Tag Archives: Blind Faith

News

Intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer debates evolutionist Keith Fox

2 Comments

From Justin Brierley’s “Unbelievable” podcast.

Details:

Stephen Meyer is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design who directs the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. His most recent book “Signature in the Cell” claims to show that the DNA code is the product of intelligent mind, not naturalistic processes. Keith Fox is Professor of Biochemistry at Southampton University. He chairs the UK Christians in Science network but disagrees strongly with ID. They debate how life could have originated and whether design is allowed as an explanation in science.

The MP3 file is here.

Summary: (stuff in italics is my snarky paraphrase)

Meyer:

  • background and how he got interested in intelligent design
  • his research focus is on the origin of life – the first replicator
  • summarizes the history of origin of life studies
  • authored the book “Signature in the Cell”
  • the DNA enigma: where did the information in DNA come from?
  • naturalistic explanations of the DNA information have failed
  • but intelligent agents are known to be able to produce information
  • the best explanation of the information in DNA is that an intelligent agent authored it
  • Meyer’s book was named by atheist philosopher of science Thomas Nagel as a Times Literary Supplement Book of the Year in 2010
  • why is design so controversial? Many people think that Darwin explained why nature appears design
  • the Darwinian view is that nature can create the appearance of design using mutation and selection
  • however, Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain the origin of the first living cell, it assumes replication, and the origin of life is about where the first replicator comes from

Fox:

  • Meyer’s argument is not about the evolution of life after the first cell
  • Meyer’s case for design is about the origin of life
  • naturalists do not know a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life
  • there are a number of naturalistic hypotheses for the origin of life, like the RNA-first hypothesis
  • maybe in a few years one of them will turn out to be correct
  • what intelligent design is arguing from a gap in our current naturalistic knowledge to infer that God intervened in nature

Meyer:

  • that’s not what intelligent design is at all
  • the approach ID theorists use is the inference to best explanation
  • you evaluate all explanations, non-intelligent causes and intelligent causes
  • you prefer the best possible explanation
  • we know that minds are capable of producing information just like the information we find in DNA

Fox:

  • living cells replicate, so they have the ability to introduce mutations as they replicate and then some of those mutations can be selected
  • so maybe the process of replicating that living cells do created the first living cell
  • maybe the first living cell created itself, X brought X into being, self-creation, what’s irrational about that?

Meyer:

  • the issue is the origin of life – where did the first living cell come from?
  • you cannot appeal to the operations that a living cell can perform to explain the origin of the first living cell
  • there was no first living cell operating before the first living cell
  • there was no replication, mutation or selection before the first living cell
  • in fact, in my book I show that there is no known naturalistic mechanism that is able to produce the information needed for the first living cell
  • nothing can create itself, that is self-contradictory
Fox:
  • Well, you are just saying that because something is complex that God did it
Meyer:
  • Sadly, no. What I actually said needed to be explained was the information, not complexity
  • And we know from software engineering that the process of adding information to code is performed by programmers
  • in the absence of any adequate naturalistic explanation for information, we are justified in taking the explanation that we are familiar with – namely, intelligent agency – based on our uniform, universal experience of what causes information
Fox:
  • well, maybe we can appeal to the mutation and selection in existing living cells to explain the origin of the first living cell
  • maybe there were living cells before the first living cell, and then these other living cells created the first living cell
Meyer:
  • we can’t keep invoking mutation and selection when those processes are not operating prior to the origin of the first living cell
Fox:
  • well maybe some bare-bones self-replication molecule was a precursor to the first living cell
Meyer:
  • even to generate very limited replicator would require a large amount of information
  • the argument I am making is – where does the evolution come from?
Fox:
  • well, maybe we will think of an explanation for information that is naturalistic in 20 years
  • we’ve thought of explanations to things that were NOT information before
  • so maybe we will be able to think of something to explain information based on our ability to explain NOT information before

Moderator: Change topics: the Dover decision

Meyer:

  • the Discovery Institute opposed the policy that causes the trial
  • the wording of the statute was poor
  • the judge was completely wrong in his decision
  • young earth creationists used the phrase “intelligent design” to cover their agenda
  • intelligent design is an inference using the normal methods of science
Fox:
  • intelligent design is a science stopper because it stops looking for a naturalistic explanation
  • everything in nature must have a naturalistic explanation
  • everything has to be explained using matter and time and chance
  • it just has to be that way!!!!
Meyer:
  • well, what luck would you have explaining an effect like Mt. Rushmore?
  • can you explain that using matter,time and chance?
  • Mt. Rushmore was the product of intelligence, not wind and erosion
  • similarly, there is information in the cell, and we know that intelligence causes information
Fox:
  • So you are saying that we don’t understand and therefore an intelligence is necessary?

Meyer:

  • no I am saying we DO understand and we are making an inference based on that understanding
  • you are the one who is insisting on a material explanation because you pre-suppose materialism
  • we know that minds have causal powers, and we can infer mind as an explanation from information
Fox:
  • well nature is a seamless chain of material causes and effects
Meyer:
  • agents can act without violating the laws of nature
  • even humans can act as intelligent agents to create information in books, and they don’t violate the laws of nature
  • intelligent causes are real, and they explain effects in nature
Fox:
  • you’re trying to impose on science something to do with meaning and purpose
Meyer:
  • no that’s not what we’re doing, we’re inferring from from the fact that we ourselves are known causes of information to the fact that an intelligence cause is the best explanation for information in the cell
Fox:
  • but I am a materialist, I need a materialist explanation
Meyer:
  • mind IS an answer to the how question
  • we infer to mind in many other scientific disciplines, like cryptography, archaeology, etc.
  • a materialist might accuse an archaeologist of engaging in a “scribe-of-the-gaps” argument, but the best explanation of an artifact with information is a scribe
  • we are inferring that mind is the cause from the nature of the effect: information
Moderator: is it appropriate to call DNA “information”

Fox:

  • well DNA is just a molecular polymer, any reference to information is just by analogy
Meyer:
  • DNA is a molecular polymer, but it also exhibits the property of specified complexity
  • the arrangement of bases, which function as machine instructions in a software program, for performings task in the cell
  • we have observed that the property of specified complexity always comes from an intelligence
Fox:
  • well, maybe there are other sequences that would work, so maybe it’s really not uncommon to develop functioning sequences by chance alone, without an intelligence
Meyer:
  • you can measure how precise the functional specificity is in DNA and proteins

Moderator: is Shannon information the same as functional information

Meyer:

  • Shannon information refers to the sequences of digits or symbols that do not necessarily have any function, i.e. – a four character string QSZX has as much Shannon information as WORD. However, only the latter is functional against the pattern of the English language. There are arrangements of DNA bases and amino acids that have the same number of symbols/characters as a functional sequence would have, but they have no biological function – they do not exhibit specified complexity
Fox:
  • Well, maybe there are lots and lots of sequences of DNA and proteins so that it is fairly easy to get a functional one by chance

Meyer:

  • DNA sequences that are functional are extremely rare, protein sequences are even more rare
  • this is not my opinion, this is what the research shows – functional protein sequences are rare
Fox:
  • well maybe there are other functional sequences that are occur before the first functional sequence that are precursors to the first functional sequence
  • maybe there are billions of years of replication, mutation and selection before the first replication, mutation and selection

Meyer:

  • you can’t get to the first selectable functional sequence by appealing to precursor selectable functional sequences – there are no selectable functional sequences before the FIRST one
  • you have to get the first selectable functional sequence by chance alone, because there is nothing to mutate or select before the first replicator
  • the chance hypothesis has been rejected because the minimal amount of information for the simplest replicator is too high to get by chance alone, given the resources, including time, that are available

Moderator: Keith are you confident that naturalism will be able to substantiate these naturalism-of-the-gap speculations that you offer in response to Meyer’s actual science that we have today? 

Fox:

  • well, it is hard to know for sure because it was just a fluke event
  • but there’s nothing irrational or unscientific or miraculous about it – the fluke would have a material explanation
  • there is nothing that we can detect that would implicate God, my speculations about a fluke which I cannot observe or measure or test would all be compatible with an atheistic worldview that omits God as a causal entity

Meyer:

  • where are those material processes that could account for this fluke then?
  • the whole point of this argument is that the information in DNA transcends the material components in the sequence
  • it’s the arrangement of the material parts/letters/characters/symbols/instructions that needs to be explained
Fox:
  • Well, I just have a different philosophy of science that rules out intelligent causation a priori

Meyer:

  • Yes, that’s the difference between us – you pre-suppose that all explanations of natural phenomena must exclude intelligent causes

There is a bit more where Meyer talks about how parts of the cell are implementations of various design patterns (Gang of Four design patterns) that are used by software architects who design software.

You may also be interested in Keith Fox’s previous debate with Michael Behe. I think Fox did better in this one than in that one, so I didn’t make fun of him as much. Find more posts on Stephen C. Meyer by me here.

Podcasts

BBC London radio interviews William Lane Craig

Leave a comment

Brian Auten from Apologetics 315 tweeted this interview. It was uploaded by the always excellent BirdieUpon.

Dr. Craig did a GREAT job on that interview, sounding very clear and intelligent. The host was laughing with him.

And while you’re having fun with that, read this:

Here at the Unofficial W. L. Craig Public Relations Office LLC we have uncovered news which is very concerning to us. We uncovered information that Dr. Richard Dawkins likes to top pumpkin flavored ice cream with sautéed portobello mushroom, Top Ramen noodles, eggs, and grated pickles. Apparently, Dr. Dawkins thinks the obtaining of this state of affairs results in a good tasting ice cream. He has even defended his right to make and eat said ice cream concoction.

We find this a disgusting view to hold, and we are shocked, revolted, and horrified that a person who claims to be a descent human being would engage in such ice cream apologetics. We understand that Dr. Craig has claimed in many of his books that matters of taste are not objective matters of fact that obtain in the universe. We understand that Dr. Craig has claimed that in this universe there is no objective fact of the matter regarding whether Dr. Dawkins’s tastes in ice cream are any better or more correct than Dr. Craig’s—who happens to like, through God’s instantiation of certain circumstances, peanut butter and chocolate ice cream. However, this is quite beside the point. For we are completely abominated, bothered, disenchanted, displeased, disturbed, grossed out, insulted, irked, nauseated, offended, outraged, palled, piqued, put off, repulsed, revolted, shocked, sickened, unhinged and upset by Dr. Dawkins’s subjective tastes in ice cream. Dr. Craig doesn’t care if this has absolutely nothing to do with whether Dr. Dawkins’s argument that the design argument implies that God must have had a designer is a good argument or not. Dr. Craig doesn’t care that this has absolutely nothing to do with the soundness of the Kalam cosmological argument. Those concerns are petty when placed next to Dr. Dawkins’s disgusting tastes in ice cream. His statements on ice cream are so yucky as to nullify discussion about whether belief in God as such is a mind virus.

In light of these most heinous facts, we cannot, and will not, debate such a scurrilous individual as Dr. Richard Dawkins. We ask, would you shake hands with a man who could eat something like that? Would you share a platform with him (imagine if he passed gas)? Dr. Craig wouldn’t, and he won’t. Even if he were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, he would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty and head to the nearest ice cream shop.

And if any of Dr. Craig’s colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for mushroom, noodle, egg, and pickle topped pumpkin ice cream, our advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Dawkins’s recipe as quoted above (maybe even show the picture), then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well, as we all make our way to Cold Stone Creamery for a proper ice cream.

I found it here on the Analytic Theology blog. So what was the point of that? The point of that is that Richard Dawkins is complaining at Dr. Craig for being evil and immoral, but he doesn’t have any way to make distinctions between good and evil in his own worldview.

Look at what Dawkins says:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

(“God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85)

So what was that whole “I’m not going to debate you because you’re evil and so is genocide” thing? It makes no sense. But he says it anyway, because that’s how atheists like Dawkins are. They don’t have any way to ground morality on their own view, and then they complain about God and Christians failing to act morally. It’s ridiculous.

News

UK Independent joins UK Guardian in call for Dawkins to debate Craig

3 Comments

A call for Richard Dawkins to debate William Lane Craig, from the other major secular-left UK newspaper. (H/T Michael & Czar Berstein)

Excerpt:

William Lane Craig is a formidable debater. He has done battle with celebrity academic atheists including Lawrence Krauss, Lewis Wolpert, Peter Atkins, and Sam Harris. Not long after his exchange with the philosopher Anthony Flew, perhaps the leading atheist thinker of the late 20th century, Flew converted, if not to Christianity, to deism. Harris described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

Christopher Hitchens said: “I can tell you that my brothers and sisters in the unbelieving community take him very seriously. He’s thought of as a very tough guy: very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable.” After a debate in which the two locked horns, one US atheist website pronounced: “Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.”

William Lane Craig is the Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in California. He is a conservative evangelical, but he is smart, with a doctorate in philosophy from Birmingham and one in theology from Munich. He has developed such a reputation that when he began a 10-day speaking tour of Britain on Monday he drew an audience of 1,700 at the cavernous Central Hall in Westminster.

The titles of his UK lectures give a clue to his breadth: “Does God Exist?”, “Can We be Good without God?”, “The Origins of the Universe – Has Stephen Hawking Eliminated God?”, “The Historicity of Jesus’s Resurrection”. He is unafraid to range across ontological theology and moral philosophy and talks with ease about new developments in cosmology, mathematics and physics. He has a ready command of easy analogy and can be funny. He is a million miles away from the evangelical rhetoric that amuses and bemuses our secularist and modernist establishment. Proof, he says, is not about scientific or mathematical certainty; it is about a cogent and logical argument which is more plausible than what opponents argue.

This is not the style of the Dawkinsites’ preferred adversaries. Their debating techniques tend to be catalogues of religion’s historical atrocities, coupled with psychological sideswipes about the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas. Dawkins in the past has been notable for seeking out extreme oddball fundamentalists. He and his followers routinely erect a straw man – defining religion in ways unrecognisable to many mainstream believers – and then knock their caricature to the ground. But Craig is an opponent of a different calibre who focuses ruthlessly on failures of internal logic in his rivals’ arguments.

What is striking to the outsider is the ad hominem abuse that has been hurled his way. Dawkins has blogged of his “almost visceral loathing” of Craig’s “odiously unctuous, smug and self-satisfied tone of voice”. Craig, he says, is a “deeply unimpressive… ponderous buffoon” who uses “chopped logic” for “bamboozling his faith-head audience”. On Dawkins’s website his supporters have called Craig a “debased freak” and “snakeoil salesman”.

The writer of this article not so much sympathetic with Craig as he is disappointed with Dawkins for not being willing to debate and defeat Craig. I think that most of the atheists on the Richards Dawkins site have never heard Craig’s arguments, otherwise, they would be pointing out the flaws in them and linking to evidence. When someone dodges what I am saying and instead insults me personally, I think it’s fair to assume that they don’t have a case against me based on substance. If they had substance, they would argue substance.

The UK Guardian article denouncing Dawkins for cowardice is here. The conservative UK Telegraph explicitly called Dawkins a fool or a coward for not debating Craig. But I don’t think it’s going to happen, because Dawkins is a coward. That’s just what he is. And I think he isn’t even intelligent enough to lose as badly as Hitchens did – it would be a much worse defeat for atheism. The man has never expressed any substantial arguments for atheism in any of his books – it was always just bile. And I never saw William Lane Craig’s publications or those of any other major Christian thinker referenced in the footnotes of his books – he is oblivious to the arguments on the other side.

My response to Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig is here. In it, I go over Craig’s qualifications, Dawkins’ reason for not debating him, and link to Craig’s debate with Christopher Hitchens.