I highly recommend watching the lecture, and looking at the slides. The quality of the video and the content is first class. There is some Q&A (9 minutes) at the end of the lecture.
Topics:
intelligent design is concerned with measuring the information-creating capabilities of natural forces like mutation and selection
Darwinists think that random mutations and natural selection can explain the origin and diversification of living systems
Darwinian mechanisms are capable of explaining small-scale adaptive changes within types of organisms
but there is skepticism, even among naturalists, that Darwinian mechanisms can explain the origin of animal designs
even if you concede that Darwinism can account for all of the basic animal body plans, there is still the problem of life’s origin
can Darwinian mechanisms explain the origin of the first life? Is there a good naturalistic hypothesis to explain it?
there are at least two places in the history of life where new information is needed: origin of life, and Cambrian explosion
overview of the structure of DNA and protein synthesis (he has helpful pictures and he uses the snap lock blocks, too)
the DNA molecule is composed of a sequence of bases that code for proteins, and the sequence is carefully selected to have biological function
meaningful sequences of things like computer code, English sentences, etc. require an adequate cause
it is very hard to arrive at a meaningful sequence of a non-trivial length by randomly picking symbols/letters
although any random sequence of letters is improbable, the vast majority of sequences are gibberish/non-compiling code
similarly, most random sequences of amino acids are lab-proven (Doug Axe’s work) to be non-functional gibberish
the research showing this was conducted at Cambridge University and published in the Journal of Molecular Biology
so, random mutation cannot explain the origin of the first living cell
however, even natural selection coupled with random mutation cannot explain the first living cell
there must already be replication in order for mutation and selection to work, so they can’t explain the first replicator
but the origin of life is the origin of the first replicator – there is no replication prior to the first replicator
the information in the first replicator cannot be explained by law, such as by chemical bonding affinities
the amino acids are attached like magnetic letters on a refrigerator
the magnetic force sticks the letters ON the fridge, but they don’t determine the specific sequence of the letters
if laws did determine the sequence of letters, then the sequences would be repetitive
the three materialist explanations – chance alone, chance and law, law alone – are not adequate to explain the effect
the best explanation is that an intelligent cause is responsible for the biological explanation in the first replicator
we know that intelligent causes can produce functional sequences of information, e.g. – English, Java code
the structure and design of DNA matches up nicely with the design patterns used by software engineers (like WK!)
There are some very good tips in this lecture so that you will be able to explain intelligent design to others in simple ways, using everyday household items and children’s toys to symbolize the amino acids, proteins, sugar phosphate backbones, etc.
Proteins are constructed from a sequence of amino acids:
A sequence of amino acids forming a protein
Proteins sticking onto the double helix structure of DNA:
Some proteins sticking onto the sugar phosphate backbone
I highly, highly recommend this lecture. You will be delighted and you will learn something.
Here is an article that gives a general overview of how intelligent design challenges. If you want to read something more detailed about the material that he is covering in the lecture above related to the origin of life, there is a pretty good article here.
There is a good breakdown of some of the slides with helpful flow charts here on Uncommon Descent.
Since it’s eclipse time in America, I’ve posted a lecture that talks about intelligent design and eclipses. There are 5 video clips that make up the full lecture.
Guillermo Gonzalez is an Associate Professor of Physics at Grove City College. He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy in 1993 from the University of Washington. He has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and at the University of Washington and has received fellowships, grants and awards from such institutions as NASA, the University of Washington, the Templeton Foundation, Sigma Xi (scientific research society) and the National Science Foundation.
Is the Earth’s suitability for hosting life rare in the universe?
Does the Earth have to be the center of the universe to be special?
How similar to the Earth does a planet have to be to support life?
What is the definition of life?
What are the three minimal requirements for life of any kind?
Requirement 1: A molecule that can store information (carbon)
Requirement 2: A medium in which chemicals can interact (liquid water)
Requirement 3: A diverse set of chemical elements
What is the best environment for life to exist?
Our place in the solar system: the circumstellar habitable zone
Our place in the galaxy: the galactic habitable zones
Our time in the universe’s history: the cosmic habitable age
Other habitability requirements (e.g. – metal-rich star, massive moon, etc.)
The orchestration needed to create a habitable planet
How different factors depend on one another through time
How tweaking one factor can adversely affect other factors
How many possible places are there in the universe where life could emerge?
Given these probabilistic resources, should we expect that there is life elsewhere?
How to calculate probabilities using the “Product Rule”
Can we infer that there is a Designer just because life is rare? Or do we need more?
The corelation between habitability and measurability.
Are the habitable places in the universe also the best places to do science?
Do the factors that make Earth habitable also make it good for doing science?
Some places and times in the history of the universe are more habitable than others
Those exact places and times also allow us to make scientific discoveries
Observing solar eclipses and structure of our star, the Sun
Observing stars and galaxies
Observing the cosmic microwave background radiation
Observing the acceleration of the universe caused by dark matter and energy
Observing the abundances of light elements like helium of hydrogen
These observations support the big bang and fine-tuning arguments for God’s existence
It is exactly like placing observatories on the tops of mountains
There are observers existing in the best places to observe things
This is EXACTLY how the universe has been designed for making scientific discoveries
This lecture was delivered by Guillermo Gonzalez in 2007 at the University of California at Davis. If you like this lecture, but maybe want something a bit more user friendly, check out “The Privileged Planet” DVD, or watch it online here (first 60 minutes of that video).
Dina sent me news of a cracking good episode of Unbelievable, which features Lawrence Krauss, who debated William Lane Craig. Krauss’ book was also reviewed in the New York Times.
Lawrence Krauss is a Cosmologist at Arizona State University who describes himself as an “anti-theist”. His latest book “A Universe From Nothing” has received both acclaim and criticism for its attempt to answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Debating the issue with Krauss is Rodney Holder, Course director at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge. An astrophysicist and priest by background. In a lively exchange they debate whether Krauss’ “nothing” is “nothing”, fine tuning and multiverses, scientific knowledge, miracles and the usefulness of theology and philosophy.
This debate is quite entertaining, and do not be intimidated if your don’t understand science. You can understand pretty easily who is arguing based on facts and who is speculating about unobservable, untestable entities. At one point, Krauss actually denies that there is any fine-tuning in the universe, so please see this link to refute that claim as well as this podcast which explains some examples of fine-tuning. Krauss gets a bit angry at the beginning, but calms down.
Quotation marks are for direct quotes, italics is for made-up snark. See below the summary for more posts that are related to this one.
Summary of the discussion: (picked up at 9:30 when they start talking about the book)
Brierley:
explain your theory of how the universe can come into being from nothing
Krauss:
the nothing that preceded the universe is “no space, no time, no universe”
theists say that God is responsible for creating the universe out of this nothing
but the laws of nature can create the universe uncaused out of nothing
Holder:
Krauss sometimes writes that the nothing is really a quantum vacuum, but that is not nothing
He even acknowledges in his book that a quantum vacuum is not nothing
He thinks that the nothing has properties, even though it has no being
It has the property of being unstable
It has the property of being acted on by quantum fields
It has the property of being acted on by gravity
Krauss:
But nothing can have the potential to do things inside it
For example suppose you have an electron, which is not nothing
If it jumps from one level to another, it emits light
There was no potential for the light in the electron, but it was there as part of atomic structure
Holder:
But in cases like that, there is something physical that has the potential
Krauss:
Well, how did God makes the universe then if it had no potential?
Holder:
God existed, and the potential for creating the universe in himself
Brierley:
Consider the critical review of your book in the New York Times
Krauss:
It was written by a philosopher, so I dismissed it
Maybe there is an eternally existing multiverse that we can’t observe or test scientifically
Maybe it has laws that we don’t know about which allow our universe to pop into being
Maybe this popping into being is uncaused
(alarmed) Who made God? Who made God?
Holder:
God is eternal and necessary
Krauss:
(interrupting, angry) What does it mean for something to be necessary?
Holder:
Basically, you have to decide whether there is more evidence that the necessary being God or a multiverse
Brierley:
So Dr. Krauss are you willing to say that the universe is a brute fact, in some sense, and requires no explanation
Krauss:
(angry) Religious people are stupid because they just assume brute facts, not like me and my unobservable, untestable multiverse
(angry) Religious people are against the progress of science, they don’t want to figure out how things work
Brierley:
But isn’t it possible that naturalists can be opposed to the progress of science?
What about the way the Fred Hoyle opposed the Big Bang because he wanted an eternal universe
Krauss:
(angry) But naturalists like me let the facts determine our beliefs, like the facts about the eternal unobservable, untestable multiverse
(angry, shouting) Philosophers are stupid, they know nothing!
=== Break ===
Brierley:
Do you see any evidence of purpose in the universe?
Krauss:
Well maybe I would believe if the stars lined up to spell out a message from God
Brierley:
Actually no, that wouldn’t be evidence for God on your multiverse view
if there an infinite number of universes existing for an infinite amount of time, then anything can happen no matter how unlikely it is
therefore, no evidence could convince you that God exists, since the unobservable, untestable, eternal multiverse can make anything it wants
Krauss:
That’s a true statement, and very convenient for atheists who don’t want to be accountable to God, don’t you think?
Brierley:
Back to the multiverse, how does it solve the fine-tuning?
Krauss:
“We have no idea if the universe is fine-tuned for life”, even though the atheist Martin Rees who endorsed Krauss’ book wrote his own book about the fine-tuning of the universe called “Just Six Numbers”
But this theory is still very much a hypothesis, isn’t it? We can’t observe or test this hypothesis can we?
Krauss:
“No, and that is really important to state”
“I’m an empiricist, so if you can’t falsify it and if you can’t test it then it’s not science”
In my book, I speculate about a way that we could test the multiverse theory
Holder:
Yes, in principle, the multiverse would be scientific if you could test it through other theories like inflationary theory
There are a lot of speculations about multiverse theory, but no evidence from predictions that were validated in the lab
Krauss:
“I agree completely with everything you just said”
Brierley:
Roger Penrose agrees with Holder that the multiverse theory is too speculative
(To Holder) Isn’t the multiverse theory better than positing a completely different kind of being, which is God?
Holder:
The multiverse theory is extremely speculative
Even if the multiverse were true, you would still need to explain the multiverse
Krauss:
People don’t oppose my book because it’s full of self-contradictory speculations
People oppose my book because they are stupid and ignorant
Holder:
There are things that exist that science cannot measure, like objective morality
It’s possible to give explanations for moral behavior by appealing to evolution
But that does not ground self-sacrificial morality, such as what occurs in the Christian life
Brierley:
Dawkins says there is no purpose or morality in in the universe, do you agree?
Krauss:
“There is certainly no evidence of any of that”
Brierley:
In the book, you talk about how we live in a special time in the universe’s history to be able to do science, (i.e. – The Privileged Planet hypothesis)
You also write about how all the discoveries were are making will not be communicated to anyone in other places in the universe
So what is the meaning of doing science on your view? And why are you sad at the knowledge that will not be available to people in the future?
Are you longing for some kind of purpose?
Krauss:
No, I just get enjoyment from studying the universe with science to gain understanding
Holder:
What do you make of Einstein’s statement about the unexpected comprehensibility of the universe
Theists would say that this is because God wanted us to study and understand and gain knowledge
Krauss:
“It is remarkable that the universe is comprehensible”
Brierley:
Why is the universe comprehensible?
Krauss:
Well, maybe the universe just has to be that way
Brierley:
What do you make of the heat death of the universe, when all life in the universe will die out?
Krauss:
That’s the way the universe is
=== BREAK ===
Krauss:
I wouldn’t want to live in a universe where there was a God
God is a cosmic Saddam Hussein
“Religious people turn their minds off” and believe in God for consolation
Holder:
First, Jesus is the revelation of God and he is no Saddam Hussein
Second, the Christian life is anything but easy, we are facing some persecution already in the UK
Third, there is also the problem of being accountable to God when we die
It’s very much like science – Christianity is the way it is, not the way we want it to be
Krauss:
“If you don’t believe in him, you don’t get any of the benefits, so you have to believe”
“And then if you’ve done something wrong, you’re going to be judged for it”
“So I don’t want to be judged by God, I want to be… that’s the bottom line”
Holder:
Well, Jesus has died to pay the price for those things we’ve done wrong
Although we will have to face the charges for what we’ve done, believers will ultimately be forgiven
Finally, Peter Sean Bradley note that Krauss is now walking back his rhetoric in response to criticisms from people like atheist John Horgan.
WINTERY KNIGHT 