Evidence and Religion

[Goddess]

The argument presented here, encapsulated:

1. Complex natural systems CAN evolve gradually through the accumulation of many small useful steps;
2. Systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" are often NOT;
3. Even systems that ARE irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually.

 

[?Impact]

18 hours ago, blackbird said:

But in "scientific circles" it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Well at least the author had the sense to put "scientific circles" in quotes. I was going to address the second law of thermodynamics as it has often been quoted by the totally scientific illiterate and accepted by the scientifically ignorant but Goddess beat me to the punch.

Edited December 20, 2017 by ?Impact

[Goddess]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

A major contribution to the question of the credibility of evolution was Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," in which he drew attention to many marvelous micro-biological systems which exhibit what he termed "irreducible complexity."

I have read Behe's book.

Quote

Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us 1," that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor." In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.

Quote

Because they are "irreducibly complex," meaning that if they are missing just one of their many parts, they cannot function. Behe writes that "Irreducibly complex systems ... cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion." 3 Why not? Because natural selection works on small mutations in just one component at a time. If dozens or even hundreds of distinct proteins, precisely fashioned, are required to make a functional cilium, how could natural selection slowly and patiently craft them, one at a time, while waiting for the complex function of ciliary movement to emerge? It couldn't, so, according to Behe, the hypothesis that the cilium was produced by evolution is therefore disproved. If evolution did not make the cilium, then "intelligent design" must have. He writes: "life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity." 4

If all of this has a familiar ring, it should. It is the classic "Argument from Design," articulated so well by William Paley nearly 200 years ago in his book Natural Theology.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/review-michael-behes-darwins-black-box

 

The Argument from Design: 

 

The most common reasoning that I encounter is that the order in nature indicates that someone ordered it.  Therefore, there must be a supreme

being.  A common illustration is of a man walking on the beach.  He encounters a watch.  Would he think that the watch was formed by the random forces of nature?  Of course not.  That would be foolish.  Yet, we look at the order and complexity of the human body, the animal kingdom, the beauty of our planet, and the vastness and complexity of the universe, and think it came about by chance – absurd!

Well, there are more than a few holes in this reasoning.  For example, how does one define order?  I can watch crystals forming spontaneously.  They are complex and ordered, yet they are not arranged by anyone.  They form because they follow simple rules (actually conveniences more than rules), and repeat them many times.  On the other hand, I can look at my pen, which is simpler than a crystal, and know that it was manufactured.  How do I know that?  It is because I have seen pens before and I know where they come from.   In other words, we recognize design, because we know which items in our society have been designed.  We need independent understanding of the mechanisms behind their construction to judge whethere they are designed or a product of natural processes.  If I see a completely alien item, I may not know if it were designed or formed naturally.  So, are humans formed by the repetition of basic universal rules, or were they designed?  The answer is that we can’t tell by looking at them.

Additionally, this argument ignores the fact that humans reproduce, whereas watches do not.  Reproduction introduces variations and selection into the mix.  Humans can and do change spontaneously over the generations.  We can see it happening. Watches do not change spontaneously over the generations.  We can see it not happening.

The biggest flaw in the argument from design is that it leads to an infinite regression.  If the universe is so ordered that it could only have come from a superior creator, then how much more must that creator be ordered?  If humans must have been designed, then God certainly must have been designed... and his God, and his God, and so on, with each one being more complex than the previous.  You can’t just switch off the logic

at an arbitrary point.  If logic demands that order requires a creator, then the creator must have a creator.

Evolution and creation begin at the same point – Something came from nothing.  The universe is simpler than God.  So, if something had to come from nothing, it might as well have been the universe.  Evolution wins this round because it has no need for an unnecessary middle step.

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

I have read Behe's book.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/review-michael-behes-darwins-black-box

 

The Argument from Design: 

 

The most common reasoning that I encounter is that the order in nature indicates that someone ordered it.  Therefore, there must be a supreme

being.  A common illustration is of a man walking on the beach.  He encounters a watch.  Would he think that the watch was formed by the random forces of nature?  Of course not.  That would be foolish.  Yet, we look at the order and complexity of the human body, the animal kingdom, the beauty of our planet, and the vastness and complexity of the universe, and think it came about by chance – absurd!

Well, there are more than a few holes in this reasoning.  For example, how does one define order?  I can watch crystals forming spontaneously.  They are complex and ordered, yet they are not arranged by anyone.  They form because they follow simple rules (actually conveniences more than rules), and repeat them many times.  On the other hand, I can look at my pen, which is simpler than a crystal, and know that it was manufactured.  How do I know that?  It is because I have seen pens before and I know where they come from.   In other words, we recognize design, because we know which items in our society have been designed.  We need independent understanding of the mechanisms behind their construction to judge whethere they are designed or a product of natural processes.  If I see a completely alien item, I may not know if it were designed or formed naturally.  So, are humans formed by the repetition of basic universal rules, or were they designed?  The answer is that we can’t tell by looking at them.

Additionally, this argument ignores the fact that humans reproduce, whereas watches do not.  Reproduction introduces variations and selection into the mix.  Humans can and do change spontaneously over the generations.  We can see it happening. Watches do not change spontaneously over the generations.  We can see it not happening.

The biggest flaw in the argument from design is that it leads to an infinite regression.  If the universe is so ordered that it could only have come from a superior creator, then how much more must that creator be ordered?  If humans must have been designed, then God certainly must have been designed... and his God, and his God, and so on, with each one being more complex than the previous.  You can’t just switch off the logic

at an arbitrary point.  If logic demands that order requires a creator, then the creator must have a creator.

Evolution and creation begin at the same point – Something came from nothing.  The universe is simpler than God.  So, if something had to come from nothing, it might as well have been the universe.  Evolution wins this round because it has no need for an unnecessary middle step.

I don't agree with the reasoning.  It seems depend a lot on who one wishes to believe and whether you are willing to believe in certain theories.  The last couple paragraphs make the claim that a Creator would have to have been created himself.  That is an incorrect assumption.  Bible believers accept the teaching of the Bible that there is a God who is all powerful and eternal, without beginning and without end.  You have to remember, God is not to be compared to a created being.  God is a spirit which is outside the material universe.  He is a being with infinite intelligence and power to do whatever he chooses to do.  He is not a force field and can only be understood in terms of what has been told us in the Holy Bible. 

So he had the power to create everything in the universe.  If he is eternal as the Bible teaches, he would not need to have been created.  To believe in a Creator is perfectly reasonable and is based on what the Holy Bible teaches.  A universe without God lacks the answer to one vital question, that is, purpose.  Without God there is no central purpose or direction.

We could go on endlessly quoting this scientist or that one, but in the end, I think it boils down to what one wishes to accept.  I see it as far more reasonable to believe God created everything and created man and woman.  They are far to complex as are countless other things, including sub atomic particles, energy, magnetic fields, etc.  None of that could have come about by accident or natural causes.  What would be the purpose of existence if it is all just random?  But the Bible answers the question of why.  God had a purpose in creating everything and creating mankind.  Without God, what is the meaning of it all?  There is none.

Edited December 21, 2017 by blackbird

[Goddess]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

I see it as far more reasonable to believe God created everything and created man and woman.

I don't.  I "created" my children too, just like you believe God did.  But I don't expect them to "worship" me - I expect them to grow up and be independent beings who don't need me to micromanage their lives.  And I would absolutely step in if my children were in trouble, pain or fear.  I think the perfect time for God to have stepped in was when children were being shovelled into ovens in Auschwitz.  But he did not.  His choice was to not step in.  His choice has been to not step in for over 2000 years of human misery.  You may see that as complettely "reasonable".  I do not.

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

What would be the purpose of existence if it is all just random?

This is a common misconception - that life has no purpose without God.  My life's purpose is likely much the same as your's - to be a good, kind, compassionate person who respects, appreciates and forgives others.  To continually better myself.  Our motivations are likely different though - I am a good person because I want to be.  I don't try to be a good person because a deity tells me to.  I wouldn't live my life any differently if I believed in God.  The proof of this is that I know many people who claim to be religious and go to church and preach Bible verses but "prove false to it's power" - they are some of the worst, least compassionate, least forgiving, least giving people I've ever known.  Yet some of the best people I've ever known - don't believe in God, have tattoos and never step foot inside a church.  You don't need to believe in God to be a good person and exhibit "Bible qualities".

[?Impact]

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

Bible believers accept the teaching of the Bible that there is a God who is all powerful and eternal, without beginning and without end.  You have to remember, God is not to be compared to a created being.  God is a spirit which is outside the material universe.  He is a being with infinite intelligence and power to do whatever he chooses to do.  He is not a force field and can only be understood in terms of what has been told us in the Holy Bible.

What is a being?

Yes, Bible believers accept any swill they are fed. I however accept knowledge that is based on empirical evidence subject to the principals of reasoning.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

I don't.  I "created" my children too, just like you believe God did.  But I don't expect them to "worship" me - I expect them to grow up and be independent beings who don't need me to micromanage their lives.  And I would absolutely step in if my children were in trouble, pain or fear.  I think the perfect time for God to have stepped in was when children were being shovelled into ovens in Auschwitz.  But he did not.  His choice was to not step in.  His choice has been to not step in for over 2000 years of human misery.  You may see that as complettely "reasonable".  I do not.

This is a common misconception - that life has no purpose without God.  My life's purpose is likely much the same as your's - to be a good, kind, compassionate person who respects, appreciates and forgives others.  To continually better myself.  Our motivations are likely different though - I am a good person because I want to be.  I don't try to be a good person because a deity tells me to.  I wouldn't live my life any differently if I believed in God.  The proof of this is that I know many people who claim to be religious and go to church and preach Bible verses but "prove false to it's power" - they are some of the worst, least compassionate, least forgiving, least giving people I've ever known.  Yet some of the best people I've ever known - don't believe in God, have tattoos and never step foot inside a church.  You don't need to believe in God to be a good person and exhibit "Bible qualities".

People often point out bad things that happen in the world and question why if there is a God, why didn't he intervene?    I believe God is well aware of these things, but he did not make mankind to be robots.  He is not ignoring these things, but I believe God has a plan yet to be fulfilled in his own time.  The holocaust is one of the most difficult things to understand.  But so are all wars, genocides, and terrible things that happened down through the ages.  But rest assured God has not slipped up; he has not forgotten. 

These bad things happened because Adam and Eve rebelled against God in the beginning and the human race became a fallen race at that point.  Every person inherits a fallen or depraved nature. It is in our genes so to speak.  I know many people think they are no so bad, but by God's standards, we are a depraved people.  That's why he sent Jesus to redeem a people for himself.

It is a serious mistake to judge the truth of the Bible or the truth of christianity by judging the actions of people.  Yes it is true there are many false professors or false christians in the world, just as there are many non-believers who commit crimes of various sorts.  People who go to church do not suddenly become angels or perfect.  Some are genuinely converted but are still struggling with the old nature.  The devil uses our human weaknesses and tries to exploit them to his advantage.  So christians sometimes fall.

People sometimes say the church is full of hypocrits.  There could be some truth in that.  But the church is kind of like a hospital where sinners go.  They hear the gospel there and if the Holy Spirit convicts them and they believe the gospel, they may be changed.  Sometimes it might be a major change quickly, other times it might take time, and others might not find much victory over their old nature.  It is a struggle.  We cannot change by our own strength very well.  We need God's power and the leading and healing of the Holy Spirit.  I will say salvation is by faith, not by works.  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  Not of works, lest any man should boast."  Ephesians ch2: 8,9 

Many people who profess to be atheists or agnostics are actually non-practicing Catholics.  Some may have been baptized in the Catholic church but never went since and don't consider themselves as any religion.  Others go maybe once or twice a year at Christmas and Easter.   So it is worth mentioning that religion is not biblical. 

I grew up as an RC and rejected it when I heard the gospel and learned salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ as saviour and Lord.  The RCC teaches salvation is by receiving the RC sacraments and doing good works.  So it means the priests are administering salvation through baptism, and the other sacraments coupled with doing good works.  This is completely contrary to what Jesus and the Bible teaches. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What is a being?

Yes, Bible believers accept any swill they are fed. I however accept knowledge that is based on empirical evidence subject to the principals of reasoning.

I used the term being but it is probably not correct.  Person would be a better term, or God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as one God in three persons.  Although the word trinity is not used in the Bible, the doctrine is still there.  Contrary to what Muslims claim, christians are not worshiping three Gods, but only one God in three persons. 

The apostle Paul warned "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."  1 Timothy 6:20 .     This is a clear warning to avoid science which denies the existence of God.  It is foolishness and deceptive.

Edited December 21, 2017 by blackbird

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

christians are not worshiping three Gods, but only one God in three persons. 

Today we call that "schizophrenia".  

I do agree with your statement:

25 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So it is worth mentioning that religion is not biblical. 

Blackbird, although we disagree on most things, I do appreciate your kind and respectful way of conveying your beliefs.

[?Impact]

35 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 one God in three persons

Who speaks to himself?

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What is a being?

Yes, Bible believers accept any swill they are fed. I however accept knowledge that is based on empirical evidence subject to the principals of reasoning.

I am glad you accept knowledge based on evidence and reasoning.  That is what believing in God and biblical christianity is all about.  Evidence and reasoning tells us the creation all around us was created by God.  Believing in God and the resurrected Jesus is based on eyewitness accounts in Holy Scripture, which is reasoning.

Edited December 21, 2017 by blackbird

[John Prewett]

If one makes a prediction,  one can expect some to respond with "that's crazy ... never happen ... you're nuts ... etc". 

OTOH,  

it doesn't prove much if a person says "I knew that would happen"  after the event comes to pass. 

If a one predict winners on the stock market, or sports event,  or political contest ... etc 

then that shows one has more understanding of the activity than is possessed by the person who cannot make such accurate prediction.  

OTOH,   if one's predictions don't come to pass,... then that is evidence one does not know as much as one may have thought they knew. 

I said all that to say this:  New York City will soon be nuked.    Most likely on NEW YEAR EVE.