Thursday, February 26, 2009
Post Delayed
I think it is a good idea that I take a week off after every eight posts. Expect a new post next Thursday. I don't have any excuses.... just need a break.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Double-Edged Sword: Where Does Your Faith Lie? (Week 8)
Early on I said, "I want to share with you the reasons that I first truly began to trust in God, Christ, and Biblical truth." These first several posts hold the content that caused me to rethink my beliefs. Sometimes it is not enough to look at one thing at a time, so this week we'll be taking a look at the arguments I've made thus far in an earnest effort to connect the dots.
There are a few conclusions to which science has led us directly:
- Time, space, matter, and energy had a beginning (General Relativity)
- Time, space, matter, and energy are contained within the very fabric of the universe (General Relativity)
- The Big Bang Theory has been corroborated by theory (General Relativity) and by observation (COBE, etc)
- The universe’s expansion is accelerating (Hubble, COBE, etc)
- Quantum mechanics must be described by probability (Heisenberg)
- The physical conditions conducive to nucleic acid formation are detrimental to amino acid formation and visa versa
From these scientific assertions, we can reach a few definitive logical conclusions:
- Since the universe had a beginning, the universe cannot be eternal (so Einstein’s pantheistic god is no more)
- Since the universe’s expansion is accelerating, there will be no Big Crunch (so the formation of our universe was a one-time event)
- In accordance with our rather sophisticated knowledge of physical processes and quantum mechanical probability, an explosion of energy like that theorized in the Big Bang would be unlikely to lead to the formation of galaxies
- In accordance with our rather sophisticated knowledge of proteins, amino acids, and nucleic acids, amino acids are unlikely to form into proteins without instruction from nucleic acids
I will be taking a slight turn from “evidence for God” and instead will focus this week on “evidence against atheism” for this is truly what led me to look for God. From the information contained in the first several posts, I’ve decided to paint a picture of exactly what you must have faith in to believe that there is no possibility for God:
The universe spontaneously came about from nothingness &
By random chance, when it banged into existence, galaxies formed &
Amino acids formed into proteins without instruction from nucleic acid &
Proteins folded perfectly to form life without instruction from nucleic acid.
OR
Something eternal caused the universe to form &
Although the eternal cause was unintelligent, it somehow changed the inherent physical probability associated with the universe long enough to form galaxies &
Amino acids formed into proteins without instruction from nucleic acid &
Proteins folded perfectly to form life without instruction from nucleic acid.
OR
Something eternal caused the universe to form &
By random chance, when it banged into existence, galaxies formed &
Amino acids formed into proteins without instruction from nucleic acid &
Proteins folded perfectly to form life without instruction from nucleic acid.
OR
Nucleic acids existed independent of amino acids and they were just waiting around with instructions for the amino acids so that they could form proteins and life.
OR
There are an infinite number of universes and every possible event happens in one of them.
(I left the theories that address alien involvement out because life would still need to form wherever the aliens came from)
All but Multiverse Theory (the last one) seem to go against that which is predicted by science. Science does not necessarily preclude some of these ideas, but at some point the probability of naturalistic processes forming our universe leads us to question the science we have held as fact for so long or to question whether the natural is the only thing at work.
In short, the first several posts were not intended to show
“I cannot think of an explanation for X; therefore Y must be true.”
OR
“I cannot think of an explanation for X; therefore X must be false.”
Rather, the first few posts attempt to show why it is so difficult to believe that naturalism is the only possible truth using what we know about naturalism. So, “I have a clear understanding of X, and if I assume this understanding to be correct, X cannot explain Z, so there must be some Y also involved.”
Accusations of irrational faith and unwavering devotion to dogma are equally applicable to atheistic ideas. When science says that naturalism is improbable, a naturalist simply assumes the science to be wrong. This is a never-ending game and one that requires no debate. If probability leads us away from naturalism, let’s consider the possibility.
There are a few conclusions to which science has led us directly:
- Time, space, matter, and energy had a beginning (General Relativity)
- Time, space, matter, and energy are contained within the very fabric of the universe (General Relativity)
- The Big Bang Theory has been corroborated by theory (General Relativity) and by observation (COBE, etc)
- The universe’s expansion is accelerating (Hubble, COBE, etc)
- Quantum mechanics must be described by probability (Heisenberg)
- The physical conditions conducive to nucleic acid formation are detrimental to amino acid formation and visa versa
From these scientific assertions, we can reach a few definitive logical conclusions:
- Since the universe had a beginning, the universe cannot be eternal (so Einstein’s pantheistic god is no more)
- Since the universe’s expansion is accelerating, there will be no Big Crunch (so the formation of our universe was a one-time event)
- In accordance with our rather sophisticated knowledge of physical processes and quantum mechanical probability, an explosion of energy like that theorized in the Big Bang would be unlikely to lead to the formation of galaxies
- In accordance with our rather sophisticated knowledge of proteins, amino acids, and nucleic acids, amino acids are unlikely to form into proteins without instruction from nucleic acids
I will be taking a slight turn from “evidence for God” and instead will focus this week on “evidence against atheism” for this is truly what led me to look for God. From the information contained in the first several posts, I’ve decided to paint a picture of exactly what you must have faith in to believe that there is no possibility for God:
The universe spontaneously came about from nothingness &
By random chance, when it banged into existence, galaxies formed &
Amino acids formed into proteins without instruction from nucleic acid &
Proteins folded perfectly to form life without instruction from nucleic acid.
OR
Something eternal caused the universe to form &
Although the eternal cause was unintelligent, it somehow changed the inherent physical probability associated with the universe long enough to form galaxies &
Amino acids formed into proteins without instruction from nucleic acid &
Proteins folded perfectly to form life without instruction from nucleic acid.
OR
Something eternal caused the universe to form &
By random chance, when it banged into existence, galaxies formed &
Amino acids formed into proteins without instruction from nucleic acid &
Proteins folded perfectly to form life without instruction from nucleic acid.
OR
Nucleic acids existed independent of amino acids and they were just waiting around with instructions for the amino acids so that they could form proteins and life.
OR
There are an infinite number of universes and every possible event happens in one of them.
(I left the theories that address alien involvement out because life would still need to form wherever the aliens came from)
All but Multiverse Theory (the last one) seem to go against that which is predicted by science. Science does not necessarily preclude some of these ideas, but at some point the probability of naturalistic processes forming our universe leads us to question the science we have held as fact for so long or to question whether the natural is the only thing at work.
In short, the first several posts were not intended to show
“I cannot think of an explanation for X; therefore Y must be true.”
OR
“I cannot think of an explanation for X; therefore X must be false.”
Rather, the first few posts attempt to show why it is so difficult to believe that naturalism is the only possible truth using what we know about naturalism. So, “I have a clear understanding of X, and if I assume this understanding to be correct, X cannot explain Z, so there must be some Y also involved.”
Accusations of irrational faith and unwavering devotion to dogma are equally applicable to atheistic ideas. When science says that naturalism is improbable, a naturalist simply assumes the science to be wrong. This is a never-ending game and one that requires no debate. If probability leads us away from naturalism, let’s consider the possibility.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Life's Little Quirks
Nearly ten years ago, IBM announced plans for a massive supercomputer that would be employed to help scientists understand the complex nature of protein folding. A protein’s structure and its function are so closely related that any “mis-fold” will alter the protein so much that it ceases to function properly. IBM’s goal was to better understand these folds in order to further our understanding of disease and the manner in which information is encoded biologically.
From IBM:
“Protein architecture is based on three principles:
1. The formation of a polymer chain
2. The folding of this chain into a compact function-enabling structure, or native structure
3. Post-translational modification of the folded structure
The protein chain (or peptide chain if short in length) is a heteropolymer built up from alpha amino acid monomers…. The sequence of amino acid residues in the peptide chain is termed the primary structure of the protein. The 20 different choices for each amino acid in the chain give the possibility of enormous diversity, even for small proteins. For example, a peptide of 30 residues yields the astonishing number of about 20^30, or approximately 10^39, possible unique sequences.From the enormous number of possible protein sequences that could exist, we observe relatively few in nature.
It is thought that the diversity of viable proteins has been constrained by natural selection to give:
1. Desired function
2. Adequate stability
3. Foldability
4. Evolvability
from appropriate evolutionary precursors
…The fact that a subset of heteropolymers constructed from amino acids and used in biological processes actually take on reproducible three-dimensional structures in a relatively short time of seconds or less is one of the marvels of nature.”
So, IBM recognizes that there is a certain niftiness when it comes to life. Without life existing, the formation of a protein polymer chain coincident with those found in life even under ideal conditions would be a rare happening (so rare that has yet to be duplicated in a laboratory environment). Add to that the idea that the proteins then need to fold into a certain shape and join with other proteins in a specific manner to form a cell. Oh, and just for kicks… there are two distinct types of amino acids and one cannot join with the other.
Within a living organism or a virus, RNA/DNA carries the instructions that “tell” these proteins how to form. Outside of living organisms, there would exist a multitude of iterations for proteins, each as likely as the next. Still, as a general rule, the “primordial soup” theory of naturalistic formation is taught as fact.
Why? It seems incredibly unlikely, does it not? In spite of a complete lack of proof, we’re told to believe basically that since life had to come from Earth and this is really the only “reputable” (i.e. non-creationist) theory out there, it must be true. Prior to researching this topic, I had assumed that the “soup” had gone by the wayside by now (along with ideas like centrifugal force and static universe theories). I recall questioning the “soup” explanation in an eighth grade Earth Science course because it really made little or no sense then (and I really didn’t question anything when I was 13). Now, I just marvel at the fact that one naturalist writing after another references this theory (or fact, as it is usually written) on how we arrived here. If I were a naturalist, I would demand a better explanation. Perhaps there is one out there that my research didn’t happen upon. If there is, it would probably be worthwhile to send an email or two to inform a few of our foremost naturalist proponents.
I have been accused (more than once) of abandoning science. In my defense, I don’t believe I have departed from scientific facts and observation; rather, science can only tell us so much about the things we’ve discussed thus far. Science can tell us, for instance, that time began or that cosmic background radiation exists. It can tell us that galaxies are real, that the universe is expanding, that matter/energy interactions always result in more disorder than before, and that the existence of life is an undeniable truth. Hopefully I have never asserted anything that goes against the list above.
When science offers no solution, though, we have to default to logic and reason (I think I was pretty clear in Week 2 that logic and reason should be among our tools). If I were to give evidence that contradicted observables, I would expect to be called on it; however, there is no reason we can’t use reason to go beyond limited facts (not “against” facts, mind you… “beyond” facts). So, let’s gear up those minds of ours and look at the problem at hand:
Hypothesis: Life can come from non-life.
Background information: The basic components of life are amino acids (organic molecules).
Test: Simulate the conditions found in the oxygen-poor early Earth to try to create life.
Result: Amino acids are created under the appropriate conditions.
Conclusion: Life forms when the amino acids we observed form together into proteins like those found in life (chances: “relatively few” in 10^39) then those proteins (which we can’t create, except from life) fold in a perfect manner (which we can’t even comprehend without a multimillion-dollar supercomputer) to create cells.
Oh, and if oxygen is present, the whole thing goes to pot.
Did I miss a step?
So, why do we assume that life can come from non-life? And, why in the world do we teach it as fact? By all means, keep experimenting… there is, after all, a “relatively few” in 10^39 chance that you’ll happen upon the right results by accident. Here’s the real kicker: If a scientist were ever to create life in a beaker, what would that prove? That a supremely intelligent being can set perfect conditions to create life from non-life?
From IBM:
“Protein architecture is based on three principles:
1. The formation of a polymer chain
2. The folding of this chain into a compact function-enabling structure, or native structure
3. Post-translational modification of the folded structure
The protein chain (or peptide chain if short in length) is a heteropolymer built up from alpha amino acid monomers…. The sequence of amino acid residues in the peptide chain is termed the primary structure of the protein. The 20 different choices for each amino acid in the chain give the possibility of enormous diversity, even for small proteins. For example, a peptide of 30 residues yields the astonishing number of about 20^30, or approximately 10^39, possible unique sequences.From the enormous number of possible protein sequences that could exist, we observe relatively few in nature.
It is thought that the diversity of viable proteins has been constrained by natural selection to give:
1. Desired function
2. Adequate stability
3. Foldability
4. Evolvability
from appropriate evolutionary precursors
…The fact that a subset of heteropolymers constructed from amino acids and used in biological processes actually take on reproducible three-dimensional structures in a relatively short time of seconds or less is one of the marvels of nature.”
So, IBM recognizes that there is a certain niftiness when it comes to life. Without life existing, the formation of a protein polymer chain coincident with those found in life even under ideal conditions would be a rare happening (so rare that has yet to be duplicated in a laboratory environment). Add to that the idea that the proteins then need to fold into a certain shape and join with other proteins in a specific manner to form a cell. Oh, and just for kicks… there are two distinct types of amino acids and one cannot join with the other.
Within a living organism or a virus, RNA/DNA carries the instructions that “tell” these proteins how to form. Outside of living organisms, there would exist a multitude of iterations for proteins, each as likely as the next. Still, as a general rule, the “primordial soup” theory of naturalistic formation is taught as fact.
Why? It seems incredibly unlikely, does it not? In spite of a complete lack of proof, we’re told to believe basically that since life had to come from Earth and this is really the only “reputable” (i.e. non-creationist) theory out there, it must be true. Prior to researching this topic, I had assumed that the “soup” had gone by the wayside by now (along with ideas like centrifugal force and static universe theories). I recall questioning the “soup” explanation in an eighth grade Earth Science course because it really made little or no sense then (and I really didn’t question anything when I was 13). Now, I just marvel at the fact that one naturalist writing after another references this theory (or fact, as it is usually written) on how we arrived here. If I were a naturalist, I would demand a better explanation. Perhaps there is one out there that my research didn’t happen upon. If there is, it would probably be worthwhile to send an email or two to inform a few of our foremost naturalist proponents.
I have been accused (more than once) of abandoning science. In my defense, I don’t believe I have departed from scientific facts and observation; rather, science can only tell us so much about the things we’ve discussed thus far. Science can tell us, for instance, that time began or that cosmic background radiation exists. It can tell us that galaxies are real, that the universe is expanding, that matter/energy interactions always result in more disorder than before, and that the existence of life is an undeniable truth. Hopefully I have never asserted anything that goes against the list above.
When science offers no solution, though, we have to default to logic and reason (I think I was pretty clear in Week 2 that logic and reason should be among our tools). If I were to give evidence that contradicted observables, I would expect to be called on it; however, there is no reason we can’t use reason to go beyond limited facts (not “against” facts, mind you… “beyond” facts). So, let’s gear up those minds of ours and look at the problem at hand:
Hypothesis: Life can come from non-life.
Background information: The basic components of life are amino acids (organic molecules).
Test: Simulate the conditions found in the oxygen-poor early Earth to try to create life.
Result: Amino acids are created under the appropriate conditions.
Conclusion: Life forms when the amino acids we observed form together into proteins like those found in life (chances: “relatively few” in 10^39) then those proteins (which we can’t create, except from life) fold in a perfect manner (which we can’t even comprehend without a multimillion-dollar supercomputer) to create cells.
Oh, and if oxygen is present, the whole thing goes to pot.
Did I miss a step?
So, why do we assume that life can come from non-life? And, why in the world do we teach it as fact? By all means, keep experimenting… there is, after all, a “relatively few” in 10^39 chance that you’ll happen upon the right results by accident. Here’s the real kicker: If a scientist were ever to create life in a beaker, what would that prove? That a supremely intelligent being can set perfect conditions to create life from non-life?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Oh Yeah, Well... (Week 6)
A quick recap:
Truth is absolute.
Reason is our best avenue to truth.
The universe is not eternal.
Because time is within the universe, the cause of the universe cannot exist in time and is, by definition, eternal.
Mathematically, the formation of matter was an unlikely event.
I would like to take this week to depart some from the mathematics- and physics-intensive arguments.
There are two “Oh yeah, well…” questions that usually accompany the assertion that there exists a God. I wanted to take this week to give myself a respite from probability (I hated Quantum Mechanics, by the way) and address a these before we bring God into the discussion. These are not moral objections to God as many atheistic arguments are; rather, these are queries that tend to stump a great many people because there is fault in the questions themselves that is not readily seen.
The hope here is that you will not come into a God discussion with the assumption that the very idea of God is a logical fallacy.
Oh yeah, well…
1. Who caused God?
If there exists a God and God brought the universe into being, God must exist outside of time (Week 4). If something exists outside of time, cause and effect have no meaning. So, the question “who caused God” also has no meaning.
2. If God is omnipotent, can he make a stone so big that he cannot pick it up?
The question opens itself for only wrong answers. An answer of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ here does not preclude God’s omnipotence; instead, it is a logically unanswerable question expecting a logical answer… the question is the paradox, not God.
Asking absurd questions does not make God go away; else, you will all be in trouble when I ask you what color the number three is. Be wary of trip-up arguments.
MOVING AHEAD
When it comes to discussing these things in the Comments section, you all have me at a disadvantage: You know exactly where my discussions are headed. I ask, though, that your arguments against a particular post not include beliefs you assume me to have. For instance, my arguments have not yet mentioned Jesus. So, it would be best that we visit Jesus at a later date.
Another short one, but we’re headed into some deeper waters, so I hope that youll look upon this as a break as well.
Truth is absolute.
Reason is our best avenue to truth.
The universe is not eternal.
Because time is within the universe, the cause of the universe cannot exist in time and is, by definition, eternal.
Mathematically, the formation of matter was an unlikely event.
I would like to take this week to depart some from the mathematics- and physics-intensive arguments.
There are two “Oh yeah, well…” questions that usually accompany the assertion that there exists a God. I wanted to take this week to give myself a respite from probability (I hated Quantum Mechanics, by the way) and address a these before we bring God into the discussion. These are not moral objections to God as many atheistic arguments are; rather, these are queries that tend to stump a great many people because there is fault in the questions themselves that is not readily seen.
The hope here is that you will not come into a God discussion with the assumption that the very idea of God is a logical fallacy.
Oh yeah, well…
1. Who caused God?
If there exists a God and God brought the universe into being, God must exist outside of time (Week 4). If something exists outside of time, cause and effect have no meaning. So, the question “who caused God” also has no meaning.
2. If God is omnipotent, can he make a stone so big that he cannot pick it up?
The question opens itself for only wrong answers. An answer of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ here does not preclude God’s omnipotence; instead, it is a logically unanswerable question expecting a logical answer… the question is the paradox, not God.
Asking absurd questions does not make God go away; else, you will all be in trouble when I ask you what color the number three is. Be wary of trip-up arguments.
MOVING AHEAD
When it comes to discussing these things in the Comments section, you all have me at a disadvantage: You know exactly where my discussions are headed. I ask, though, that your arguments against a particular post not include beliefs you assume me to have. For instance, my arguments have not yet mentioned Jesus. So, it would be best that we visit Jesus at a later date.
Another short one, but we’re headed into some deeper waters, so I hope that youll look upon this as a break as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
