order may prefer more spontaneous expression of faith,” he said.
”The prophecy that the weak will inherit the earth should appeal especially to people with a weak need for status, whereas the teaching that everybody is equal before God should appeal especially to people with a strong need for idealism.”
If religion and personality are linked, religion must provide a range of images and symbols sufficiently diverse to appeal to all the different kinds of personalities in the human population, Reiss says. Religious imagery potentially accommodates everybody because in many instances the images and symbols are psychological opposites.
”How we value and balance the 16 psychological needs is what makes us an individual, and for every individual there are appealing religious images,” he said.
”The values that guide a personality with a strong need for vindication are expressed by a God of wrath, or a war God, while the values that guide a personality with a weak need for vindication are expressed by a God of forgiveness.”
”The values that guide a personality with a strong need to socialize are expressed by religious fellowship and festivals, while the values that guide a personality with a weak need to socialize are expressed by religious asceticism.”
The need for acceptance makes meaningful images of God as a savior, while its opposite inspires the concept of original sin, according to Reiss. The need to eat motives some people to value abstinence and others to value sustenance.
”Because this theory can be tested scientifically, we can learn its strengths and weaknesses, and gradually improve it,” Reiss said. ”Eventually, we may understand better the psychological basis of religion.”
Reiss emphasized that the theory addresses the psychology of religious experiences and has no implications for the validity or invalidity of religious beliefs.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2788
52 year old scientific paper retracted after creationist misrepresentation
October 29, 2007
A scientific paper published in 1955 has been retracted by its author, Dr. Homer Jacobson, when he discovered creationists were citing his work as “proof that life could not have emerged on earth without divine intervention”. Read more
-
Atheist Blogroll
