As we continue to examine the things mentioned in the debate, I wish to this time focus on Mr. Scott's comments on the arguments put forth by Mr. Butt. Mr. Butt presented the arguments from the cosmological, teleological, moral, free will, and a little of the transcendent. Mr. Butt presented them in a simplistic and general manner I believe due to the time constraints of the debate. In Mr. Scott's opening statements, he called those arguments simply philosophical and had no meaning. He kept demanding for evidence. He simply rejected them as being philosophical in nature and unreasonable. Here we find another problem with Mr. Scott's view of the issues. The question of the existence of God is just that, a philosophical question. It can only be answered in a philosophical manner.
The Christian faith as defined by Biblical revelation teaches a number of things which are not restricted to the realm of man's temporal experience as Mr. Scott would have it. It teaches things about an invisible God, His triune nature, the orgin of the universe, the regularity of the created order, angels, miracles, the afterlife, etc. These are the types of claims which I believe Mr. Scott most often find objections to.
The objection is that such claims are about transcendent matters, things that go beyond our everyday to day human experience. The triune Creator exists beyond the temporal order, the after life is not part of our ordinary observations in this world. Those such as Mr. Scott are accustomed to thinking that people can only know things based upon, and pertaining to, the "here and now". Since he thinks this way (those who have seen the debate will notice this fact), then the claims of Christianity about the transcendent are an intellectual reproach.
Those who are not Christians will often assume that the natural world is all there is, in which case nobody can know things about the "super natural" (hence the reason Mr. Scott makes the statement that science never asks why and that the why is irrelevant). In philosophical circle, discussions and debates about questions like these fall within the area of study known as "metaphysics." As you might expect, this division of philosophical investigation is usually the hotbed of controversy between conflicting schools of thought. More recently, the entire enterprise of metaphysics has itself become a hotbed of controversy.
Over the last 2 centuries a mindset has developed which is hostile toward any philosophical claim which is metaphysical in character. It is clear that antipathy to the the Christian faith has been the primary and motivating factor in such attacks. Nevertheless, such criticism has been generalized into a pervasive antagonism toward any claims which are "metaphysical". This attitude has been one of the crucial ingredients which have molded culture and history over the last 2 hundred years. It has altered common views regarding man and ethics, it has generated a radical reformation of religious beliefs, and it has significantly affected perspectives ranging from politics to pedagogy Consequently a very large number of the skeptical questions or challenges directed at the Christian faith are either rooted in, or colored by, this negative spirit with regard to metaphysics.
Before we can elaborate on Mr. Scott's problem with his statements and the arguments that he presented, it would be helpful to understand better what is meant by "metaphysics". This is just a technical word that is rarely used outside of the academic circles, it is not even a part of the Christian vocabulary. Nevertheless, the conception of metaphysics and the reaction to it which can be found will definitely touch and have an impact on the life of the Christian either in terms of the attacks of the faith in which he or she must answer, or even in terms of the way in which they portray the faith in everyday life.
It is often said that metaphysics is the study of being or studies being, that is, questions about existence. It asks, what is it to exist? And, what sorts of things exist? Thus the meta-physician is interested to know to know about fundamental distinctions (the essential nature of things that exist) and important similarities (the essential nature of the members of these classes). He seeks the ultimate causes or explanations for the existence and nature of things. He wants to understand the limits of possible reality, the modes of existing, and the interrelations of existing things.
It should be obvious, if only in an elementary way, that Christianity propounds a number of definite metaphysical claims. But we need to understand that Mr. Scott also holds to a philosophical meta-physic himself (even though he would deny this). It would be profitable to pause and reflect upon an insightful comment by a recent writer in this area. W.H. Walsh has written, "It must be allowed that the reaction against (meta-physics) has been so violent indeed as to suggest that the issues involved in the controversy must be something more than academic.). He would be correct. The issues are indeed more than academic. They are a matter of life and death-eternal life and death. Jesus said, "And this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent." (John 17:3). However, if the unbeliever can stand on the claim that such a God cannot be known because nothing transcending the physical (nothing :metaphysical") can be known, then the issue of eternal destiny is not raised. Accordingly, men may think and do as they please, without distracting questions about their nature and destiny.
The fact is that one cannot avoid metaphysical commitments (no matter how much Mr. Scott tries to "sweep them under the carpet"). The very denial of the possibility of knowledge transcending experience is in itself a metaphysical judgement. Mr. Scott demands evidence. I believe that when stating this he is not being forth right with the audience. When he says evidence in reality he means something that can be placed in the test tube and examined through the avenue of science and experience. This is why he denies the evidence given in the debate. Again, this is a meta-physical assumption on his part, that all legitimate knowledge is gained by the scientific method. Mr. Scott deals with philosophy at every turn in the debate, yet denies that it is relevant to the question. Friedrich Nietzsche had something to say along these lines when he stated:
"What provokes one to look at all philosophers half suspiciously, half mockingly, is that they all pose as if they had discovered and reached their real opinions through self-development of a cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic while at bottom it is an assumption, a hunch, indeed a kind of "inspiration"-most often a desire of the heart that has been filtered and made absract-that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact. They are all advocates and willy spokesmen to their prejudices which they "baptize" "truths".
Mr. Scott's arguments can be set up as thus;
1) There cannot be a non-empirical source of knowledge or information about reality, and
2) It is illegitimate to draw inferences from what is experienced by the senses to what must lie outside of experiences.
When we listen to the comments made by Mr. Scot in the debate, we can see that the above reflects accurately his meta-physic. In short, we can only know as factually significant what we cn experience directly with our senses-which nullifies the meaningfulness of meta-physical claims and the possibility of metaphysical knowledge.
We can begin our response by considering #2 in the above. We should first ask why it is that we should not reason from what is known in sense experience to something lying beyond sensation. After all, is not this exactly what the empirical scientists do on a day to day bases. They continually reason from the seen to the unseen, (subatomic particles, computing gravitational forces, warning against the effect of radiation simply on the basis of its effect, prescribing medicine for an unseen infection on the basis of an observed fever, etc.). It certainly appears capricious for Mr. Scott to prohibit Mr. Butt from doing what is allowed to the scientist!! Such an inconsistency betrays a mind that has been made up in advance against certain kinds of conclusions about reality. This is exactly what Mr. Scott was arguing in connection with the teleological argument. He dismisses it since he cannot seen God.
Moreover, it is important to notice in #2 above that it is not really relevant to making the case against the Christian meta physic. Christianity does not view its claims as unguided or arbitrary attempts to reason from the seen to the unseen world-unwarranted projections from nature to what lies beyond.. In the firstplace, the Christan claims that God created this world to reflect His glory and to be a constant testimony to Him and His character (Romans 1:18-20). God also created man in His own image, determined the way in which man would think and learn about the world, and coordinated man's mind and the objective world so that man would unavoidably know the supernatural creator through the conduit of the created realm. God intended and made it unavoidable that man would learn about the Creator from the world around him. This amount to saying that the natural world is not in itself random and without a clue as to its ultimate maning, leaving man to arbitrary speculation.
Moreover, given the intellectually corrupting effects of man's fall into sin and rebellion against God, man's mind has not been left to know God based on the basis of man's own unaided experience and interpretation of the world. God has undertaken to make Himself known to man by means of verbal revelation, using words chosen by God which are exactly appropriate for the mind of man that was created by God to come to the correct conclusions about his Creator, Judge, and Redeemer.
The Christan meta-physic is not the result of a self-sufficient exploration of, and argument from man's unaided and brute emperiical experience, to a god lying beyond and behind experience, Rather it affirms, on the basis of Scripture's declaration, that our meta-physical tenets rest on the self-revelation of the transcendent Creator. The Christan meta-physic does not work from man to God, but from God to man (2 Peter 1:21).
Therefore this anti meta-physical claim by Mr. Scott begs the main question. If God as portrayed in the Scriptures does indeed exist, then there is no reason to preclude the possibility that man who lives in the realm of nature can gain knowledge of the supernatural. God creator and controls all things, according to the Biblical account (Gen.1&2; Heb. 1:3). Given that perspective, God could certainly bring it about that man learns the truth about Him through both the created order and a set of divinely inspired messages. When Mr. Scott contends that nothing in man's temporal, limited,natural experience can provide knowledge of the supernatural, he is simply taking a roundabout way of saying that the Biblical account of a God who makes Himself known in the created order and Scripture is mistaken.
This begging the question is sometimes veiled from the unbeliever by there tendency to recast the nature of the Christian meta-physic as man centered and rooted initially in human, empirical experience. However, the very point in contention between the two meta-physics comes down to the claim that Christan teaching is rooted in God's self-disclosure of the truth as found in the world around us and in the written word. There is not reason to think the the Christan would be intellectually required to build upon the foundation of human sense experience, unless someone were presupposing in advance that all knowledge must ultimately derive from empirical procedure. But this is the very question at hand. Mr. Scott is not supporting his reason for rejecting The Christian meta-physic, it is simply a rewording of that rejection itself.
We are brought then to #1 in the above, the first and foundational step in Mr. Scott's meta-physic. What are we to make of the assertion "all significan knowledge about the objective world is empirical in nature"? The most obvious and philosophically significant reply would be that is the preceding statement were true, then, on the basis of that claim, we could never know that it were true. Why? Simply because that statement in question is not itself known as the result of empirical testing and experience. Therefore, according to its own strict standards, the statement could not amount to significant knowledge about the objective world. It simply reflect the subjective (perhaps meaningless) bias of the one who pronounces it. Hence, Mr. Scott not only has his own preconceived conclusions, but it turns out that he cannot live according to them (Romans 2:1). On the basis of his own assumptions he refutes himself.
The very question of the existence of God is a meta-physical question. Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Scott, it is a philosophical question and must be answered in that matter. We have not had time in this post to cover the true nature of evidence, will come later so be on the look out. The basis of this post is to show the error in the thoughts of Mr. Scott. He has a meta-physic. He has a philosophy. He has a world view. The question then becomes which is true, his or the Christian? I contend that it is the Christian meta-physic since it and it alone can stand up to careful scrutiny. All others have some sort of inconsistency within them. That includes atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc...
Friday, April 20, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Arguments against the Teleological Argument
We have looked at the teleological argument for the existence of God (if you have not read them, please take a few minutes and familiarize yourself with them). Of course those who are against the faith have their arguments that try to demolish the argument. Please find here the most common of them and my answers to them.
1) Some of the defenses of the premises use unprovable assumptions.
A) For example, we cannot prove that if the earth were closer to the sun that a
negative effect would transpire and life on earth would not be possible.
B) Remember what we are trying to do with our arguments. We can never prove
anything 100 %.
1) You cannot prove 100% that you exist. There is only one way to do this.
You must exit your body and observe yourself in a state of existence. This we
cannot do. It is physically impossible. What is the answer then. Can we
come to any type of conclusion about our own existence. Yes we can.
We need to remember three things, 1) What is the evidence? 2) What
is the plausibility of you existing? 3) We must use our own reasoning
and common sense.
a) Is there any evidence that you exist. Well, you are reading this.
You are thinking about the things written. Have someone punch
in the arm, go ahead. Did you feel any pain? Someone once said,
“I think, therefore I am.” These two areas are evidence that you exist.
1) You are capable of thinking.
2) You can feel things that are physical in nature.
b) Based on these two (there are others that can be added, just trying
to keep it simple) what is more plausible? That you do in fact exist,
or that you do not exist. Based on the evidence, it is more plausible
that you do exist. In fact, the plausibility of your existence is so
overwhelming, it is reasonable to conclude it is a fact.
c) Besides, common sense tells us that we do.
2) This is the same with this objection. No, we can not prove 100% that the
defenses are fact. But the plausibility of them being fact is so overwhelming
that it is reasonable to conclude that they are fact.
2) The Anthropic Principle
A) The Anthropic principle is this, the universe is tailor-made for habitation, and that
both the laws of physics and the initial conditions obligingly arranged themselves in
such a way that living organisms are subsequently assured of existence.
B) Well, DAH! Of course they are. We are here. The only difference is we know the
Tailor who made it so.
C) This is really not a strong argument. In fact, realizing the obvious implications of the
scientific evidence for the Anthropic principle, many evolutionary scientists have
rebelled at even the mere mention of it in the halls of science.
3) God of the Gaps
A) It is often stated something like this, “ Just because we do not know how something
came about does not mean we can or should insert God as the cause.”
B) This is an argument from ignorance. The Design argument is based on our everyday
design inference. When we see something that looks designed, that is what we infer.
C) We use the design inference on a daily bases. Even scientists, whether they want to
admit it or not, use it on a daily basis in their everyday work. A doctor and a
mechanic diagnose the same way. They each look within the machine to identify
what has gone wrong. The mechanic looks at the engine to see if one of the parts
has malfunctioned or if something has entered in to disrupt the machines inner
workings. They make the inference to design since the all the parts have to be
working properly in order for the machine to function as it should. The doctor in
essence does the exact same thing. They look at the inner parts to see what is not
functioning properly. They to make the same inference to design since all the
parts of the system have to be working properly in order for the system to work.
By identifying the problem, they then can correct it.
D) All the argument does is show that some intelligent being has designed the
system. We do not know what that intelligent being is. It could have been aliens
for all we know. This is a possible explanation. (Although I personally do not
believe that aliens exist.) Do not get caught up in this trap. They are making
assumptions that the argument is not asserting.
4) Darwin has shown that variations and natural selection can account for the
appearance of design.
A) We will deal with this more readily when we refute the evolutionary theory.
B) This rebuttal is primarily focused at the biochemical design argument.
C) If it can be shown that mutations and natural selection can produce the complex
systems such as the blood clotting cascade, then their argument stands. Yet, as
of today, none have been put forward. Perhaps we can understand why
detailed models are missing from the evolutionists by asking what a real
scientific investigation of mousetrap evolution would be like. They would first
have to think of a precursor to the modern mousetrap, one that was simpler.
Suppose they started with a wooden platform? No, that will not catch mice.
Suppose they started with a modern mousetrap that has a shortened holding
bar? No, if the bar is too short it would not reach the catch, and the trap would
spring uselessly while they were holding it. Suppose they started with a smaller
trap? No, that would not explain the complexity. Suppose the parts developed
individually for other functions-such as a popsicle stick for the platform, a clock
spring for the trap spring, and so on- and then accidentally got together? No, their
previous functions would leave them unfit for trapping mice, and they still have
to explain how they gradually developed into a mousetrap. If they cannot explain
the mousetrap, which is simple compared to the systems of the body, it is easy
to see why there are no attempts to give an evolutionary explanation.
D) A pertinent question to ask now is, “How do we know things?” Without getting
into the discipline of epistemology, there are really only two ways that we know
things. 1) Through personal experience and 2) By authority.
1) If you make the positive knowledge statement that the walls in your house
are green, how exactly do you know that? It is through personal experience.
You know the walls in your house are green because you live there and saw
that they are green. Similarly you know what a bird is, how gravity works
(in an everyday sense), And how to get to the nearest shopping mall, all by
direct experience.
2) If you make the positive knowledge statement that the earth revolves around
the sun, how exactly do you know this? It is by authority. That is, you rely
on some source on information, believing it to be reliable, when you have no
experience of your own. Anyone who has attended school believes that the
earth goes around the sun, even though only a few have the knowledge of how
to detect this.
E) Scientists are people too, so we can ask how they know what they know. They are
like everyone else, they rely upon personal experience and, or authority.
1) No one has personal experience in the evolution of complex biochemical
systems. It does not happen in the lab. In fact, there is an ongoing
experiment that is testing the validity of the mutation, natural selection theory.
They use a bacteria that the generations come and go at a rapid pace. They
have gone through about 40,000 generations. As of yet, there have been no
noticeable changes in the bacteria. Therefore they cannot say that the reason
that they know it has happened this way is through personal experience.
2) It is also not based on authority. There is no publication in scientific
literature- prestigious journal, specialty journals, or books- that describes
how evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or
even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred,
but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.
3) Since no one knows biochemical evolution by direct experience, and since
there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can be said that
the assertions of biochemical evolution is merely bluster.
5) Design is not science
A) This rebuttal goes something like this, “ Since we do not have access to the designer,
we have no way to falsify the concept.”
B) This is hypocritical on their part. A great example of science and design is the SETI
(stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)
project. This project was stated in the early 60's, but did not really get started until
Carl Sagan founded the Planetary Society. It was a vehicle to advance the SETI
program. Simply, the program uses radio telescopes to search the skies for
intelligent life. Basically, millions of dollars (some of which were tax payers
dollars) were pumped into a project to detect codes or messages from outer space
that would indicate intelligence. Those involved in the project recognized that
mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other
“fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence
did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that
Intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligence, natural
explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code,
mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc. Such codes have been found in
biochemical systems.
C) The two are basically the same. They are both looking for design in nature. The
SETI scientists are looking for things that do not occur naturally. If they were to
come across something such as that, then they would immediately infer design.
It would be on the front page of every newspaper that intelligent life exists
elsewhere in the universe. No one would begin to question the statement even
though we could not test the being that designed the signal or whatever. The same
is true for the biochemical design we see in the body. We see something that looks
designed. Just as with the SETI people, we naturally infer design. No, we cannot
test the designer, but just as with SETI, we do not have to for it to be science. We
are justified to infer the design concept.
5) Just trying to get religion into the schools
A) This is a bad assumption on their part.
B) It has nothing to do with religion.
C) Who the intelligent designer is, is not what the argument is showing. Of course
the next logical step would be to say that it is God. But that is apart from this
argument.
D) This, I believe, is just an attempt to curtail the discussion from what it is about
in order not to deal with the argument. It would be kind of like putting a band aid
on a severed limb. It just will not help the situation.
6) Does not prove a creator
A) This is true, but the argument does have value.
B) We need to recognize the fact that the teleological argument does not prove
an infinite, Necessary being who created the universe out of nothing. The
Cosmological argument is intended to accomplish this. However, when combined
with the cosmological argument the teleological argument does show that the
infinite cause of all finite being is an intelligent one, which is evidenced by the
extremely complex design manifested in the universe.
7) The perfection problem
A) Stated as such, “It does not prove the existence of God.”
1) The fact that the world is full of chaos indicates that there was no designer
and that it is best explained by natural phenomena.
2) The fact that mankind is plagued with disease, sickness, suffering indicates
that an intelligent being could not and would not design something so sloppy.
B) This is usually a rebuttal against the God of the Bible.
C) This is faulty on their part, since we are not arguing for the God of the Bible using
this argument. The only thing that the argument is stating is that there is design
in the universe that requires an intelligent being.
D) It is also faulty since we do not know at this point what the intelligent being had
in mind at the start. Could it not have purposely designed it in such a way as to have
the chaos, disease, and suffering as a part of its original plan? Possibly. (We will
examine this further when we discuss the issue of evil, pain, and suffering.) Also
what makes mankind’s definition of perfection the “rule of law”? Just because
mankind does not see it as perfection does not of necessity mean it is imperfect.
There are many buildings that I would say are really not very appealing to the eye.
Of course the designer of the building would disagree with my view of what he has
designed. Who is correct?
8) Multi universe theory
A) The multiverse theory is the hypothetical set of multiple universes that together
comprise all of reality.
1) It is argued that if this theory is correct then the design argument fails.
2) With the increase in number of universes, the probability of one having
the exact chemistry (for lack of a better word) for life to come into existence
becomes greater and greater.
3) Not only does it become more probably, it becomes plausible.
B) The major problem with this theory is the fact that we have absolutely NO
Empirical evidence to even suggest such. This theory laughs in the face of all
science. Science is not based on wishes. It is based on evidence.
C) Since this theory has none, it should not even be considered.
Conclusion
The teleological argument, as such, is a highly plausible but not absolutely certain argument for intelligent design manifested in the world. Chance is possible though not plausible. The teleological evidence favors the unity of this cause since this world is really a universe, not a multi universe. This is especially evident in view of the anthropic principle which reveals that the world, life, and humankind were anticipated from the very moment of the origin of the material universe.
The teleological argument as such does not demand that this cause be absolutely perfect. Nor does it explain the presence of evil and disorder in the world. The teleological argument is dependent on the cosmological and moral argument to establish these other aspects of the theistic God.
It is really a casual argument from effect to cause, only it argues from the intelligent nature of the effect to an intelligent cause. This point is important. For if the principle of causality cannot be supported, the admittedly one cannot insist that there must be a cause or ground of the design in the world. Design might just be there without a cause. Only if there is a purpose for everything can it follow that the world must have a purposer. The teleological argument depends on the cosmological argument in the important sense that it borrows from it the principle of causality. As can be readily seen from every form of the design argument, the underlying assumption is that there needs to be a cause for the order in the world. Deny this and the argument fails, for the alleged design would merely be gratuitous.
1) Some of the defenses of the premises use unprovable assumptions.
A) For example, we cannot prove that if the earth were closer to the sun that a
negative effect would transpire and life on earth would not be possible.
B) Remember what we are trying to do with our arguments. We can never prove
anything 100 %.
1) You cannot prove 100% that you exist. There is only one way to do this.
You must exit your body and observe yourself in a state of existence. This we
cannot do. It is physically impossible. What is the answer then. Can we
come to any type of conclusion about our own existence. Yes we can.
We need to remember three things, 1) What is the evidence? 2) What
is the plausibility of you existing? 3) We must use our own reasoning
and common sense.
a) Is there any evidence that you exist. Well, you are reading this.
You are thinking about the things written. Have someone punch
in the arm, go ahead. Did you feel any pain? Someone once said,
“I think, therefore I am.” These two areas are evidence that you exist.
1) You are capable of thinking.
2) You can feel things that are physical in nature.
b) Based on these two (there are others that can be added, just trying
to keep it simple) what is more plausible? That you do in fact exist,
or that you do not exist. Based on the evidence, it is more plausible
that you do exist. In fact, the plausibility of your existence is so
overwhelming, it is reasonable to conclude it is a fact.
c) Besides, common sense tells us that we do.
2) This is the same with this objection. No, we can not prove 100% that the
defenses are fact. But the plausibility of them being fact is so overwhelming
that it is reasonable to conclude that they are fact.
2) The Anthropic Principle
A) The Anthropic principle is this, the universe is tailor-made for habitation, and that
both the laws of physics and the initial conditions obligingly arranged themselves in
such a way that living organisms are subsequently assured of existence.
B) Well, DAH! Of course they are. We are here. The only difference is we know the
Tailor who made it so.
C) This is really not a strong argument. In fact, realizing the obvious implications of the
scientific evidence for the Anthropic principle, many evolutionary scientists have
rebelled at even the mere mention of it in the halls of science.
3) God of the Gaps
A) It is often stated something like this, “ Just because we do not know how something
came about does not mean we can or should insert God as the cause.”
B) This is an argument from ignorance. The Design argument is based on our everyday
design inference. When we see something that looks designed, that is what we infer.
C) We use the design inference on a daily bases. Even scientists, whether they want to
admit it or not, use it on a daily basis in their everyday work. A doctor and a
mechanic diagnose the same way. They each look within the machine to identify
what has gone wrong. The mechanic looks at the engine to see if one of the parts
has malfunctioned or if something has entered in to disrupt the machines inner
workings. They make the inference to design since the all the parts have to be
working properly in order for the machine to function as it should. The doctor in
essence does the exact same thing. They look at the inner parts to see what is not
functioning properly. They to make the same inference to design since all the
parts of the system have to be working properly in order for the system to work.
By identifying the problem, they then can correct it.
D) All the argument does is show that some intelligent being has designed the
system. We do not know what that intelligent being is. It could have been aliens
for all we know. This is a possible explanation. (Although I personally do not
believe that aliens exist.) Do not get caught up in this trap. They are making
assumptions that the argument is not asserting.
4) Darwin has shown that variations and natural selection can account for the
appearance of design.
A) We will deal with this more readily when we refute the evolutionary theory.
B) This rebuttal is primarily focused at the biochemical design argument.
C) If it can be shown that mutations and natural selection can produce the complex
systems such as the blood clotting cascade, then their argument stands. Yet, as
of today, none have been put forward. Perhaps we can understand why
detailed models are missing from the evolutionists by asking what a real
scientific investigation of mousetrap evolution would be like. They would first
have to think of a precursor to the modern mousetrap, one that was simpler.
Suppose they started with a wooden platform? No, that will not catch mice.
Suppose they started with a modern mousetrap that has a shortened holding
bar? No, if the bar is too short it would not reach the catch, and the trap would
spring uselessly while they were holding it. Suppose they started with a smaller
trap? No, that would not explain the complexity. Suppose the parts developed
individually for other functions-such as a popsicle stick for the platform, a clock
spring for the trap spring, and so on- and then accidentally got together? No, their
previous functions would leave them unfit for trapping mice, and they still have
to explain how they gradually developed into a mousetrap. If they cannot explain
the mousetrap, which is simple compared to the systems of the body, it is easy
to see why there are no attempts to give an evolutionary explanation.
D) A pertinent question to ask now is, “How do we know things?” Without getting
into the discipline of epistemology, there are really only two ways that we know
things. 1) Through personal experience and 2) By authority.
1) If you make the positive knowledge statement that the walls in your house
are green, how exactly do you know that? It is through personal experience.
You know the walls in your house are green because you live there and saw
that they are green. Similarly you know what a bird is, how gravity works
(in an everyday sense), And how to get to the nearest shopping mall, all by
direct experience.
2) If you make the positive knowledge statement that the earth revolves around
the sun, how exactly do you know this? It is by authority. That is, you rely
on some source on information, believing it to be reliable, when you have no
experience of your own. Anyone who has attended school believes that the
earth goes around the sun, even though only a few have the knowledge of how
to detect this.
E) Scientists are people too, so we can ask how they know what they know. They are
like everyone else, they rely upon personal experience and, or authority.
1) No one has personal experience in the evolution of complex biochemical
systems. It does not happen in the lab. In fact, there is an ongoing
experiment that is testing the validity of the mutation, natural selection theory.
They use a bacteria that the generations come and go at a rapid pace. They
have gone through about 40,000 generations. As of yet, there have been no
noticeable changes in the bacteria. Therefore they cannot say that the reason
that they know it has happened this way is through personal experience.
2) It is also not based on authority. There is no publication in scientific
literature- prestigious journal, specialty journals, or books- that describes
how evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or
even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred,
but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.
3) Since no one knows biochemical evolution by direct experience, and since
there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can be said that
the assertions of biochemical evolution is merely bluster.
5) Design is not science
A) This rebuttal goes something like this, “ Since we do not have access to the designer,
we have no way to falsify the concept.”
B) This is hypocritical on their part. A great example of science and design is the SETI
(stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)
project. This project was stated in the early 60's, but did not really get started until
Carl Sagan founded the Planetary Society. It was a vehicle to advance the SETI
program. Simply, the program uses radio telescopes to search the skies for
intelligent life. Basically, millions of dollars (some of which were tax payers
dollars) were pumped into a project to detect codes or messages from outer space
that would indicate intelligence. Those involved in the project recognized that
mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other
“fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence
did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that
Intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligence, natural
explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code,
mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc. Such codes have been found in
biochemical systems.
C) The two are basically the same. They are both looking for design in nature. The
SETI scientists are looking for things that do not occur naturally. If they were to
come across something such as that, then they would immediately infer design.
It would be on the front page of every newspaper that intelligent life exists
elsewhere in the universe. No one would begin to question the statement even
though we could not test the being that designed the signal or whatever. The same
is true for the biochemical design we see in the body. We see something that looks
designed. Just as with the SETI people, we naturally infer design. No, we cannot
test the designer, but just as with SETI, we do not have to for it to be science. We
are justified to infer the design concept.
5) Just trying to get religion into the schools
A) This is a bad assumption on their part.
B) It has nothing to do with religion.
C) Who the intelligent designer is, is not what the argument is showing. Of course
the next logical step would be to say that it is God. But that is apart from this
argument.
D) This, I believe, is just an attempt to curtail the discussion from what it is about
in order not to deal with the argument. It would be kind of like putting a band aid
on a severed limb. It just will not help the situation.
6) Does not prove a creator
A) This is true, but the argument does have value.
B) We need to recognize the fact that the teleological argument does not prove
an infinite, Necessary being who created the universe out of nothing. The
Cosmological argument is intended to accomplish this. However, when combined
with the cosmological argument the teleological argument does show that the
infinite cause of all finite being is an intelligent one, which is evidenced by the
extremely complex design manifested in the universe.
7) The perfection problem
A) Stated as such, “It does not prove the existence of God.”
1) The fact that the world is full of chaos indicates that there was no designer
and that it is best explained by natural phenomena.
2) The fact that mankind is plagued with disease, sickness, suffering indicates
that an intelligent being could not and would not design something so sloppy.
B) This is usually a rebuttal against the God of the Bible.
C) This is faulty on their part, since we are not arguing for the God of the Bible using
this argument. The only thing that the argument is stating is that there is design
in the universe that requires an intelligent being.
D) It is also faulty since we do not know at this point what the intelligent being had
in mind at the start. Could it not have purposely designed it in such a way as to have
the chaos, disease, and suffering as a part of its original plan? Possibly. (We will
examine this further when we discuss the issue of evil, pain, and suffering.) Also
what makes mankind’s definition of perfection the “rule of law”? Just because
mankind does not see it as perfection does not of necessity mean it is imperfect.
There are many buildings that I would say are really not very appealing to the eye.
Of course the designer of the building would disagree with my view of what he has
designed. Who is correct?
8) Multi universe theory
A) The multiverse theory is the hypothetical set of multiple universes that together
comprise all of reality.
1) It is argued that if this theory is correct then the design argument fails.
2) With the increase in number of universes, the probability of one having
the exact chemistry (for lack of a better word) for life to come into existence
becomes greater and greater.
3) Not only does it become more probably, it becomes plausible.
B) The major problem with this theory is the fact that we have absolutely NO
Empirical evidence to even suggest such. This theory laughs in the face of all
science. Science is not based on wishes. It is based on evidence.
C) Since this theory has none, it should not even be considered.
Conclusion
The teleological argument, as such, is a highly plausible but not absolutely certain argument for intelligent design manifested in the world. Chance is possible though not plausible. The teleological evidence favors the unity of this cause since this world is really a universe, not a multi universe. This is especially evident in view of the anthropic principle which reveals that the world, life, and humankind were anticipated from the very moment of the origin of the material universe.
The teleological argument as such does not demand that this cause be absolutely perfect. Nor does it explain the presence of evil and disorder in the world. The teleological argument is dependent on the cosmological and moral argument to establish these other aspects of the theistic God.
It is really a casual argument from effect to cause, only it argues from the intelligent nature of the effect to an intelligent cause. This point is important. For if the principle of causality cannot be supported, the admittedly one cannot insist that there must be a cause or ground of the design in the world. Design might just be there without a cause. Only if there is a purpose for everything can it follow that the world must have a purposer. The teleological argument depends on the cosmological argument in the important sense that it borrows from it the principle of causality. As can be readily seen from every form of the design argument, the underlying assumption is that there needs to be a cause for the order in the world. Deny this and the argument fails, for the alleged design would merely be gratuitous.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Teleological argument part 2
The Teleological Argument for God Part 2
1) The Argument
A) If the universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer.
B) The universe does evince purposeful design.
C) Thus, the universe must have had a designer.
2) Defense of the Argument
A) Premise A
1) This is a logical and reasonable statement.
2) It is more plausibly true then its counterpart that if the universe evinces
purposeful design, there must not have been a designer.
3) Design implies a designer.
4) This is usually not the objection to the argument. Most rational persons
will conceded this first premise.
B) Premise B
1) This is where most of the objections come from.
2) From Richard Dawkins book “The Blind Watchmaker”:
“There may be good reasons for belief in God, but the argument
from design is not one of them...[D]espite all appearances to the
contrary, there is no watchmaker in nature beyond the blind forces
of physics...Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet
essentially nonrandom process that Darwin discovered, and that we
now understand to be the explanation for the existence and form
of all life, has no mind’s eye, It does not plan for the future. It has
no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the
role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”
3) The disagreement between the theist and atheist is not whether design
demands a designer. Rather, the point of contention is whether or not
there is design in nature adequate to substantiate the conclusion that
a designer does, in fact, exist.
4) We can infer design by the universal constants that are observed in nature.
How did these come about? These had to be in place before anything could
begin. (Look at the bottom of the post, there are 33)
5) We can infer design from the universe itself.
a) The universe is tremendously large. Even though its outer limits
have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion
light years in diameter. There are an estimated 1 billion galaxies in
the universe, and an estimated 25 sextillion stars. The Milky Way
Galaxy consists of over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even
traveling at the speed of light it would require 100,000 years to cross.
b) The sun converts 8 million tons of matter into energy every second
and has an interior temperature of more than 20 million degrees. It
also produces intense radiation, which, in certain amounts, can be
deadly to living things.
c) The earth is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to
receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to sustain life. The
earth is located 93 million miles from the sun. This distance is just
right to help stop the destructive pressure waves given off by the sun
as it converts matter to energy. If we were 10% closer, life could
not survive because of the intense heat and pressure. If we were 10%
farther away, too little heat would be absorbed.
d) We receive some protection from the sun’s radiation because in one
of the layers of the atmosphere, there is a special form of oxygen known
as ozone, which filters out most of the ultraviolet rays from the sun. In
addition, the sun constantly sends out an invisible wind that is
composed of protons and electrons. These particles approach the earth
at extremely high speeds. Fortunately, most of these particles are
reflected back into space because the earth acts like a giant magnet
and pushes these particles away.
e) The earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator
and is moving around the sun at 7,000 miles per hour, while the sun
and solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per
hour. This rotation provides period of light and darkness which is
necessary to life to exist. If the earth were rotating much faster,
fierce cyclones would stir over the earth like a kitchen food mixer.
If the earth turned slower, the days and nights would be impossibly hot
or cold.
f) The earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle, but is elliptical. This means that
sometimes the earth is closer to the sun than at other times. In January,
the earth is closest to the sun; in July, it is the farthest away. When it is
closer, the earth speeds up to avoid being pulled into the sun, when it is
farthest away, it slows down so that it remains in position.
g) The earth moves in its orbit around the sun, it departs from a straight
line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles. If it departed by
one-eight of an inch, we would come so close to the sun that we would
be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find
ourselves so far from the sun that we would all freeze to death.
h) The earth is poised at about 240,000 miles from the moon. The moon
helps control the movement of the ocean tides. This movement is very
beneficial to life on earth. Without it the oceans would stagnate, and
the animals and plants would perish. The existence of life on the earth
depends greatly on the tides, which help to balance the delicate food
chain. If the moon were moved just 5% closer to the earth, the tides
would reach about 30-50 feet higher and cover most of the earth.
i) Water covers about 72% of the earths surface. This is good because
the oceans provide a reservoir of moisture that constantly evaporates
and condenses. This motion of water causes rain to fall upon the
earth. Water also heats and cools at a much slower rate than solid
land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot
in the daytime and freezing at night. Water, however, holds its
Temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-
conditioning system for the earth. Temperature extremes would
be much more erratic if it were not for the fact that the earth’s
surface were not covered with 4/5ths water. Also, humans and
animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants
inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. We depend upon the
of plants for our oxygen, yet we often fail to realize that
approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants
in the seas. If the oceans were any smaller, we would be out of air
to breath.
j) The statistical improbability of the universe just happening by blind
chance is staggering. The odds of such an event happening has been
estimated at about 1 in 10 to the 1000th power. That is a one followed
by 1000 zeroes. Mathematicians say that anything at 1 in 10 to the 50th
power and above is impossible to come to pass. “Astronomy leads us
to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one
with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions
Required to permit life, and one which has an underlying plan.”
6) Fine tuning of the universe from the beginning
a) Due to either law, chance, or design
b)Not due to law or chance
c) Therefore it is due to design.
d) Constants of nature
1) When the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical
equations, you find appearing in them certain constants
which are the same across the board. Law of gravity.
F=Gx(M1xM2)divided by R squared
G will always be the same and is independent from the
laws of nature.
2) They were put in at the creation and are contingent.
3) It has been estimated that if the constant for gravity
were changed by 1 part in 10 to the 100th power, life
could not exist in this universe.
e) Arbitrary quantities
1) These are the initial conditions that are just put in at
the beginning of the universe on which the laws of
nature then operate.
2) Example is the low amount of entropy that was put in at
the beginning of the universe as an initial condition.
3) The ratio of matter to anti-matter was put into the universe.
f) Scientists have shown that these initial conditions and constants
must have been fined tuned to incomprehensible precision in order
for this universe to exist and also to permit life to exist within it.
g) Used to think that no matter what the initial conditions were, given
enough time, they would come into alignment and allow life to exist.
h) Some estimates indicate that there are over 100 of these initial
conditions within the universe.
i) In order for them all to align so that the universe could be life
permitting could not have been by chance.
j) Probability
1) Probability is defined as the chance or likelihood that a
certain event will happen.
2) Again, mathematicians estimate that any thing with odds
greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th power are not possible. The
odds of all the initial conditions to come into existence by
chance at the same time and in the right dimensions are about
1 in 10 to the1000th power.
3) Example: The fine-tuning that we see in the universe is
comparable to randomly throwing a dart the entire breath
of the universe and hitting a target 1" in diameter.
4) Example: The range for this to happen is so infinitesimal
that if you had a radio dial the breath of the universe, you would
have a range of 2 centimeters to dial in the station.
5) Example: If you had to pull a white ball out of a tank filled
with 100,000 black balls in order for you to continue to live,
would you even speculate that you could. How about having
to do this, say, 100 times in a row. How confident would you
be in that venture? Would anyone bet on you?
5) Is it plausible and reasonable to conclude that it happened by
chance? No, in any other instance this would be impossible
and would never be given a second thought.
7) Self-sustaining earth
a) Water cycle
1) We all have studied this fact of nature.
2) Water, in liquid form, evaporates due to the heat of the sun.
As it rises into the air, the higher it gets the cooler it becomes
since the air is cooler the higher you get.
3) As the water vapor rises it begins to condense on minuet
particles in the air and starts to turn back into water.
4) As the water accumulates on the particle, it begins to
increase in weight and eventually falls back to earth in
the form of rain.
5) The rain falls to the ground and accumulates in pools and
streams, rivers, lakes, and the ocean.
6) Then the process starts all over again.
7) With this, the earth is constantly replenishing and cleaning
its water supply.
8) How has this come about? What natural mechanism would
account for such a principle? None, the only logical and
plausible reason is design.
b) Breathable air
1) The earth has a unique way of producing life sustaining
air for all living things.
2) As you know, We all need oxygen in order to survive.
3) Have you ever wondered why we never run out?
4) It comes from the plants. In fact about 90% of it comes
from the small plant life in the oceans.
5) The plants give off the oxygen we need to sustain life,
in turn, we give off carbon dioxide which the plants “breath”.
6) If this process did not occur, life on earth would have ceased
to exist long ago.
7) Was this just by chance? Again, what would be the mechanism
that would put this interaction into place?
c) The food chain
1) Plants use the sun and nutrients from the soil as “food”.
2) Animals (herbivores) eat these plants for their nourishment.
3) In turn, animals (omnivores and carnivores) eat these herbivores
for their nourishment.
4) Once the herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores excrete their
waste, it is now time for the bacteria and things to have their fill.
They reduce the waste into nutrients for the plants to consume.
5) The process starts all over again.
6) This is a very simple explanation of the food chain, but it shows
the self-sufficient nature of the earth.
UNIVERSAL CONSTANTS
1. Strong nuclear force constant:
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry;
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. Weak nuclear force constant:
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible;
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. Gravitational force constant:
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry;
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. Electromagnetic force constant:
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission;
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant:
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the Sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support;
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the Sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass:
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry;
if smaller: same as above ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons:
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation;
if smaller: same as above
8. Expansion rate of the Universe:
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: Universe would collapse, even before stars formed entropy level of the Universe
9. Entropy level of the Universe:
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies;
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. Mass density of the Universe:
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form;
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. Velocity of light:
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support;
if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. Initial uniformity of radiation:
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed;
if less uniform: Universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
13. Average distance between galaxies:
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the Universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the Sun’s orbit
14. Density of galaxy cluster:
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
15. Average distance between stars:
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
16. Fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines):
if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the Sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the Sun
17. Decay rate of protons:
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: Universe would contain insufficient matter for life
18. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio:
if larger: Universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: Universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
19. Ground state energy level for 4He:
if larger: Universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
20. Decay rate of 8Be:
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
21. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass:
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
22. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons:
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
23. Polarity of the water molecule:
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
24. Supernovae eruptions:
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
25. White dwarf binaries:
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
26. Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass:
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
27. Number of effective dimensions in the early Universe:
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
28 Number of effective dimensions in the present Universe:
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
29. Mass of the neutrino:
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
30. Big bang ripples:
if smaller: galaxies would not form; Universe would expand too rapidly:
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; Universe would collapse before life-site could form
31. Size of the relativistic dilation factor:
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
32. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
33. Cosmological constant:
if larger: Universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars (see: “Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe”).
1) The Argument
A) If the universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer.
B) The universe does evince purposeful design.
C) Thus, the universe must have had a designer.
2) Defense of the Argument
A) Premise A
1) This is a logical and reasonable statement.
2) It is more plausibly true then its counterpart that if the universe evinces
purposeful design, there must not have been a designer.
3) Design implies a designer.
4) This is usually not the objection to the argument. Most rational persons
will conceded this first premise.
B) Premise B
1) This is where most of the objections come from.
2) From Richard Dawkins book “The Blind Watchmaker”:
“There may be good reasons for belief in God, but the argument
from design is not one of them...[D]espite all appearances to the
contrary, there is no watchmaker in nature beyond the blind forces
of physics...Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet
essentially nonrandom process that Darwin discovered, and that we
now understand to be the explanation for the existence and form
of all life, has no mind’s eye, It does not plan for the future. It has
no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the
role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”
3) The disagreement between the theist and atheist is not whether design
demands a designer. Rather, the point of contention is whether or not
there is design in nature adequate to substantiate the conclusion that
a designer does, in fact, exist.
4) We can infer design by the universal constants that are observed in nature.
How did these come about? These had to be in place before anything could
begin. (Look at the bottom of the post, there are 33)
5) We can infer design from the universe itself.
a) The universe is tremendously large. Even though its outer limits
have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion
light years in diameter. There are an estimated 1 billion galaxies in
the universe, and an estimated 25 sextillion stars. The Milky Way
Galaxy consists of over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even
traveling at the speed of light it would require 100,000 years to cross.
b) The sun converts 8 million tons of matter into energy every second
and has an interior temperature of more than 20 million degrees. It
also produces intense radiation, which, in certain amounts, can be
deadly to living things.
c) The earth is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to
receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to sustain life. The
earth is located 93 million miles from the sun. This distance is just
right to help stop the destructive pressure waves given off by the sun
as it converts matter to energy. If we were 10% closer, life could
not survive because of the intense heat and pressure. If we were 10%
farther away, too little heat would be absorbed.
d) We receive some protection from the sun’s radiation because in one
of the layers of the atmosphere, there is a special form of oxygen known
as ozone, which filters out most of the ultraviolet rays from the sun. In
addition, the sun constantly sends out an invisible wind that is
composed of protons and electrons. These particles approach the earth
at extremely high speeds. Fortunately, most of these particles are
reflected back into space because the earth acts like a giant magnet
and pushes these particles away.
e) The earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator
and is moving around the sun at 7,000 miles per hour, while the sun
and solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per
hour. This rotation provides period of light and darkness which is
necessary to life to exist. If the earth were rotating much faster,
fierce cyclones would stir over the earth like a kitchen food mixer.
If the earth turned slower, the days and nights would be impossibly hot
or cold.
f) The earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle, but is elliptical. This means that
sometimes the earth is closer to the sun than at other times. In January,
the earth is closest to the sun; in July, it is the farthest away. When it is
closer, the earth speeds up to avoid being pulled into the sun, when it is
farthest away, it slows down so that it remains in position.
g) The earth moves in its orbit around the sun, it departs from a straight
line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles. If it departed by
one-eight of an inch, we would come so close to the sun that we would
be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find
ourselves so far from the sun that we would all freeze to death.
h) The earth is poised at about 240,000 miles from the moon. The moon
helps control the movement of the ocean tides. This movement is very
beneficial to life on earth. Without it the oceans would stagnate, and
the animals and plants would perish. The existence of life on the earth
depends greatly on the tides, which help to balance the delicate food
chain. If the moon were moved just 5% closer to the earth, the tides
would reach about 30-50 feet higher and cover most of the earth.
i) Water covers about 72% of the earths surface. This is good because
the oceans provide a reservoir of moisture that constantly evaporates
and condenses. This motion of water causes rain to fall upon the
earth. Water also heats and cools at a much slower rate than solid
land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot
in the daytime and freezing at night. Water, however, holds its
Temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-
conditioning system for the earth. Temperature extremes would
be much more erratic if it were not for the fact that the earth’s
surface were not covered with 4/5ths water. Also, humans and
animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants
inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. We depend upon the
of plants for our oxygen, yet we often fail to realize that
approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants
in the seas. If the oceans were any smaller, we would be out of air
to breath.
j) The statistical improbability of the universe just happening by blind
chance is staggering. The odds of such an event happening has been
estimated at about 1 in 10 to the 1000th power. That is a one followed
by 1000 zeroes. Mathematicians say that anything at 1 in 10 to the 50th
power and above is impossible to come to pass. “Astronomy leads us
to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one
with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions
Required to permit life, and one which has an underlying plan.”
6) Fine tuning of the universe from the beginning
a) Due to either law, chance, or design
b)Not due to law or chance
c) Therefore it is due to design.
d) Constants of nature
1) When the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical
equations, you find appearing in them certain constants
which are the same across the board. Law of gravity.
F=Gx(M1xM2)divided by R squared
G will always be the same and is independent from the
laws of nature.
2) They were put in at the creation and are contingent.
3) It has been estimated that if the constant for gravity
were changed by 1 part in 10 to the 100th power, life
could not exist in this universe.
e) Arbitrary quantities
1) These are the initial conditions that are just put in at
the beginning of the universe on which the laws of
nature then operate.
2) Example is the low amount of entropy that was put in at
the beginning of the universe as an initial condition.
3) The ratio of matter to anti-matter was put into the universe.
f) Scientists have shown that these initial conditions and constants
must have been fined tuned to incomprehensible precision in order
for this universe to exist and also to permit life to exist within it.
g) Used to think that no matter what the initial conditions were, given
enough time, they would come into alignment and allow life to exist.
h) Some estimates indicate that there are over 100 of these initial
conditions within the universe.
i) In order for them all to align so that the universe could be life
permitting could not have been by chance.
j) Probability
1) Probability is defined as the chance or likelihood that a
certain event will happen.
2) Again, mathematicians estimate that any thing with odds
greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th power are not possible. The
odds of all the initial conditions to come into existence by
chance at the same time and in the right dimensions are about
1 in 10 to the1000th power.
3) Example: The fine-tuning that we see in the universe is
comparable to randomly throwing a dart the entire breath
of the universe and hitting a target 1" in diameter.
4) Example: The range for this to happen is so infinitesimal
that if you had a radio dial the breath of the universe, you would
have a range of 2 centimeters to dial in the station.
5) Example: If you had to pull a white ball out of a tank filled
with 100,000 black balls in order for you to continue to live,
would you even speculate that you could. How about having
to do this, say, 100 times in a row. How confident would you
be in that venture? Would anyone bet on you?
5) Is it plausible and reasonable to conclude that it happened by
chance? No, in any other instance this would be impossible
and would never be given a second thought.
7) Self-sustaining earth
a) Water cycle
1) We all have studied this fact of nature.
2) Water, in liquid form, evaporates due to the heat of the sun.
As it rises into the air, the higher it gets the cooler it becomes
since the air is cooler the higher you get.
3) As the water vapor rises it begins to condense on minuet
particles in the air and starts to turn back into water.
4) As the water accumulates on the particle, it begins to
increase in weight and eventually falls back to earth in
the form of rain.
5) The rain falls to the ground and accumulates in pools and
streams, rivers, lakes, and the ocean.
6) Then the process starts all over again.
7) With this, the earth is constantly replenishing and cleaning
its water supply.
8) How has this come about? What natural mechanism would
account for such a principle? None, the only logical and
plausible reason is design.
b) Breathable air
1) The earth has a unique way of producing life sustaining
air for all living things.
2) As you know, We all need oxygen in order to survive.
3) Have you ever wondered why we never run out?
4) It comes from the plants. In fact about 90% of it comes
from the small plant life in the oceans.
5) The plants give off the oxygen we need to sustain life,
in turn, we give off carbon dioxide which the plants “breath”.
6) If this process did not occur, life on earth would have ceased
to exist long ago.
7) Was this just by chance? Again, what would be the mechanism
that would put this interaction into place?
c) The food chain
1) Plants use the sun and nutrients from the soil as “food”.
2) Animals (herbivores) eat these plants for their nourishment.
3) In turn, animals (omnivores and carnivores) eat these herbivores
for their nourishment.
4) Once the herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores excrete their
waste, it is now time for the bacteria and things to have their fill.
They reduce the waste into nutrients for the plants to consume.
5) The process starts all over again.
6) This is a very simple explanation of the food chain, but it shows
the self-sufficient nature of the earth.
UNIVERSAL CONSTANTS
1. Strong nuclear force constant:
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry;
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. Weak nuclear force constant:
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible;
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. Gravitational force constant:
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry;
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. Electromagnetic force constant:
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission;
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant:
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the Sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support;
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the Sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass:
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry;
if smaller: same as above ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons:
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation;
if smaller: same as above
8. Expansion rate of the Universe:
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: Universe would collapse, even before stars formed entropy level of the Universe
9. Entropy level of the Universe:
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies;
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. Mass density of the Universe:
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form;
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. Velocity of light:
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support;
if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. Initial uniformity of radiation:
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed;
if less uniform: Universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
13. Average distance between galaxies:
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the Universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the Sun’s orbit
14. Density of galaxy cluster:
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
15. Average distance between stars:
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
16. Fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines):
if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the Sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the Sun
17. Decay rate of protons:
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: Universe would contain insufficient matter for life
18. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio:
if larger: Universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: Universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
19. Ground state energy level for 4He:
if larger: Universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
20. Decay rate of 8Be:
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
21. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass:
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
22. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons:
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
23. Polarity of the water molecule:
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
24. Supernovae eruptions:
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
25. White dwarf binaries:
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
26. Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass:
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
27. Number of effective dimensions in the early Universe:
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
28 Number of effective dimensions in the present Universe:
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
29. Mass of the neutrino:
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
30. Big bang ripples:
if smaller: galaxies would not form; Universe would expand too rapidly:
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; Universe would collapse before life-site could form
31. Size of the relativistic dilation factor:
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
32. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
33. Cosmological constant:
if larger: Universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars (see: “Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe”).
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)