Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Let's Squash Some Bugs, The Butt, Scott Debate

     Some of us may have heard the term "Let's squash some Bugs".  It is a saying the has the meaning of putting to death something that someone has said or has asserted to be true.  An example may be helpful.  Someone makes the assertion that the room is black when it is actually white.  You would "squash that bug" by making the logical argument that the room is white.  The important thing to remember is that you do it in a logical and reasoned way so that "the bug is squashed" or the argument is put to death.  In fact, this is exactly what we see out Lord doing in Matt. 22:23-34.

23The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
 24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
 25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
 26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
 27And last of all the woman died also.
 28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
 29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
 30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
 31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
 32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
 33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
 34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

This is a clear example of our Lord "Squashing a Bug" in the fact that he put the Sadducees to silence.  They could not come back with any argument to refute what he had said.  He had killed their argument.

      This is really what defending the faith is all about.  When people come to us who are against the faith, we need to be able to "squash the bug".  We need to put their arguments to silence.  A friend of mine once said that the arguments that were put forth by Mr. Scott were just smoking mirrors, which I would agree with.  But the problem that my friend has is that it seems that he is unable to "squash the bug" and put those arguments to silence.  Without doing this, we leave those who are against the faith is the position of equality.  It is the old "He said, She said" dilemma and we get nowhere with the discourse.  In fact I would say we have failed to fulfill our command to "earnestly contend for the faith" as commanded in Jude 3.  With this introduction, let us "Squash Some Bugs" that Mr. Scott has presented to us in the debate.

     The first item that we wish to squash is the comment that Mr. Scott made in his opening statement in which he labeled Mr. Butt as a science denier.  This is a classic statement made to those who know and understand that Genesis 1-11 are factual accounts of the history of the earth.  The basic argument is that those who believe is a young earth deny the science of radiometric dating.  As Mr. Scott had presented that Mr. Butt accepts the science of the microwave yet he denies the science of dating systems.  Here we see our first "bug to squash".  Mr. Scott, in making this argument, has committed the logical fallacy of Equivocation.  This is one of the most common fallacies that the atheist makes.  So what is this fallacy, I am glad you asked;

      The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
     For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.



     We see this fallacy by Mr. Scott when he changes the definition of the word science in his argument.  When Mr. Scott says that Mr. Butt accepts the science of the microwave, science is being defined as OBSERVATIONAL science. 
Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
Operational science is the type of science that allows us to understand how DNA codes for proteins in cells. It is the type of science that has allowed us to cure and treat diseases, put a man on the moon, build satellites and telescopes, and make products that are useful to humans. Biblical creationists believe that God has created a universe that uses a set of natural laws that operate consistently in the universe. Understanding how those laws operate is the basis for scientific thinking.  This is the type of science that we actually know to be true without any assumptions to make on our part.

     Yet when Mr. Scott says that Mr. Butt denies the science of dating systems, he has changed the definition of science from observational to HISTORICAL science.
Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.
The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began. Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe. Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are very different. The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted.

We can see the difference in the two definitions of science.  The science of the microwave oven requires no interpretation of the evidence, we can observe if it works or if it does not.  The science of dating systems requires an interpretation of the evidence based upon the observers presuppositions.  They are not the same. We can never be sure that the dating system is not flawed in some way, that our initial assumptions are correct.  Listed here are the posts about the age of the earth and the problems that it has;

1)http://daviddale3.blogspot.com/2011/05/age-of-earth-part-1.html
2)http://daviddale3.blogspot.com/2011/05/age-of-earth-part-2.html
3)http://daviddale3.blogspot.com/2011/05/age-of-earth-part-3.html

     You may want to pay particular attention to #2 in which I show the items needed in order to have an accurate clock.  The modern dating systems do not have any of those items. 

     So, the comment made by Mr. Scott about being a science denier is a logical fallacy.  One bug squashed.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

The Teleological Argument

THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

I) The Argument from Biochemistry
    1) We infer design whenever parts appear arranged to accomplish a function.
    2) The strength of the inference is quantitative and depends on the evidence,
        the more parts, and the more intricate and sophisticated the function, the
        stronger is the conclusion of design.
    3) Aspects of life overpower us with the appearance of design.
    4) Since we have no other convincing explanation for that strong appearance
        of design, then we are rationally justified in concluding the parts of life were
        indeed purposely designed by an intelligent agent.

II) Defense of the premises
    1) Premise #1
        A) Basic reasoning 101
        B) Design is simply the PURPOSEFUL ARRANGEMENT OF PARTS
             WITH A SPECIFIC FUNCTION.
        C) Examples of this abound.
            1) The simple mousetrap is a great example of design.  Consisting of
                 many parts which consist of the base, spring, trigger, U shaped rod,
                eye screw, straight rod with a curve at on end, etc...  All the parts
                mentioned work together with one purpose, to slam the rod down
                when the trigger is released.
            2) A fluorescent lamp has low pressure mercury vapor and argon,
                xenon, argon-neon, or krypton gas.  The bulb is coated with
                a florescent coating made of a varying blend of metallic and
                rare-earth phosphor salts.  A cathode made of a coiled tungsten
                coated with a mixture of barium, strontium, and calcium oxides.
                All the parts work together for one purpose, to make light.
        D) In the examples above, the important thing to remember is this, that it
             is only when all the parts are present that the function will be produced.
             None of the individual parts can create the function alone, they all must be
            present and functioning in order to produce the result.  If one where taken
            away, the system would cease to function.
        E) In order to reach a conclusion of design, there must be an identifiable
             function of the system.  One has to be careful, though, in defining the
             function.  A computer can be used as a paper weight; is that its function?
             No, in considering design, the function of the system we must look at is the
             one that requires the greatest amount of the system,’s internal complexity.
             The function of a system is determined from the system’s internal logic: the
             function is not necessarily the same as the purpose to which the designer
             wished.  A person who sees a mousetrap for the first time may use it for a
             defense against burglars, but they still infer design by observing how the
             parts interact with each other.  Someone may try to use a lawnmower as
             a ceiling fan or out board motor, but the function of the equipment- to rotate
             the blade- is best defined by its internal logic.
        F) In all the above examples, we are justified to infer design by simple reason
             and logic.  Anyone who would reply to the contrary would have to show that
             they could come into existence and function by blind chance.  The burden of
             proof would be in their court.  Why? They are going against simple reasoning.
             Example: If I were to say to you that the pencil (or pen) you are using came
             about through blind means, that the forces of nature constructed the item,
             without giving detailed evidence for my conclusion, you would have me
             institutionalized.  Why?  My conclusion would go against your basic
             reasoning, especially since I provided no evidence for my conclusion.
    2) Defense of premise #2
        A) The evidence as indicated in the premise is as follows; 1) more parts to
              the system, 2) more intricate and sophisticated the function.
            1) You are in a junkyard and come across a board that is positioned
                  on a cement block to form a lever.  At the end of one side of the
                 board you notice another block positioned on the board.  Was this
                 the product of design.  Hard to tell since the number of parts
                 and the simplicity of the function can be because of random events
                 of nature.
            2) Yet, look again at the florescent lamp.  It is made up of numerous
                 parts and chemical compounds.  The arrangement of the individual
                 parts and chemicals are complex and the function is very
                 sophisticated.  The parts have to be in the correct quantity and in
                 the right position for the function to work.  This would indicate
                 to the rational person, design. 
        B) This is clearly seen in diverse systems.  Suppose you were at a friends house
             playing a game of Scrabble.  When the game ends, you get up to take a break.
             Upon your return, you notice that all the pieces have been thrown into the
             box.  Most of the letters are turned upside down, but a few are letter side up.
             You think nothing of it until notice the letters facing up read, “TAKE US OUT
             TO DINNER.”  You would immediately infer design since there are a number
             of parts (letters) ordered to accomplish a specific function, which is to
             communicate your playmates desires.
        C) In the example of the lamp and the message, you immediately infer design
             because the parts are numerous and the function is intricate.

    3) Defense of premise #3
        A) The blood clotting cascade

1. A cut occurs and Hageman Factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman Factor reacts with another enzyme called HMK to produce Activated Hageman.

2. Pre Kallikrein reacts with Activated Hageman to produce Kallikrein.

3. Hageman Factor also reacts with HMK and Kallikrein to form Activated Hageman.

4. PTA reacts with Activated Hageman and HMK to produce Activated PTA.

5. Christmas Factor reacts with Activated PTA and Convertin to produce Activated Christmas Factor.

6. Antihemophilic Factor is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Antihemophilic Factor.

7. Stuart Factor reacts with Activated Christmas Factor and Activated Antihemophilic Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor.

8. Proconvertin is activated by Activated Hageman Factor to produce Convertin.

9. When a cut occurs, Tissue Factor (which is only found outside of cells) is brought in near the wound where it reacts with Convertin and Stuart Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor. (Note that step 9 involves an extrinsic process whereas step 7 is an intrinsic process.)

10. Proaccelerin is activated by Thrombin to produce Accelerin.

11a. GLU-Prothrombin reacts with Prothrombin Enzyme and Vitamin K to produce GLA-Prothrombin. (Note that Prothrombin cannot be activated in the GLU form so it must be formed into the GLA form. In this process ten amino acids must be changed from glutamate to gama carboxy glutamate.)

11b. GLS-Prothrombin is then able to bind to Calcium. This allows GLA-Prothrombin to stick to surfaces of cells. Only intact modified Calcium-Prothrombin Complex can bind to the cell membrane and be cleaved by Activated Stuart and Accerlerin to produce Thrombin.

12. Prothrombin-Ca (bound to cell surface) is activated by Activated Stuart to produce Thrombin.

13.Prothrombin also reacts with Activated Stuart and Accelerin to produce Thrombin. (Step 13 is much faster than step 12.)

14. Fibrinogin is activated by Thrombin to produce Fibrin. Threads of Fibrin are the final clot. However, it would be more effective if the Fibrin threads could form more cross links with each other.

15. FSF (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor) is activated by Thrombin to form Activated FSF.

16. When Fibrin reacts with Activated FSF many more cross ties are made with other Fibrin filaments to form a more effective clot.

Well now, I am wondering to myself whether you are experiencing frustration or intrigue, weariness, or exctiment. There are a lot of details but let me ask you a leading question. Is this intricate system something that man developed or is it something that man has discovered? Blood clotting is not an invention of man. It is the invention of either God or "Mother Nature" (i.e., it invented itself). Regardless of how you believe the clotting cascade came to be, the fact remains that blood clotting is a clear example of irreducible complexity.

Let us next consider that this irreducibly complex system of blood clotting must have a way to remove the clot once the wound has healed. How is this done?

17a. A blood protein, Plasminogin is activated by + - Pa to produce Plasmin. This acts like tiny chemical scissors which cuts up the Fibrin filaments of the clot.

17b. The rate at which the clot is broken up is controlled by yet another blood protein named Alpha 2 Antiplasm, which in turn inactivates Plasmin. One of the most important parts of this whole blood clotting machine is the ability it has to keep the clotting localized to the area of the wound and to stop the clotting cascade. What is the biggest killer of human beings? That's right, blood clots. Most heart attacks and strokes are caused by blood clots lodging. I believe the way your body shuts down the clotting cascade is a fascinating as the clotting process itself.

18. Antithrombin inactivates Activated Christmas, Activated Stuart and Thrombin.

19. Protein C is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Protein C.

20. Activated Protein C inactivates Accelerin and Activated Antihemophilic.

21. Finally, Thrombomodulin which lines the inside of your blood vessels prevents Thrombin from activating Fibrinogin. A logical question is : How do we know that we have to be able to produce the whole set of enzymes or factors in the clotting cascade in order to successfully accomplish the procedure?

Probably the best answer is illustrated by the disease hemophilia. Hemophilia A is the form of the disease that 85% of hemophiliacs have and it is caused by a deficiency of Stuart Factor. The 14% that have hemophilia B are deficient in Accelerin. People who have severe hemophilia A are able to produce 2-5% of normal levels while another 15% are mild and are only able to make 5-30% of normal levels of Stuart Factor output.

Like all enzymes, Stuart Factor is produced by protein synthesis. As you know, amino acids are joined together one at a time by this orderly process. The gene for Stuart Factor contains 186,000 base pairs and occupies 0.1% of the X chromosome. Note that this does not translate into Stuart Factor having 62,000 amino acids because only the "exon" portions of the DNA molecule are expressed. The largest portion of the DNA in this gene is found in the "intron" base pair sequences. The gene for Accelerin contains 31,000 base pairs.

Why can a hemophiliac not stop bleeding? They cannot stop because they either do not produce enough Stuart Factor or they produce defective Stuart Factor. And why do they not produce the right amount to type of Stuart Factor? The answer is, because their body does not know how. Their parent passed on defective information on their X chromosome, and incidentally, they will pass on the same defective information on to their offspring.
        From:  Irreducible Complexity? Blood Clotting! By Robert Harsh

        B) Did you get all that.  Do not worry if it is a little over our heads.  The issue
             here is the fact that this system of the human body has many parts and is
             extremely intricate and sophisticated in its function.  In fact, if just one of the
             parts were removed or damaged, the system would fail and you would either
             bleed to death (as with hemophilia) or your blood would coagulate in your
             veins and solidify.  Either way you would die.
        C) This is just on system within the human body that shows this complexity.
             Others include the immune system, biosynthesis of AMP, how cells transport
             material from on subcellular compartment to another, etc...
    4) Defense of conclusion
        A) It is a fact that no other explanation has been set forth by scientists to explain
             the complex systems that biochemistry has discovered.
        B) The Journal of Molecular Evolution was established in 1971 and is devoted
             exclusively to the research aimed at explaining how life at the molecular
             level came to be.  Each month it publishes about 10 papers on various aspects
             of molecular evolution.  10 papers per month means about 100 papers per year.
             Over the past decade about 1000 papers have been published.  As of yet, no
             paper has been published to explain why the systems of the human body
             have come about through a naturalistic means.
        C) This is true for all the published papers.
        D) Since there is no other explanation, we are justified to conclude that the parts
             of life were indeed purposely designed by an intelligent agent.