Refuting The Laws of Physics, Part 2 of 2

Townhall.com ^ | February 9, 2015 | Mark Baisley

[Kaslin]

Last month, I was invited to deliver the keynote address to a gathering of local Republican leaders at one of those pricey fundraising dinners. I knew that for thirty minutes, I would have the uninterrupted attention of an impressive gathering of involved conservatives and elected officials, including two United States Congressmen seated right up front.

I did not want to spend that rare circumstance on temporal matters like encouraging a “Yes” vote to approve the Keystone Pipeline. Plus, I felt an obligation to deliver a speech that would seem worthy of $150 per plate. So after investing much thought, I chose to speak about life; the topic of life itself.

I began my oration by asserting the thesis that the laws of physics, those naturally deteriorating forces that encumber the Universe, undermine the spontaneous emergence of life. For single celled creatures to materialize, reproduce, and survive defies statistical randomness even in the inviting habitat of planet Earth. And the likelihood that the elements would self-generate into intelligent life lies outside of the probability distribution.

This foundation for my hopefully worthy point of the speech is detailed in last week’s article, Refuting The Laws of Physics Part 1 of 2. After laying out the hostile conditions of Big Bang debris, I showed slides of the lifeless conditions everywhere, with the exception of our home planet. Not surprisingly, there is no self-actualizing taking place on Mars, nor anywhere else as far as can be credibly conjectured.

And intelligent life does not merely exist here on the blue marble. We are symmetrical. We have senses, we communicate. Some of us master musical instruments to play in concert with others in a symphony for less talented humans like me to consume and appreciate. Our thoughts go so far as to contemplate the meaning of our lives, to form perspectives, debate, and interact like you and I are doing at this very moment with your understanding my thoughts through vocabulary conveyed at the speed of electricity through the Townhall portal.

Evidence of an intelligent design for us human folk and our rare environment has been recognized and explored by thought leaders throughout human history. The Roman architect Vitruvius established the principles of architecture in his book De Architectura, seen in 2000 year old basilicas and the stately marble structures of Washington, D.C.

Vitruvius’s book, originally written when Jesus walked the Earth and translated in 1914 as The Ten Books On Architecture, recognizes and appreciates the design of the human form. The famous Vitruvian Man was Leonardo da Vinci’s expression of human proportion as a model for sound, useful and beautiful structures. Vitruvius writes, “Thus in the human body there is a kind of symmetrical harmony between forearm, foot, palm, finger, and other small parts; and so it is with perfect buildings.”

In turn, biologists recognize the pattern by using the structure of sound building architecture to describe the functions of human biology. In The Human Body Book, author Steve Parker introduces anatomy with, “This book takes the ‘living machine’ approach, borrowed from sciences such as engineering. … The anatomical drawing of a large factory or office would show the arrangement of rooms, location of machinery and furniture, and cables and pipes for electricity and water. It is a static snapshot of structure and layout.”

This pursuit of understanding optimal conditions for structures and human biology implies an ambient existence of intelligent design. This line of thought can be extended into sociology, as in, “How do we govern ourselves optimally?” This is the question that I believe has been best answered by the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. What makes America exceptional is that this document brought us closer than any other civilization to living according to design.

Thomas Jefferson and the boys gave us two documents that convey the notion that (1) humans were created to be themselves creative, and (2) that governments are instituted to ensure their rights toward that pursuit of happiness. Through the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, America’s founders established a Judeo-Christian nation with a secular government.

The Declaration describes an eternal and unchanging God of Nature who endowed his creation in this otherwise lifeless universe with unalienable rights of life and liberty and pursuit of happiness. The God of the Bible exclusively fits that description.

The founders then gave us an amendable constitution as the execution plan to the perpetual mission statement. The United States Constitution does not recognize nature’s God beyond limiting government’s role in religion. But the Declaration does include instructions for altering or even abolishing any form of government that becomes destructive of the citizens’ rights.

So if my premise is correct, that nature’s God created the lifeless Universe and created the life within the Universe; and that America’s founding fathers gave us a Judeo-Christian nation and a secular government — Well, to paraphrase Francis Schaeffer, “How shall we then live as we move through the Universe?”

My conclusion for the audience, and particularly for the two Congressmen, was that we ought to follow the Bible’s instructions to (1) “do justly, love mercy, walk humbly,” (2) “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” and (3) to “Fear God and keep His commandments.” And second, to follow the founders’ instructions of ensuring Americans’ designed rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness with the principle of efficient, minimal government.

Yea, it was cool.

[aquila48]

“... the universe is a hostile environment for life.”

Isn’t the earth part of the universe?

[FreedomNotSafety]

He did not need to make the jump to other places. He makes a compelling case that is improbable that life happened by random chance on this planet. He then tries to bolster that argument by pointing to other places where there is no life. I’m not sure what that is called in Latin but it is a logical fallacy.

To make his case he would need to find other places like Earth that are without life.

[kosciusko51]

Isn’t the earth part of the universe?

Yes, but it is the exception. Going back to the article: " ... I showed slides of the lifeless conditions everywhere, with the exception of our home planet. ...

[kosciusko51]

To make his case he would need to find other places like Earth that are without life.

And, try as we might, we have yet to find other places like Earth...

[Rebel_Ace]

"...As to R_A's wallet; it's a silly argument. No. Looking in your wallet and assuming wouldn't be the correct analogue...
Looking everywhere that is accessible within your yard and on your property, and then declaring that there's no one there prior to digging up the soil and sawing all of the trees in half, is a more apt comparison..."

With all due respect, you are in error. Let me lay out the analogy for you, so that you understand the relevant portions:

Question: Is there someone there? Essentially the same in my example and of life in the Universe.

Area under consideration: The Universe in the article, my entire property in my analogy. In my Analogy, My Yard and property = The Universe.

Area having been searched by ACTUAL INSPECTION: Our Solar System in the Article, My Wallet's Card Holder in my Analogy. So, in my Analogy, My Wallet's Card Holder = Our Solar System.

I will grant you that my analogy is off in only this respect: My Wallet's Card Holder is a FAR GREATER SAMPLE within my property than Our Solar System is in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

I hope that clears that up for you.

[raybbr]

Until actual evidence of such become available, the assumption that there is life elsewhere is simply wishcasting.

No, it's called a theory.

So, I take it you are the first person that can prove a negative?

[Zathras]

I respectfully say this person knows little of science.
The GOP already has plenty of dumb leaders in it.

Science is not a tool for validating where we came from. It is a forum for theories to be tested, refined for the purpose of understanding how the many facets of Universe works.

Christianity is based on faith which is removed from the scientific method. There is no test for G_D or lack of G_D. We can use science to investigate historical facts but really not much more than that.

To try to use science to validate a particular belief, other than historical injects into the argument the same issues which invalidate traditional Global Warming theory.

You end up chasing for facts to support your theory and then ignore those
theories which call your “facts” into question. Even worse, you begin to manipulate the data to make it appear one position is stronger than another. This is not how true science works.

When Madam Curie discovered that the rock Pitchblende was more radioactive than the known metals it contained, she theorized that possibly a new element might be in Pitchblende.

Before she managed to extract Radium and Polonium after years of tireless work, she was accused of being a poor scientist and careless in her readings by other scientists who should have known better.

It is EASY to create a theory which can never be challenged. With any foreseeable technology, it is impossible to discover life outside of our solar system. There is some value in debating it but it is rather pointless do to the time required to travel between stars.

Please GOP, you are loosing brilliant minds daily as many of them think the GOP is filled with idiots. I know about 50 engineers, many leaders in the Reagan GOP who have moved to the RATS for just this reason.

Ted Cruz DOES seem to understand technology but he needs help from technical people. The concepts being discussed in Silicon Valley right now are very complex and hard to grasp. Our next President will need the best technical advisors he can find.

[Hugh the Scot]

While we’ll disagree on the aptness of your analogy, (Your entire property is accessible to you, the entire universe isn’t); we can agree that there’s no evidence to support the idea that we’re not alone.

[Hugh the Scot]

I'm not convinced that science requires evidence be presented to disprove an assertion.

I think it works like this: There is no evidence presented to support the assertion, so the assertion may be disregarded.

[Rebel_Ace]

The writer makes the claim that from what has been observed directly, it is virtually impossible that there is life ANYWHERE in the Universe. The area under consideration for his claim is THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. His examples of DIRECT OBSERVATION come from OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. You are changing his assertion from "Is there life anywhere else in the Universe" to "Is there life anywhere I can observe" and that is NOT what he is claiming.

His error in Logic is that if I take a small sample, I can assume that what I see holds EVERYWHERE.

To follow your take that I should search my whole yard, then the question would have to be "Is there anyone else in my CITY?"

Are there any McDonald's Restaurants on Earth? You and I both know that there are. Let's say YOU claim that there ARE McDonald's on Earth, while I argue that there are NONE. So we agree to a search. You want to search an ENTIRE CONTINENT. I agree, but get to pick. So I pick Antarctica, which is a good, healthy 9% of the Earths' land mass. Hey, guess what? You cannot support your claim that there are McDonald's on Earth, even though you searched an ENTIRE CONTINENT, with a 9% sample size of Earth's total land mass.

This example is given to show you an easy to understand principle of "Absence of Evidence IS NOT Evidence of Absence".

So when we look at FREEZING COLD or BOILING HOT planets and find no life, it is just the same as looking at Antarctica and finding no McDonald's, as conditions are not suitable for them there.

[WhoisAlanGreenspan?]

Seems like it would very difficult indeed to find another planet that the universe revolves around.

[Hugh the Scot]

I understand all of that simply enough, yet it seems that your assertion was that the author's conclusions are absurd. The fact that the entire universe hasn't been searched, while obvious, isn't really evidence that his conclusions are absurd.

We're both arguing the same principle; except that the authors POV is supported by 100% of the current evidence.

[raybbr]

I think it works like this: There is no evidence presented to support the assertion, so the assertion may be disregarded.

LOLOLOLOLOL. Okay, prove God exists and created the earth and everything in it. If you can't, then, we can disregard your assertion, right?

[Rebel_Ace]

"...I understand all of that simply enough, yet it seems that your assertion was that the author's conclusions are absurd. The fact that the entire universe hasn't been searched, while obvious, isn't really evidence that his conclusions are absurd.
We're both arguing the same principle; except that the authors POV is supported by 100% of the current evidence..."

It seems you fail to understand the implications of the example I gave using looking for McD's in Antarctica. In that example MY position that no McD's exist on Earth is 100% supported by a search of Antarctica. Is my position "absurd"? Yes, as we both KNOW it to be incorrect. The lesson to apply is that when you KNOW that your area of direct observation is either SMALL or SKEWED, it is absurd to draw broad conclusions from it.

You only have to show ONE counter-example to a line of reasoning to prove it faulty.

[FreedomNotSafety]

The random chance theory of life relies on infinite amounts of time, space, and energy which are God like qualities. Given enough of all three you cannot say the chances of life occurring are zero and that is enough for some people to worship the God of Evolution.

[aquila48]

That’s 1 out of 8 that we’ve checked.

There are billions of planets just in our galaxy that we know nothing about.

I think I’m going to hold out until we’ve checked a few million before I jump to your conclusion. I mean, what’s the hurry?

[unlearner]

“Christianity is based on faith which is removed from the scientific method. There is no test for G_D or lack of G_D. We can use science to investigate historical facts but really not much more than that.”

Incorrect. Christianity is based on a reasonable faith rather than a blind faith.

It is ridiculous to suggest there is no test for God so that faith is inconsistent with the scientific method. Apply the same logic to the assassination of Lincoln. How do we know Lincoln existed? Have you personally met him?

Most scientific knowledge is based on tests done by “other people” which is why scientific fraud exists and sometimes takes a while to discover. But observation is a basic element of the scientific method. History is the recording of observation. We cannot directly test the existence of Lincoln because the historical observations are not repeatable.

But nowhere and at no time will you hear an argument being made that Lincoln’s existence is unscientific because it is not falsifiable.

Likewise, when there exists credible eye-witness accounts of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, we have OBSERVATION - a basic component of the scientific method.

Testing is for theories. Observation is for facts. The historical shell game of evolutionary theory misapplies this basic principle constantly. The idea of species all having a common ancestor is pure speculation. What is it based on? Archaeology? The claims of the Bible are supported by BOTH archaeology AND written records of observation. Does common ancestry speculation have BOTH? No. The resurrection of Christ is far more testable than common ancestry.

God has appeared many times throughout history. He will appear again. There are prophecies which are irrefutably dated in history which have been fulfilled centuries later also with solid historical evidence recorded. These are not scientific theories to be tested. These are historical facts to be observed.

When it is well supported that there exists at least one super-intelligent entity which transcends space-time, then a deity, for all practical purposes, exists. The nature of deity may be a question for theologians rather than scientists, but this does not preclude deity from the realm of the scientific.

What we have with the broader evolutionary theory which includes a Universal Common Ancestor is speculation about a historical event which is not observable, testable or falsifiable. It is a blind man looking in a dark room for a black cat that isn’t there.

[Moonman62]

Isn’t the earth part of the universe?

...

Earth isn’t all that hospitable to life either, but it’s better than other places.

[Moonman62]

There is no test for G_D or lack of G_D.

...

That would require an accurate definition of God.

[aquila48]

“Earth isn’t all that hospitable to life either, but it’s better than other places.”

You ought to know Moonman :).