Posted on 04/21/2008 7:23:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In Ben Stein's new film "Expelled," there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins' grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design. The argument from design hold that the design of the universe and of life are most likely the product of an intelligent designer. Dawkins thinks that Darwin has disproven this argument.
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.
In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labyrinthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.
Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?
It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.
Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?
The general argument that has been in the consciousness of the West (and, it's safe to say, in the minds of the scientists mentioned by the OP) for a long time goes something like so: Creation manifests design and teleology because God is intelligent and He made it so; creation is comprehensible by rational minds; we are made in the image of God, and so we are able to comprehend something of the purpose and design of the world around us. Hence, science. It is interesting to examine the state and history of science in cultures that did not develop these notions about intelligent creation.
A blow to the head should do the trick.
What makes you think I have a hard time understanding it? I just believe otherwise. I also don't believe in Buddhism. In any case, it was stated that an atheist described the cabbage as an atheist because it did not believe in God. What would be a fair description of atheism?
Is the piece of rock you're showing me shaped like a knife, or an awl? If it's shaped like an awl, as you say, then let's stay on topic and not go chasing red herrings. The function of an arrowhead also dictates that it must have a design the allows it to be bound to the end of a wooden shaft, and be small and light enough to be propelled by the bow. If it's a knife, it still fails.
I guess if it has words, it must be an argument. Do you want to continue the debate under those conditions?
Now maybe you are beginning to understand what I'm getting at. Even determining the functionality requires testing the physical parameters.
So in this case functionality is not a valid test. It is superfluous. Remember the purpose of this exercise is to determine a test or tests adequate to test my hypothesis. I think you can realize that it is best to actually look at the rock before you decide exactly what tests to perform. When I picked up the rock it was sufficient to convince me that it was an arrowhead or at least deserved some attention. In order to convince you the tests have to be determined after the hypothesis. As I stated, dried blood does not have the functionality of blood in the veins. It is still blood.
Questions by themselves are not an argument. They are phases in an argument. What is wrong with my question about dried blood and functionality of blood?
thanks...I guess now some people know what’s wrong with me eh? LOL
Yes, it is sad that some can’t see the beauty and purposeness in God’s creations. I think it takes a far greater leap of extraordinary thinking to conclude it’s all “just there” with no thought behind it. I for one don’t see how it could be possible, scientifically, supernaturally, mathmatically, and six ways to Sunday!
thanks...I guess now some people know what’s wrong with me eh? LOL
Yes, it is sad that some can’t see the beauty and purposeness in God’s creations. I think it takes a far greater leap of extraordinary thinking to conclude it’s all “just there” with no thought behind it. I for one don’t see how it could be possible, scientifically, supernaturally, mathmatically, and six ways to Sunday!
I didn't necessarily mean you. I haven't seen any posts from you that would indicate this. But I do very often see religious people misunderstanding atheism.
What would be a fair description of atheism?
I don't know the full context to get the intended meaning. But in many cases religious people assume that an atheist is against God, hates God, actively rejects God. This is true in some cases (Dawkins for example, can't stand him either). But the cabbage metaphor can be used to show that an atheist can just simply not believe
By pissing off a lot of people, actively attacking other faculty and sowing discord.
But it could not have the Michael Polanyi center, which was not in the science department.
The Polanyi center (Dembski and another person) was a pet project of the Baylor president, who was a Dembski fan, that bypassed all normal procedures for establishing such a center. The faculty wanted it abolished -- the Institute for Faith and Learning was already working on questions of science and religion. The president refused, an independent committe was established which recommended it be renamed and made part of the IFL with an expanded scope. After the report Dembski wrote a very "In your face!" letter touting his huge supposed victory. The president asked him to withdraw the letter as it escalated the situation which had just been diffused, but Dembski refused. Thus, he was demoted.
Then of course Dembski claimed he was the victim of a witch hunt, attacking the very person who had supported him and made it all possible in the first place. ID proponents love to play the victim, even when they themselves caused their own troubles.
A gracious answer. To me someone that really came out well in the film was Michael Shermer.
This doesn't do any more good for the debate than Dawkins saying religon is evil and nonsense.
Who started the food fight is another question. It is the right of Baylor to determine what is taught at the University. As I pointed out, the Truett seminary was also a part of Baylor. Evidently the Polanyi center began as an offshoot of the IFL. Other than after the event that resulted in the absorption of the Polanyi Center, established in Oct. 1999, I do not encounter any active efforts of Dembski to attack other faculty and sow discord. Look here, The Academic Intelligent Design Controversy: William Dembski and Baylor University or any other place to provide the evidence that Dembski was the instigator of the food fight.
So in this case functionality is not a valid test. It is superfluous.
The most basic fundamental of engineering is that form follows function. You've submitted that it performs a given function, and have implicitly specified the physical parameters it needs to conform to to fulfill that function. Testing one implicitly tests the other, you cannot separate them. It is disingenous sophistry.
Would you consider it a valid, thoughtful argument that your piece of rock cannot be an arrowhead because it isn't attached to an arrow?
I submitted that it was a rock that I hypothesized was an arrowhead. I did not hypothesize that it would perform any function, a blunt arrowhead will not make anything bleed to death, yet it is still an arrowhead. Have you no answer to my question about blood?
Then you have submitten that this "arrowhead" was intelligently desinged to be useless.
Describe the test and the rationale behind it. I have provided rationale that a functional test is not a valid test in this case. The rock I have chosen as an arrowhead might even be black whereas the known arrowhead is red. Does a color test matter? I have given what I think is valid rationale to exclude a functional test.
Okay, in order to shorten this hypothetical exercise, I will state that I will perform a functional test on the arrowhead, which you say is required but I say is superfluous.
We determine that my potential arrowhead was identical in every aspect to the sample except the material "used" which results in a different weight and color. We attach the potential arrowhead and the sample arrowhead to identical shafts in an identical manner. We use the same bow to shoot the final arrow at bison(we are cruel testers). The sample arrow penetrates the bison and the bison eventually dies. The potential arrowhead shatters on impact with another identical bison. It fails the functional test. Was it an arrowhead fashioned by intelligence. You evidently would deny that it was an arrowhead. I would disagree. Let others decide.
No I haven't, see my previous post. I have submitted that the arrowhead was either designed to perform a different function(shoot smaller game), the design was not completely thought out, the design used the materials on hand, or is a pretty paperweight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.