Tag Archives: Progress of Science

Videos

Video of William Lane Craig explaining the Kalam cosmological argument

1 Comment

This is the video from his appearance at Saddleback Church (Rick Warren) that got such a big response. Saddleback is a pretty ordinary church, which lots of people with different levels of knowledge. How did Bill explain the Kalam argument to so many different ordinary people?

Watch and see!

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

    You can also find a more technical version of the lecture here. This version is based on a research paper published in an astrophysics journal, and was delivered to an audience of students and faculty, including atheist physicist Victor Stenger and prominent atheist philosopher Michael Tooley, at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Craig has previously debated Stenger and Tooley. And they both asked him questions in the Q&A of this lecture.

    You might also be interested in this exchange in which William Lane Craig takes on prominent atheist Daniel Dennett.

    Related posts

    News

    Science Daily reports that there is no such thing as Junk RNA

    26 Comments

    Story here on Science Daily. (H/T Darwin’s God via ECM)

    Excerpt:

    Tiny strands of RNA previously dismissed as cellular junk are actually very stable molecules that may play significant roles in cellular processes, according to researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute (UPCI).

    The findings, published last week in the online version of the Journal of Virology, represent the first examination of very small RNA products termed unusually small RNAs (usRNAs). Further study of these usRNAs, which are present in the thousands but until now have been neglected, could lead to new types of biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis, and new therapeutic targets.

    In recent years, scientists have recognized the importance of small RNAs that generally contain more than 20 molecular units called nucleotides, said senior author Bino John, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of Computational Biology, Pitt School of Medicine.

    “But until we did our experiments, we didn’t realize that RNAs as small as 15 nucleotides, which we thought were simply cell waste, are surprisingly stable, and are repeatedly, reproducibly, and accurately produced across different tissue types.” Dr. John said. “We have dubbed these as usRNAs, and we have identified thousands of them, present in a diversity that far exceeds all other longer RNAs found in our study.”

    Another prediction of Darwinism dashed to driftwood on the rocks of scientific progress. Put it on the pile with the eternal universe. Oh, but you might have to make room for it by moving the failed prediction of Junk DNA into a separate trash bin.

    Flashback: Science Daily reports on the biological functions of Junk DNA

    Here’s the Science Daily article. (H/T Evolution News)

    Excerpt:

    …during early development, the proteins required for cell division come from the mother. The researchers speculate that the heterochromatin of the male D. melanogaster’s X chromosome has rapidly evolved, such that after mating, the machinery involved in DNA packaging from a D. simulans mother no longer recognizes the D. melanogaster father’s “junk” DNA, Ferree said.

    Casey Luskin writes:

    Basically, so-called “junk”-DNA is involved in helping to package chromosomes in the cell. If two species have different “junk” DNA, then this prevents the proteins in the egg from properly packaging the chromosomes donated by the sperm. The organism does not develop properly.

    Darwinism fails again.

    Polemics

    An experimental particle physicist answers speculations about creation and fine-tuning

    6 Comments

    I was corresponding with Dr. Michael G. Strauss recently regarding some comments that my previous articles on the kalam, fine-tuning and habitability arguments had drawn. Dr. Strauss is a tenured professor but he also does research on particle physics.

    I wanted to draw your attention to a lecture given by Dr. Strauss to the students at Stanford University. In the lecture, he gives 3 arguments from the progress of science that support the conclusion that the universe was created and designed by an intelligent agent of immense power.

    I highly recommend this lecture, entitled “Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God”.

    Dr. Strauss is not a Christian philosopher or debater – he is a practicing physicist with a stack of publications, who is excited by scientific discoveries that confirm the existence of God.

    Here is an outline of the lecture:

    What does science tell us about God?
    – the discoveries of Copernicus made humans less significant in the universe
    – the discoveries of Darwin should that humans are an accident
    – but this all pre-modern science
    – what do the latest findings of science say about God?

    Evidence #1: the origin of the universe
    – the steady state model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
    – the oscillating model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
    – the big bang model supports theism, and it is supported by multiple recent discoveries
    – the quantum gravity model supports atheism, but it pure theory and has never been tested or confirmed by experiment and observation

    Evidence #2: the fine-tuning of physical constants for life
    – there are over 100 examples of constants that must be selected within a narrow range in order for the universe to support the minimal requirements for life
    – example: mass density
    – example: strong nuclear force (what he studies)
    – example: carbon formation

    Evidence #3: the fine-tuning of our planet for habitability
    – the type of galaxy and our location in it
    – our solar system and our star
    – our planet
    – our moon

    What Dr. Strauss thinks about science

    As you listen to the lecture, pay close attention to the fact that it is the progress of science that has disproved atheism and given support to theism. Atheism is based on old science. And people who continue to cling to atheism against the new evidence must resort to speculations that are either not testable at all, or not confirmed by experimental testing.

    Let’s take a look at two of the speculations that sound scientific, but aren’t confirmed by any research. The first is quantum mechanics (i.e. – vacuum fluctuation model). It argues that the universe is an event without a cause, because there is an unobservable hyper-universe that spawned our universe. The second is a response to the fine-tuning. It argues that there are an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, and we just happen to be in the fine-tuned one.

    Notice that both responses are theoretical speculations that take refuge in unobservable entities in order to escape the good experimental science that proves that there is a Creator and Designer. It’s atheism-of-the-gaps!

    Vacuum fluctuation:
    – offered as a response to the big bang
    – what can QM do: explain how particles appear in a vacuum when the vacuum is sparked
    – speculation is that this same process may explain the origin of the universe
    – in order to test it, our universe would have to be contained within a larger universe, with similar laws of physics
    – but there is no evidence that this unobservable hyper-universe exists

    Chaotic inflationary model:
    – offered as a response to the fine-tuning
    – speculates that inflation may cause other universes to come into being, with different constants
    – no experimental verification has been offered
    – no evidence of any of these other universes

    So, what we have here is a clear cut case of logical arguments and evidence for theism, vs atheist faith and wish-fulfillment. All the data we have today is for theism, but all the untestable speculating is on the part of the atheists, who have faith and hope that the progress of science will overturn what we know and replace it with the what atheists hope for. (And I haven’t even talked about the origin of life and molecular machines, etc.!)

    In fact I e-mailed Dr. Strauss about these two speculations, and this was his response:

    Wintery Knight,

    Quantum mechanics works within the laws of physics. So if you postulate that this universe was created from QM then you must also postulate that a previous universe with similar laws existed previously.

    There are a number of theories that would allow multiple universes, though none have any experimental verification. Have you read Jeff’s “Who’s Afraid of a Multiverse?” It is very good.

    -Mike

    I think that we need to be careful when we explore these issues of faith and science. This is not a game. We need make decisions about what is true today, not hold out hope that some discovery will be made later that validates what we want to believe.

    Further study

    Dr. Strauss gave a similar lecture more recently at the University of California (Santa Cruz) and in the Q&A, he actually faced questions regarding quantum mechanics and the chaotic inflationary model. You can hear him express his mistrust of theories that haven’t been proven as he urges the audience to go with the evidence, not with the self-serving speculations. Dr. Strauss takes part in a panel discussion on science and religion here.

    Also on this topic is the debate between William Lane Craig and atheist physicist Victor Stenger, (audio here). Also, a lecture titled “Beyond the Big Bang”, was delivered at the University of Colorado at Boulder, in front of Victor Stenger and other physicists (audio here). There is a period of Q&A in which Bill must face challengers. These are both available on DVD. More Bill Craig debates are here.

    In this published research paper from the journal Astrophysics and Space Science, William Lane Craig responds to the several naturalistic attempts to evade the implications of the kalam argument. Vacuum fluctuation, chatoric inflationary, steady state and quantum gravity models are all addressed.