I’m doing prep work for a possible episode of the Knight and Rose Show. This time, I’ve been looking into Dr. Brian Miller’s argument about thermodynamics and the origin of life. So, the first thing I did was read his chapter in “The Mystery of Life’s Origin”, which is available online for free. Then I listened to a recent episode that he did with Dr. James Tour, on The Science & Faith Podcast.

First, here is the podcast:

I actually made a transcript of the episode using TurboScribe AI, so I could read along while I listened. You can also grab just the audio from that transcript page, too.

Just keep in mind that the video is BETTER than just the audio, because Brian shows SLIDES in the video, with quotes and diagrams.

Here are the main points in their discussion:

1. Brian’s personal testimony, going from atheism to Christianity
2. Brian’s thermodynamic argument against a naturalistic origin of life
3. The minimum requirements of a simple living system
4. Can natural selection be invoked to explain the origin of life naturalistically?
5. The role of experimenter interference in origin of life experiments
6. Evidence for engineering in biological systems
7. The requirement for a minimum level of information just to maintain the basic functions of the cell
8. The problem of the origin of biological information present in the first living system
9. Implications for theories about life emerging on other planets
10. Additional evidence for biological big bangs in the fossil record

If you’re looking for something to read, and send to your friends who also like to read, you can send them Brian’s chapter – chapter #14 – from the new second edition of “The Mystery of Life’s Origin“.

Here is what it is about:

The thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life have become decidedly more well defined since this book’s first publication. The initial challenges described in the original edition still stand. Namely, spontaneous natural processes always tend toward states of greater entropy, lower energy, or both. The change of entropy and energy are often combined into the change of free energy, and all spontaneous processes move toward lower free energy. However, the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy. Therefore, it must move toward dramatically higher free energy. The chance of a system accomplishing this feat near equilibrium is astronomically small.

Many origin-of-life researchers have responded to this challenge by arguing that a system driven far from equilibrium could self-organize into a functional cell through processes that are connected to such monikers as complex systems, emergence, synergetics, or nonequilibrium dissipative systems. The basic hope is that some new physical principles could overcome the barriers to life’s origin mandated by classical thermodynamics. However, advances in nonequilibrium thermodynamics have proven that the odds of a system driven far from equilibrium generating an autonomous cell are no greater than the odds for one near equilibrium.

Others have proposed that “natural engines” on the early Earth converted one form of energy into another that could drive a local system to sufficiently high free energy. These approaches have proven equally disappointing. The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.

He seems to be saying that a living system exhibits low entropy, and high free energy. And that there is no known naturalistic mechanism that can produce a result like that, without an intelligent agent to guide it. I wonder if I will have to add this to my list of arguments against naturalism.

Then it would grow to:

1. origin of the universe
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. origin of life (specified complexity)
4. Cambrian explosion (and other explosions)
5. galactic, stellar and planetary habitability
6. molecular machines
7. non-material mind, e.g. – split brain surgery
8. the waiting time problem
9. origin of life (thermodynamics)

I wish we had one more to make it 10 arguments. We need the scholars to make MORE progress in science, so I can have an even 10 arguments in my list.

I have exciting news. Do you remember a long time ago, when the famous atheist professor Will Provine invited Michael Behe to make the case for intelligent design at Cornell University? Well, 22 years later, Behe has returned to Cornell, to give a lecture to students and answer questions. Let’s find out what Behe’s arguments were and whether any biologists showed up to stump him.

So, it’s always fun to start with the announcement of the event. I like to support these events because I am very passionate about events on campus where students are presented with evidence that will help them to form more accurate views about the big questions of life.

So, here is the link to the event announcement, and it says:

Throughout history, most people, including most scientists, thought that the intricate mechanisms of life were purposefully designed. The design hypothesis fell out of favor in academia after 1859, the year Charles Darwin instead proposed that life evolved by utterly unguided random variation sifted by natural selection. In the past 75 years, however, much has been learned about the molecular basis of life that was completely unknown in Darwin’s era. In my talk I will argue that the astonishing discoveries of modern biochemistry require a reversal of our evaluation of Darwin versus design: the conclusion that, in large part, life was purposely designed has once again become rationally compelling.

I would like to get my hands on the slides for this lecture. Roger Pielke just gave a talk at Cornell earlier this month, and he posted his slides. Maybe I can get Mike to do the same. If you have ever seen one of his lectures, he actually has fun slides – he puts Far Side cartoons into his lectures to keep people paying attention.

Anyway, here is the audio from the talk, and here are his main arguments: 1) irreducible complexity and 2) Darwinian mechanisms cannot create new forms over time.

But he actually made 5 points in the presentation:

What was interesting about this podcast? Well, like I said, I am really, really committed to helping students to hear two sides to the big questions of life. Most of the college students that I talk to in the workplace explain to me that their process of forming their worldviews was two-fold: 1) I wanted to have fun, and 2) I wanted the smart people (professors) to like me. It was just easier for them to accept certain beliefs in the college environment, and that’s why they accepted them. A lot of things that are false are just easier to believe for social or professional reasons: the universe is eternal, the origin of life is a solved problem, the fossil record shows gradual increases in complexity, the genome is 90% junk DNA – just complete nonsense. And the best way for them to correct these false beliefs is to bring an honest scholar like Mike Behe or Mike Licona to speak about evidence at the local university campus.

The podcast is fun because they really explain all the details of what happened. Who invited Behe to speak? Where did Behe speak? Who did Behe speak to? Were biologists invited? Did any biologists show up to confront Behe? How long was the talk? How long was the Q&A? Was the tone of the Q&A calm or argumentative? Did the Q&A stop because no one had questions, or was there a long line of people waiting to ask more questions?

Confronting naturalism on campus

I have a friend named Stephanie who just loves all sorts of protests and gatherings and marches. But for me, this is much better. Instead of people yelling at each other over politics, we can actually have some evidence presented, and minds can change. Maybe not right in the moment, but afterwards. This worked well for me when I was in my 20s. I used to order dozens and dozens of lectures and debates from university campuses from places like Veritas Forum and Access Research Network. I would listen over and over, and then when I tried out the evidence on co-workers (and I mean people with graduate degrees from good schools like UIUC and Purdue and Northwestern) they always had to concede. There is just something about being able to listen to Christians speak about evidence to college students – it’s just the right level of difficulty for software guys like me to understand it and learn how to speak like that. And this led to a lot of adventures.

Secrets of the Cell with Mike Behe

Well, if you listen to the podcast, and you like it, and you want to try to explain Michael Behe’s arguments to college students yourself, he does have quite a good series of lectures posted on YouTube:

1. Someone Must Have the Answer! (Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 1)
2. The Complexity of Life (Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 2)
3. Bugs with Gears (Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 3)
4. The Effects of Mutation (Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 4)
5. The X Factor in Life (Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 5)
6. Bacteria: Superheroes of the Microbial World (Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 6)
7. Blood Clotting: The Body’s Emergency Response System (Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 7)
8. Michael Behe Unravels the Mystery of Biological Information (Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 8)
9. The Robot Repairmen Inside You (Secrets of the Cell, Ep. 9)

Everything is so much easier now than it used to be for me in the old days. You guys don’t have to rewind VHS tapes and audio cassettes like I used to have to do! And if you hear a word or phrase that you don’t understand, just ask Grok to explain it to you like it would explain it to a high school student. Anyway, have fun.

It’s helpful to look at countries where the secular left is more powerful, so you can see what they have done with their power. Germany is a good one. France, too. And Canada. And the UK. So, in this post, I have 3 terrifying stories from across the pond that will show you why you should never let the secular left take political power in America. If you do, you will not like the result.

First, here’s an article from the UK Daily Mail:

Figures obtained by the Daily Mail show that some forces are making arrests for ‘offensive’ social media posts at ‘extremely concerning’ rates.

[…]The crime of sending ‘grossly offensive’ messages or sharing content of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing character’ on electronic communications networks is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

[…]Together, the 39 of 45 police forces that replied to the Mail’s freedom of information (FOI) requests arrested around 9,700 people last year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

However, the total arrest figures are likely to be higher, as six forces failed to respond to FOI requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second-largest force in the UK.

Keep in mind that this is the same country that refused to investigate “grooming gangs” (child sex-trafficking rings), because of their fear of appearing “racist”.

And of course, since they are busy intimidating taxpayers for sharing memes, they don’t have time for more serious crimes:

The outcry that the police are wasting their time has increased because official figures show that 90% of all crime went unsolved in 2023, up from 75% in 2015.

Here is an example:

Another alarming example of free speech under threat involved Hertfordshire Police officers arresting parents Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine in January.

Officers held them in a cell for eleven hours, on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications, after their child’s primary school objected to the volume of emails they sent and ‘disparaging’ comments made in a WhatsApp group.

No fewer than six uniformed cops showed up to arrest them for messages which could be deemed sarcastic, but were clearly far from ‘abusive or malicious’.

Under Winston Churchill, the UK won a war against German totalitarianism. Then, under Margaret Thatcher, the UK won a war against Russian totalitarianism. And now the UK is North Korea. You can’t say anything bad about the bad effects of the government’s policies, because the government doesn’t like that.

Second article, also from the UK Daily Mail:

The number of Britons emigrating has hit a new high, it was revealed on Tuesday – as the exodus under Labour gathers pace.

Last year the number of UK citizens going to live abroad was 257,000 – far more than the 77,000 previously estimated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

[…]Net emigration has also peaked since last year’s general election.

In the 12 months to September 2024, a net 116,000 Britons left the country. This is far higher than previously thought. By December, the net figure for the previous 12 months was 114,000. Net British emigration was just 81,000 in 2022.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: ‘Keir Starmer’s punishing tax rises are causing Britons to flee in record numbers.

‘The brightest and the best are leaving the UK for places like Dubai and Milan, leaving the rest of us to pay Labour’s higher taxes.

‘This is evidence that increasing tax too far makes people leave.’

So, every American understands that. We fought a far against the UK over taxation, because when the government taxes you, it diminishes your freedom to live your life how you want. If the government taxes you a lot, then your wife has to work. Then your one child goes into daycare and public schools. But if the government lets you keep what you earn, then your wife stays home and she homeschools your  four children. Taxes are a big deal to people who have a plan about how they want to live. Money is the fuel to run a plan.

Here’s the third article, from ADF International:

75-year-old grandmother Rose Docherty has been arrested a second time and criminally charged for holding a sign within 200m of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, reading:

“Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.”

In Scotland, “buffer zones” are enforced within 200m of every hospital, forbidding harassment, intimidation, and “influencing” of anyone seeking to access abortion services.

Despite only having stood silently offering consensual conversation and not having approached any individual, Docherty has been charged with breaching the “buffer zone.”

According to a recent article from Christian Today, it’s not just abortion clinics that have a no-disagreement-with-murder-by-government buffer zone. Soon it wil be expanded to areas around assisted suicide clinics, called “safe access zones”. The UK has found it more profitable to kill patients rather than treat them, so they don’t want any criticism of that policy, either.