One of my favorite movie scenes is in A Few Good Men. Tom Cruise is cross examining Jack Nicholson during a military court marshal about an incident that happened on the battle field. We've probably all seen or at least heard someone say the famous line that Nicholson uses. Here's the clip just because I love the imaginery of it.
I'll get back to the clip in a minute. A few years back my brother was out hunting with his son. They were looking for deer and my nephew spots some but my brother couldn't see them. He immediately realized that he needed eyeglasses. His vision had degraded over time like it does for most of us and it was so gradual he hadn't noticed it. The fix was easy, he went to the eye Dr. and got glasses. But it took my nephew, who had better eyesight, to point it out to him. Imagine if he went to the eye Dr. and the Dr. told him he needed glasses to be able to see things and my brother replied "That's just your perception that my eyesight is bad. How can you know that? I can see all kinds of things so I don't accept your perception." That's kind of absurd but people do that with the world around them all the time.
I first encountered this in college or at least it was the first time I paid attention to this kind of thinking. I took a philosophy class and one of the philosophiers we studied was Immanual Kant. In a nutshell Kant says we can't really know the world around us all we know is what we perceive. In otherwords we "Kant" know the truth. At the time I felt like this was a bunch of hooey because my own experience about the world told me otherwise but I didn't know how to refute it. This kind of thinking and variations of it are rampant in our society but is it actually true? Can we know truth or is truth unknowable?
Any statement that makes a claim about the world must hold valid against it's own claim. If I say "Don't believe a word I say" that statement must apply to itself. So in this example I'm asking you to "Believe me that you shouldn't believe a word I say". Believe me but don't believe me. That statement doesn't even stand up to it's own claim so therefore it's false. This is a logical fallacy because it's self contradictory.
So when someone says "Truth isn't knowable" Ask them "Is it true that truth isn't knowable?" Or "How do you know that truth isn't knowable?" This statement commits the self contradictory logic fallacy though and many times they miss the point completely. They will likely give some long explanation about how they know that truth isn't knowable. Sometimes they even think you're pulling some sort of slight of hand or tricking them but you're just applying their own statement to itself. They are telling you that truth isn't knowable but then go on tell you something that they know about truth, that it's unknowable. The statement can't stand up to it's own claim and therefore is false. In otherwords their statement can't handle the truth!
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Is Reason Really an Enemy of Faith?
Here is a link to an article that answers the charge that reason is the enemy of faith.
Is Reason Really an Enemy of Faith? By J. Warner Wallace at PleaseConvinceMe.com
Is Reason Really an Enemy of Faith? By J. Warner Wallace at PleaseConvinceMe.com
Saturday, February 11, 2012
DNA by chance?
In the movie Dumb and Dumber Lloyd asks Mary what are the chances that they'll be together and the following clip shows what happens in the movie.
We laugh because we know she's telling him there is no chance. This clip comes to mind when really examining the probability of DNA arising by chance.
My career area of expertise is computer information systems so I'm not a molecular biologist or a mathmetician. I would say though that I have a very good lay understanding of these areas because of my interest in the subjects. So I'll just try to summarize what the actual chances are of a cell forming by chance and random variation. See my previous post on what DNA is and how it works.
Proteins are the machines in the body that make life tick. Let's take a short functioning protein of a chain of 150 amino acids. I'll spare you all the math behind it but it can be referenced in the book I give below. The odds of getting one functional protein in a chain of 150 amino acids from the prebiotic soup (the chemical condition that would have existed for proteins to form by chance) is no better than 1 in 10164. How big is that number?
However there's more. The 1 in 10164 chance is just the probably of one protein being formed. A cell is made up of many proteins. A "simple" cell needs at least 250 proteins each made up of at least a chain of 150 amino acids. To get the probability of the most simple cell being created by chance and random variation you multiple that out and get a 1 in 1041,000 chance. That number is really not even comprehensible. It's certainly a lot less than a 1 in million chance.
It would be like sitting down to play poker against someone and every hand they had a royal flush. One, you'd expect. Two in a row you'd be amazed. Three in a row and you'd be highly suspicious and four in a row you'd know it was fixed. This chance is way more than 4 royal flushes in a row. So why is it that some scientists still cling to chance as the cause for life? Well, the truth is more and more non-theistic (agnostic or atheistic) scientists are doubting the chance explanation. However, in spite of the actual data and facts there are still many who hold on to chance as being the explanation for life. Because the facts and science don't actually support chance as being the best explanation for the origin of life there has to be something else at play here. What is it? Whatever it is it's certainly not because science supports it as being the best or even a good explanation.
So we can take confidence in a position of intelligent design as being not only a reasonable explanation given the facts, science, and evidence but we can take confidence in it being the best explanation. Many would have you believe that intelligent design is not science or can't be supported by science. Take another look at the probability of chance explaining our existence. You can't look at that and say objectively that ID isn't a better option than chance.
I've done a lot of summarizing for these numbers and the details can be found in the book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
which also has extensive bibliography to site the references for the calculations in Chapter 8 and 9. If nothing else you should take away that the rhetoric about ID not being scientific or supported by science is just plain false and likely uninformed.
We laugh because we know she's telling him there is no chance. This clip comes to mind when really examining the probability of DNA arising by chance.
My career area of expertise is computer information systems so I'm not a molecular biologist or a mathmetician. I would say though that I have a very good lay understanding of these areas because of my interest in the subjects. So I'll just try to summarize what the actual chances are of a cell forming by chance and random variation. See my previous post on what DNA is and how it works.
Proteins are the machines in the body that make life tick. Let's take a short functioning protein of a chain of 150 amino acids. I'll spare you all the math behind it but it can be referenced in the book I give below. The odds of getting one functional protein in a chain of 150 amino acids from the prebiotic soup (the chemical condition that would have existed for proteins to form by chance) is no better than 1 in 10164. How big is that number?
| 1016 | Seconds since the Big Bang |
| 1065 | Atoms in our galaxy |
| 1080 | Protons, electrons, and neutrons in the observable universe |
| 10139 | Number of possible events that could have taken place in the observable universe since the Big Bang |
However there's more. The 1 in 10164 chance is just the probably of one protein being formed. A cell is made up of many proteins. A "simple" cell needs at least 250 proteins each made up of at least a chain of 150 amino acids. To get the probability of the most simple cell being created by chance and random variation you multiple that out and get a 1 in 1041,000 chance. That number is really not even comprehensible. It's certainly a lot less than a 1 in million chance.
It would be like sitting down to play poker against someone and every hand they had a royal flush. One, you'd expect. Two in a row you'd be amazed. Three in a row and you'd be highly suspicious and four in a row you'd know it was fixed. This chance is way more than 4 royal flushes in a row. So why is it that some scientists still cling to chance as the cause for life? Well, the truth is more and more non-theistic (agnostic or atheistic) scientists are doubting the chance explanation. However, in spite of the actual data and facts there are still many who hold on to chance as being the explanation for life. Because the facts and science don't actually support chance as being the best explanation for the origin of life there has to be something else at play here. What is it? Whatever it is it's certainly not because science supports it as being the best or even a good explanation.
So we can take confidence in a position of intelligent design as being not only a reasonable explanation given the facts, science, and evidence but we can take confidence in it being the best explanation. Many would have you believe that intelligent design is not science or can't be supported by science. Take another look at the probability of chance explaining our existence. You can't look at that and say objectively that ID isn't a better option than chance.
I've done a lot of summarizing for these numbers and the details can be found in the book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
which also has extensive bibliography to site the references for the calculations in Chapter 8 and 9. If nothing else you should take away that the rhetoric about ID not being scientific or supported by science is just plain false and likely uninformed.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The Design of DNA
We all know about DNA. We know that each person has a unique DNA signature but do most people really know what DNA is? DNA structure was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson. They revealed the double helix structure that had previously been unknown. But what is DNA and what does it do? DNA encodes the proteins that do the work in the cell.
Since 1953 a lot has been learned about DNA and it's complexity. What fascinated me at first about DNA is it's similiarity to software and computers because that's my world. DNA is machine code for the genes. Computers speak in machine code (binary language). All instructions that the device you are reading this on boils down to a series of 1's and 0's called bits which when put together are called bytes. For instance the letter A in binary code is represented as 01000001. So the computer takes that and displays an A on your screen. There are programs that instruct the computer what to do with the 1's and 0's. It instructs the browser you're reading this on to display the size, color, typeface, and many other attributes of the A. These programs were written by programmers with minds which gives the computer instructions on how to process the information. DNA works exactly the same way in that it contains specific digital information that is translated and processed by a complex set of chemical machines in the body. It copies, assembles, and error corrects the proteins in our bodies. However, it's much more complex than software.
Just think about that statement for a minute. Think about some of the amazing things that software does and DNA is more advanced than that. Where does information come from? Not just any information but information with a specified purpose? Information which contains instructions for the buildings blocks of life. Do we see information which contains complex instructions coming from non-intelligent sources? When we see information containing complex instructions we know there is intelligence behind it. When I see information in DNA I can come to no other conclusion than it was created by an intelligent mind. In fact there is no reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise. Given the evidence and what we know about complex information it's completely reasonable to believe that there is intelligence behind the creation of DNA. In fact it's the most reasonable conclusion to come to given what we know and the more we find out the more we realize how complex DNA is. So the more we learn about DNA it points more and more away from chance and random variation than it does towards it.
Below are a couple links to videos on DNA. The first one is an animation of how DNA works and the second one is Dr. Stephen Meyer talking about information in DNA. Meyer also wrote the book Signature In The Cell which explains pretty clearly how DNA works and what information in the DNA is.
Since 1953 a lot has been learned about DNA and it's complexity. What fascinated me at first about DNA is it's similiarity to software and computers because that's my world. DNA is machine code for the genes. Computers speak in machine code (binary language). All instructions that the device you are reading this on boils down to a series of 1's and 0's called bits which when put together are called bytes. For instance the letter A in binary code is represented as 01000001. So the computer takes that and displays an A on your screen. There are programs that instruct the computer what to do with the 1's and 0's. It instructs the browser you're reading this on to display the size, color, typeface, and many other attributes of the A. These programs were written by programmers with minds which gives the computer instructions on how to process the information. DNA works exactly the same way in that it contains specific digital information that is translated and processed by a complex set of chemical machines in the body. It copies, assembles, and error corrects the proteins in our bodies. However, it's much more complex than software.
| "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created"
Bill Gates
|
Just think about that statement for a minute. Think about some of the amazing things that software does and DNA is more advanced than that. Where does information come from? Not just any information but information with a specified purpose? Information which contains instructions for the buildings blocks of life. Do we see information which contains complex instructions coming from non-intelligent sources? When we see information containing complex instructions we know there is intelligence behind it. When I see information in DNA I can come to no other conclusion than it was created by an intelligent mind. In fact there is no reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise. Given the evidence and what we know about complex information it's completely reasonable to believe that there is intelligence behind the creation of DNA. In fact it's the most reasonable conclusion to come to given what we know and the more we find out the more we realize how complex DNA is. So the more we learn about DNA it points more and more away from chance and random variation than it does towards it.
Below are a couple links to videos on DNA. The first one is an animation of how DNA works and the second one is Dr. Stephen Meyer talking about information in DNA. Meyer also wrote the book Signature In The Cell which explains pretty clearly how DNA works and what information in the DNA is.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
The Design Argument
One of the arguments for God is the argument from design. Technically known as the Teleological Argument coming from the Greek telos which means design. An argument is stated premises that lead to a conclusion. If the premises are true then the conclusion follows. Many scientists believe the precision of the universe is persuasive evidence for a designer. The argument takes the following form:
How do we determine if universe is actually designed and doesn't just look designed? First we look at things that are non-natural that appear to be designed and determine if they did or didn't have a designer. Watches, cars. art, music, electronics, buildings, and anything else you can name that are non-natural all have designers. When we see these things we know intuitively that there was intelligence involved in their design and we know that they are indeed designed. In fact there is nothing in the non-natural realm that looks designed that didn't have a designer behind it. So given that all things that are non-natural that have the appearance of design have a designer it's reasonable to say that if the universe is designed it had a designer.
So how do we know the universe is designed? The fine-tuning of the universe for life is an extremely powerful piece of scientific evidence for the universe being designed. I've already posted on some of the science behind this premise in a post titled Our Awesome Universe so I won't post it again. Considering the fine-tuning in the previous post is it reasonable to say the universe is designed? The universe is highly complex and exhibits the characteristics of design therefore it's reasonable to say the universe is designed. I would even say that given the scientific evidence saying the universe is designed is more reasonable than saying the universe is not designed.
For further study
Video: Largest star ever discovered. Shows just how vast our universe is.
Books
Web
The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design Reasons To Believe: The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design
The Discovery Institute
- Every design had a designer
- The universe has highly complex design
- Therefore, the universe had a designer
How do we determine if universe is actually designed and doesn't just look designed? First we look at things that are non-natural that appear to be designed and determine if they did or didn't have a designer. Watches, cars. art, music, electronics, buildings, and anything else you can name that are non-natural all have designers. When we see these things we know intuitively that there was intelligence involved in their design and we know that they are indeed designed. In fact there is nothing in the non-natural realm that looks designed that didn't have a designer behind it. So given that all things that are non-natural that have the appearance of design have a designer it's reasonable to say that if the universe is designed it had a designer.
So how do we know the universe is designed? The fine-tuning of the universe for life is an extremely powerful piece of scientific evidence for the universe being designed. I've already posted on some of the science behind this premise in a post titled Our Awesome Universe so I won't post it again. Considering the fine-tuning in the previous post is it reasonable to say the universe is designed? The universe is highly complex and exhibits the characteristics of design therefore it's reasonable to say the universe is designed. I would even say that given the scientific evidence saying the universe is designed is more reasonable than saying the universe is not designed.
For further study
Video: Largest star ever discovered. Shows just how vast our universe is.
Books
Web
The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design Reasons To Believe: The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design
The Discovery Institute
Friday, January 20, 2012
Do Christians have a bias to believe?
Do Christians just believe to cope or because they need a crutch? And why would the skeptic be exempt from this type of coping behavior? Couldn't it be that the skeptic is taking a skeptically position in an attempt to cope with accountability to God?
Here's a post titled Do Christians Have a Bias to Believe? on bias and objective truth.
Here's a post titled Do Christians Have a Bias to Believe? on bias and objective truth.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Introduction to ID
An interview at Apologetics315 on Intelligent Design with Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)