Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Blind Atheist
self ^ | September 1, 2003 | Raymond Hendrix

Posted on 09/01/2003 9:37:41 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix

The Unscientific Root of Atheism

(Altamont, Tennessee, USA) A local author claims that intelligent design is a required element in any origin of life hypothesis. In his just published book, The Blind Atheist, Raymond Hendrix points out the difference between scientific possibility and the impossibility of the information-based machinery of life evolving according to the laws of physics. The controversy boils down to the difference between patterns and order in nature and information.

Hendrix, whose life experience ranges from the navigation of submarines to commercial pilot, seems to have discovered a fatal flaw in all abiogenesis (the field of science dealing with the origin of life) hypotheses. Hendrix does not rehash the controversy about the supposed fantastic odds of the chemicals of life “self organizing” into a viable proto life that may then be capable of further evolution. Instead he focuses on “RNA worlds” and the like and centers the discussion on DNA and the very foundation of all life on this planet. He shows that the problem is not the self organization of chemicals or the ability of the laws of physics to produce patterns and order in nature but rather their absolute inability to produce information that can be actually used by existing scientific law. He goes on to prove that even natural selection cannot solve the mystery of life unless one is basing his science on myth and not scientific laws and evidence.

The essence of the book seems to be incontrovertible. The author even leaves the reader with a challenge to solve the problem without the aid of an intelligent agent. The problem is simple: Produce information and an interactive machine that uses that information using the laws of physics. With or without the supposed process of natural selection, Hendrix claims that it is impossible without the assistance of an intelligent being. Have we been teaching our kids science fiction in the classroom? Hendrix claims that we have, each time we present abiogenesis as a viable alternative to an intelligent creator of life.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abiogenesis; atheism; bookreview; chaostheory; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381 next last
Richard Dawkins et al, read it and weep.
1 posted on 09/01/2003 9:37:41 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Raymond Hendrix
Produce information and an interactive machine that uses that information using the laws of physics.

What does this mean? A ball rolling down an incline "produces information" that there's gravity.
2 posted on 09/01/2003 9:45:16 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lelio
Yes, an intelligent being can interpret that as information. But of course we are talking about specified, coded information that can is used for communication etc.
3 posted on 09/01/2003 9:48:14 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Washington_minuteman; 2sheep; Heartlander
Courtesy bump.
4 posted on 09/01/2003 9:50:56 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Raymond Hendrix
I produced, with the significant help of my first wife, three such machines. And your point?
5 posted on 09/01/2003 9:58:25 AM PDT by donmeaker (Bigamy is one wife too many. So is monogamy, or is it monotony?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
bump
6 posted on 09/01/2003 9:59:51 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
The point is that you and your wife did it!
7 posted on 09/01/2003 10:02:08 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Raymond Hendrix
The author even leaves the reader with a challenge to solve the problem without the aid of an intelligent agent. The problem is simple: Produce information and an interactive machine that uses that information using the laws of physics.

What do you mean by "produce?" If we actually build one, that would do nothing to undermine the idea of intelligent design. If we just find on in nature, and "produce" that (show it), what good would that do? Since you believe all living organisms on earth either designed and put here by God or were engineered by human scientists, you will claim either way that the origin of this machine is intelligent design.

How can we solve this problem "without the aid of an intelligent agent," when we (or most of us, at least), by nature as human beings, are intelligent agents? Any human who comes to you with a solution has obviously failed, because s/he has accomplished the goal with the help of their own intelligence.

8 posted on 09/01/2003 10:10:00 AM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raymond Hendrix
But of course we are talking about specified, coded information that can is used for communication etc.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I can look outside and see frozen water to see that the temperature is below 32 degrees. Is that conveying information of the temperature?

Perhaps if there were some examples I can see what he's getting at.
9 posted on 09/01/2003 10:14:13 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Well of coures a human being is allowed to set up the experiment. He should devise a random program of some type that is not tainted by his own intelligence. I explain one way to do that in the book. Richard Dawkins tried it and failed because he interjected his own inteligence into the experiment. One could repeat his method, for example, without corrupting the results with inteligent input.
10 posted on 09/01/2003 10:15:23 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lelio
Maybe this will help you:

The foundation of all life is contained in specific detailed instructions and information that can be read, interpreted, understood and acted upon logically. This type of information cannot arise without intelligent input. Let’s spell out the problem and the proposed solution so that the skeptic can experiment on his own to prove me wrong. DNA and/or RNA gives specific instructions that are in some ways similar to the instructions that a worker might follow as he builds and operates a machine. I will write some instructions which are similar to a fraction of one percent of the instructions contained in a simple, single celled organism and then I will present the problem.

“The completed organism is to be simply one cell. First assemble the RNA molecule so that the ribosomes can interpret the completed instructions. Next begin making the various amino acids. Then arrange them in such a way that they form useful proteins. After those steps are completed then devise a system whereby the RNA can cut itself into pieces. Devise a means whereby these pieces only use the specific information that is needed at a particular time. Now take those pieces of information and splice them together at various times as needed within the cell. Devise a way whereby the ribosomes can come into existence to process the information that is initially necessary for their existence. Finally, cause all of the appropriate parts of the cell to form themselves and replicate themselves in an orderly fashion so that the initial life is able to make and maintain the parts that are necessary to make and maintain and regulate the parts necessary to make the initial parts and the associated machinery that is necessary to make the parts initially out of parts that the initial machines make.”

Now here is the problem. Use any system that you choose, whether it is monkeys typing randomly on billions of typewriters for billions of years, or powerful computers or whatever you want, and produce the above paragraph without intelligent input. Of course a human being will be allowed to set up the experiment but he may not intervene once it is underway. If you use a computer there cannot be a goal entered into the computer and there cannot be value judgements entered into the program because this takes intelligent input and will taint the experiment. The alphabet should be randomly entered into the program along with punctuation marks and spaces but we must stop there as further interference would make the results of our experiment useless in solving the problem. Now run this random program as long as you want on as many computers as you choose and see if the result is ever the above paragraph. Be sure to keep accurate records of each step of the program that you devise so that it can be readily duplicated and tested. That way the public will not be tricked again by intelligent input under the guise of natural processes. After you have solved the problem return to this book and read the following paragraph. NOT NOW!! YOU HAVEN’T SOLVED THE FIRST PROBLEM YET!!

Okay good. Now make the instructions actually do something. Insert the paragraph into another computer and see what it does with the “information.” I think that you will find that even if the complete instructions arose randomly, defying fantastic odds, that it is impossible to use them, without intelligent input. You will need not one miracle but several in order to inform the appropriate parts of the translation mechanism on the meaning and correct use of the words. There is no logical path from the randomly generated “instructions” to actual work without intelligent intervention. Because information is absolutely essential for even the most basic life form there is no logical path to life without the preexistence of an intelligent being.

Now let’s illustrate the problem. We will assume that the basic information is reduced to code. We can take the actual DNA from a living organism to make sure that we get it right. The instructions will look something like this:

AATAACCGCAGGTCTTCAGCCGATATTGACTAGGTC etc. The first problem will be to determine how the code is divided into triplets (codon “words”). Notice that if we start with the first A the first “word” will be AAT. But if the real information should begin with the second A then the first word is ATA. If we begin in the wrong place then all we have is gibberish. For example read one of the sentences that I have written here but ignore the spaces between words. Now remove the first letter and read it. As you can see it is very important that the nascent life form that we are creating knows where the instructions begin and how the actual words are divided correctly into the codon words with a correct understanding of the grammatical structure etc. So how will this first life-form know where to begin? And how will it know to divide the string of DNA into triplets? And how will it know that a triplet is advantageous before it even “knows” what the code is or the other possible alternatives for coding the information?

In real life the codons are divided by a complicated process that effectively uses the information it correctly gathers from the string of DNA. There really is no code without the accompanying translation machinery that discerns the triplets from the endless string of letters. The machinery must exist before the information can exist. And the string of DNA is useless unless it is correctly translated by preexisting translation machinery. The code is manifest by way of specified enzymes that contain information themselves. This information is coordinated with the string of DNA so that the correct three-letter words are used at the correct time and place. So we must not only have the DNA in the exact order but the enzymes used in translation must be in a specified order to correctly manifest the information. I must also say here that these enzymes (with names like tRNA, rRNA, RNA polymerase etc.) must be of the correct shape. Like a puzzle that fits together these information carrying enzymes fit with the appropriate part in the machinery and transfer the information to another part of the machine that is prepared with the appropriate shape and information content to receive it. The code, the shapes, the information and the logistics necessary to coordinate the process and assemble the fragile parts must exist before life can even begin.

So the miracle of life must begin with a string of miracles in order to communicate the code to all of the parts of the translating machinery and in order to ensure that the correct information is used. As you can see the omission or insertion of even one letter in either the DNA or the translation machinery makes the instructions useless. The code itself came from somewhere? Where? The code was communicated to the appropriate parts of the translation machinery so that it knew what it was translating. Who did this? One miracle is not enough. We must have hundreds of miracles coming together at precise times and places in order to even produce the translation of the code! Of course we still have not created life. We still have not made even one gear in the machinery of life let alone the entire machine itself. Intelligent design is not some far fetched theory devised by a zealous creationist. It is the logical conclusion drawn by the facts and evidence. The alternative is the science fiction of atheists that is based on a string of miracles.

11 posted on 09/01/2003 10:19:23 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Raymond Hendrix
A local author claims that intelligent design is a required element in any origin of life hypothesis.

How about if the author just identifies the designer for us.

12 posted on 09/01/2003 10:28:23 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raymond Hendrix
If you use a computer there cannot be a goal entered into the computer and there cannot be value judgements entered into the program because this takes intelligent input and will taint the experiment.

In other words, you're allowed to duplicate the random mutation part of the theory of evolution, but not the natural selection part. And this disproves...something. Not the theory of evolution, but something, I guess.

13 posted on 09/01/2003 10:29:12 AM PDT by general_re (Today is a day for firm decisions! Or is it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Raymond Hendrix
I am sure you have read In the Beginning Was Information... by Dr Werner Gitt. This is his premise exactly. More Information Theory, but very readable. A must have resource!
14 posted on 09/01/2003 10:30:12 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
"We know less than 1/1,000,000th of a percent about anything." - Albert Einstein <
15 posted on 09/01/2003 10:30:32 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Raymond Hendrix
I will tell you the same thing that another poster stated to another ID'r on these boards.

You seem to fit it rather nicely.

Argument from Ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Definition:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Examples:
(i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.

(ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.

(iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Proof:
Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true even though we don't know whether it is or isn't.

I love people that say that ID is proven because there is no way to disprove it.

You take your religious faith, look at DNA, and since you can't figure out hwo it could have evolved, you say it can't.

This is arguing from ignorance. Not at all scientific.

If your religion is that important to you, go to church, but religion and religious faith have no place within scientific theories.

Prove that there is an intelligent designer, prove that an intelligent designer exists. You cannot, it is NONfalsifiable, therefore, it is NOT scientific, and has no place in ANY scientific theory.

When you say, I can't figure out how this happened, therefore an intelligent designer must have done it, you are arguing from ignorance. Pure and simple.
16 posted on 09/01/2003 10:31:17 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: general_re
You are welcome to duplicate natural selection as well, as long as it is "natural" and not the result of intelligent selection.
17 posted on 09/01/2003 10:32:30 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Yes, I read his book. I must say, it is better than mine!
18 posted on 09/01/2003 10:33:48 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Raymond Hendrix
In what way is this book more than a re-hash of Dembski's ideas?
19 posted on 09/01/2003 10:34:53 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
You might want to read the book. I am not arguing from ignorance. The false assumtion is on the part of modern science that assumes that it can work miracles contrary to the laws of physics and several thousand years of human experience.
20 posted on 09/01/2003 10:36:50 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson