Sep 09,2009, 2:49PM
When is a miracle a miracle?
Here's how things went down. I said to my buddy beetle496: "are you saying there is an account of how non-directed processes produced the vast store of biological information in the DNA molecule? If so, can you provide a reference in the literature for that account?:
beetle496 directed me to this website which was admirably brief: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
The only problem is that I didn't find an answer to my question. This brief article notes how genetic information and complexity can increase through random mutations. But I was asking for evidence that DNA and RNA were originally assembled through wholly undirected processes. I didn't find even a pretense to providing that account in the citation provided.
Recently Steve Myer published a six hundred page tome titled Signature in the Cell arguing that the digital code in DNA is best explained by a designing intelligence. I haven't read the book yet, though I would be interested in critiques from those who have.
Anyway, this leaves me uncertain about which conclusion to draw. So while I'm waiting for an account for the origin of DNA that is undirected, I'll take the time to argue against any such account in principle in a way that is sure to elicit frustrated eye rolls from my atheist, skeptical, agnostic, humanistic readers (but which I think is none the worse for that fact).
Here's the argument. Fastforward twenty years. Meteorology has made extraordinary advances in understanding the natural world. So much so that the meteorologist can make accurate weather forecasts a day in advance, so accurate in fact, that the forecast can predict the exact place that every rain drop, snowflake, or hail pellet will hit the ground. Extraordinary!
Now the forecast for tomorrow comes in and alas, cumulus thunderheads are on their way promising a violent thunderstorm. With the forecast comes a complete description of staggering complexity for the position that each golf ball sized hail pellet over the forecast area will hit the earth.
Since beetle496's birthday is tomorrow he is taking close note of the forecast over his house. He is especially concerned to make sure that none of the golf ball sized hail pellets hit the big tent on the lawn where the party will be held.
So he goes to weather.com and types in the coordinates for his house to receive an accurate forecast. With relief he sees that no hail pellets will hit his tent. But then with amazement he sees that a couple dozen pellets will hit his lawn ... and when they do they will spell out "Happy Birthday beetle496!"
This information comes as the result of a forecast based upon a nearly perfect knowledge of the operative scientific laws in weather systems. And as predicted, the hail falls the next day and spells out "Happy Birthday beetle496!"
Ought beetle496 conclude that this event, which from one perspective is wholly explicable and predicted by the best science of the day, is purely a natural event? Or ought he to conclude that somehow, an intelligence is wishing him a happy birthday through the supple operation of the laws of nature?
When is a miracle a miracle?
Here's how things went down. I said to my buddy beetle496: "are you saying there is an account of how non-directed processes produced the vast store of biological information in the DNA molecule? If so, can you provide a reference in the literature for that account?:
Facebook
Yahoo Buz
My space
Digg
LIKEDIN
MIXX
Stumble It!
Del.icio.us
NewsVine
Email
Print
ShareMost recent comments
1.September 17,2009, 8:49AM
@gaga, Thanks for all the heavy lifting!
@RD
> What good is contempt except in moral matters?
Okay, contempt may have been too strong a word. I was explaining my head-banging-on-desk frustration that compelled me to cite “goddidit”. But really, I do not see how your arguement is much more nuanced than that!
Even a piece of work like Francais Collins doesn’t pretend to see design in DNA!
> Again, I repeat my simple request. Make a direct assertion like: "design inferences are a priori excluded because ..."
Again, I repeat myself: It is not that a design inference is excluded, it is just that such an inference is wholly unnecessary and does not contribute to scientific understanding.
It is Occam’s razor again: Do not add something to the explaination, like design, unless there is evidence for it. As gaga has pointed out repeatedly, you have provided no rational for *adding* design as an element to DNA.
@RD
> What good is contempt except in moral matters?
Okay, contempt may have been too strong a word. I was explaining my head-banging-on-desk frustration that compelled me to cite “goddidit”. But really, I do not see how your arguement is much more nuanced than that!
Even a piece of work like Francais Collins doesn’t pretend to see design in DNA!
> Again, I repeat my simple request. Make a direct assertion like: "design inferences are a priori excluded because ..."
Again, I repeat myself: It is not that a design inference is excluded, it is just that such an inference is wholly unnecessary and does not contribute to scientific understanding.
It is Occam’s razor again: Do not add something to the explaination, like design, unless there is evidence for it. As gaga has pointed out repeatedly, you have provided no rational for *adding* design as an element to DNA.
--beetle496
2.September 16,2009, 8:08PM
> We're both making positive claims.<
I. haven't. made. any. claim.
But it seems that you can only function under this assumption, so I suppose that saying it again is a lost cause, isn't it?
> I've offered an argument for my claim which consists of the application of Charles Lyell's faithful principle. I await your argument either against the principle itself or its application in the present case and in favor of a contrary claim.<
All you have offered so far can be translated into: "I don't know of any natural process that could lead to this therefore goddidit" Pick your fallacy: argument from ignorance, false dychotomy, you name it. It doesn't fly.
> Concerning the evolution of life from bacteria to Bach you aver that this bespeaks no sign of purpose. Why? This strikes me as ineluctably a teleological process <
your opinion is utterly irrelevant, only facts count. You keep working under the assumption that all your opinions somehow should be true unless proven otherwise. It doesn't work that way.
But I can expand that further, if you wish.
There is no scala naturae, the processes that govern evolution are well understood and are mechanistic.
On one hand we have random mutations + natural selection + a bunch of other accidents like genes transfer, all of which show no signs of direction. On the other hand we have your opinion. Guess where I'm putting my bet.
> rather you take it as a first article of faith that the entire process is unguided <
Again, I'm not aware of any evidence for a purpose or guidance in the whole process. If you have them, I'm still all ears.
I. haven't. made. any. claim.
But it seems that you can only function under this assumption, so I suppose that saying it again is a lost cause, isn't it?
> I've offered an argument for my claim which consists of the application of Charles Lyell's faithful principle. I await your argument either against the principle itself or its application in the present case and in favor of a contrary claim.<
All you have offered so far can be translated into: "I don't know of any natural process that could lead to this therefore goddidit" Pick your fallacy: argument from ignorance, false dychotomy, you name it. It doesn't fly.
> Concerning the evolution of life from bacteria to Bach you aver that this bespeaks no sign of purpose. Why? This strikes me as ineluctably a teleological process <
your opinion is utterly irrelevant, only facts count. You keep working under the assumption that all your opinions somehow should be true unless proven otherwise. It doesn't work that way.
But I can expand that further, if you wish.
There is no scala naturae, the processes that govern evolution are well understood and are mechanistic.
On one hand we have random mutations + natural selection + a bunch of other accidents like genes transfer, all of which show no signs of direction. On the other hand we have your opinion. Guess where I'm putting my bet.
> rather you take it as a first article of faith that the entire process is unguided <
Again, I'm not aware of any evidence for a purpose or guidance in the whole process. If you have them, I'm still all ears.
--gaga
3.September 16,2009, 7:21PM
gaga,
We're both making positive claims. I've offered an argument for my claim which consists of the application of Charles Lyell's faithful principle. I await your argument either against the principle itself or its application in the present case and in favor of a contrary claim.
Concerning the evolution of life from bacteria to Bach you aver that this bespeaks no sign of purpose. Why? This strikes me as ineluctably a teleological process unless I have a powerful defeater to think otherwise. Thus far you have offered no defeater; rather you take it as a first article of faith that the entire process is unguided.
We're both making positive claims. I've offered an argument for my claim which consists of the application of Charles Lyell's faithful principle. I await your argument either against the principle itself or its application in the present case and in favor of a contrary claim.
Concerning the evolution of life from bacteria to Bach you aver that this bespeaks no sign of purpose. Why? This strikes me as ineluctably a teleological process unless I have a powerful defeater to think otherwise. Thus far you have offered no defeater; rather you take it as a first article of faith that the entire process is unguided.
--RD Rauser
4.September 16,2009, 6:07PM
> I fear that it is you who does not understand what burden of proof means. Chance and necessity does not automatically win the Palme d'Or simply because you have decided that this is the only explanation allowed in the competition. <
*eyeroll* here we go again.
I haven't.
With the possible exception of the last comment, in my conversation with you I haven't even ever *hinted* at possible arguments for the natural origin of DNA.
You are making a positive claim: DNA is designed.
You have to back up that claim. (hint: you haven't)
What I think is the best explanation is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how good *your* explanation is. (so far, not so good)
Any simpler than that and I'll need big coloured shapes and crayons.
> (I'll note that you sidestepped my enquiry about present acting causes.) <
because it's irrelevant (see above)
> DNA parallels digital code though with four letters in its alphabet. <
Oh, ok, sorry, fair enough. I thought you were going after some other lame analogy, like, say, computer programming code.
> But what justifies moving from "arising from simple beginnings through natural processes" to "arising ONLY through natural [i.e. undirected] processes"? <
No evidence of supernatural interferences so far. If you have some, I'm all ears.
Plus, lot of evidence of lack of direction in the evolutionary history of life on this planet.
Of course, the fact that evolution is a cruel and bloody arms race, that 99,9% of the species that ever lived are now extinct and that there's a lot of crappy 'design' might also mean that there are indeed a direction and a purpose but whoever set the course is a huge prick...
> DNA may have some through a series of successive evolutionary steps but if it did that is an extraordinary case of teleological evolution. <
WTF? this has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.
There's no sign of purpose, therefore there's purpose.
Or maybe you don't know what it means to go through evolutionary steps.
In which case it isn't dumb, just ill-informed...
*eyeroll* here we go again.
I haven't.
With the possible exception of the last comment, in my conversation with you I haven't even ever *hinted* at possible arguments for the natural origin of DNA.
You are making a positive claim: DNA is designed.
You have to back up that claim. (hint: you haven't)
What I think is the best explanation is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how good *your* explanation is. (so far, not so good)
Any simpler than that and I'll need big coloured shapes and crayons.
> (I'll note that you sidestepped my enquiry about present acting causes.) <
because it's irrelevant (see above)
> DNA parallels digital code though with four letters in its alphabet. <
Oh, ok, sorry, fair enough. I thought you were going after some other lame analogy, like, say, computer programming code.
> But what justifies moving from "arising from simple beginnings through natural processes" to "arising ONLY through natural [i.e. undirected] processes"? <
No evidence of supernatural interferences so far. If you have some, I'm all ears.
Plus, lot of evidence of lack of direction in the evolutionary history of life on this planet.
Of course, the fact that evolution is a cruel and bloody arms race, that 99,9% of the species that ever lived are now extinct and that there's a lot of crappy 'design' might also mean that there are indeed a direction and a purpose but whoever set the course is a huge prick...
> DNA may have some through a series of successive evolutionary steps but if it did that is an extraordinary case of teleological evolution. <
WTF? this has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.
There's no sign of purpose, therefore there's purpose.
Or maybe you don't know what it means to go through evolutionary steps.
In which case it isn't dumb, just ill-informed...
--gaga
5.September 16,2009, 5:35PM
gaga,
I fear that it is you who does not understand what burden of proof means. Chance and necessity does not automatically win the Palme d'Or simply because you have decided that this is the only explanation allowed in the competition. (I'll note that you sidestepped my enquiry about present acting causes.)
DNA parallels digital code though with four letters in its alphabet.
"the entire record of evolution on this planet is a staggering example of complexity arising from simple beginnings through natural processes."
But what justifies moving from "arising from simple beginnings through natural processes" to "arising ONLY through natural [i.e. undirected] processes"? DNA may have some through a series of successive evolutionary steps but if it did that is an extraordinary case of teleological evolution. What gives you the confidence that it is not?
I fear that it is you who does not understand what burden of proof means. Chance and necessity does not automatically win the Palme d'Or simply because you have decided that this is the only explanation allowed in the competition. (I'll note that you sidestepped my enquiry about present acting causes.)
DNA parallels digital code though with four letters in its alphabet.
"the entire record of evolution on this planet is a staggering example of complexity arising from simple beginnings through natural processes."
But what justifies moving from "arising from simple beginnings through natural processes" to "arising ONLY through natural [i.e. undirected] processes"? DNA may have some through a series of successive evolutionary steps but if it did that is an extraordinary case of teleological evolution. What gives you the confidence that it is not?
--RD Rauser
6.September 16,2009, 10:18AM
> If not, then what present acting causes apart from intelligence are you aware of that produce highly complex digital code? That's your burden of proof. <
Again (god knows how I'm getting tired of this), not knowing what the possible alternatives are is not evidence for any particular position. That's the whole frigging point about the burden of proof. Either you really don't get it or you are playing dumb. I don't know which is the least disturbing option.
That aside, the entire record of evolution on this planet is a staggering example of complexity arising from simple beginnings through natural processes. There's no reason to think that DNA should be a special case. That is, unless you can somehow make an argument different from:"gee, that's reeeally complex".
BTW, why do you keep calling it digital code? It's not binary and it really doesn't work as a computer code.
Again (god knows how I'm getting tired of this), not knowing what the possible alternatives are is not evidence for any particular position. That's the whole frigging point about the burden of proof. Either you really don't get it or you are playing dumb. I don't know which is the least disturbing option.
That aside, the entire record of evolution on this planet is a staggering example of complexity arising from simple beginnings through natural processes. There's no reason to think that DNA should be a special case. That is, unless you can somehow make an argument different from:"gee, that's reeeally complex".
BTW, why do you keep calling it digital code? It's not binary and it really doesn't work as a computer code.
--gaga
7.September 16,2009, 9:55AM
gaga,
According to Charles Lyell you ought to seek to explain the origin of structures and processes in the past through presently known acting causes (i.e. the present is the key to the past). Do you disagree with Lyell's foundational principle, the same principle which was accepted by Darwin? If not, then what present acting causes apart from intelligence are you aware of that produce highly complex digital code? That's your burden of proof.
According to Charles Lyell you ought to seek to explain the origin of structures and processes in the past through presently known acting causes (i.e. the present is the key to the past). Do you disagree with Lyell's foundational principle, the same principle which was accepted by Darwin? If not, then what present acting causes apart from intelligence are you aware of that produce highly complex digital code? That's your burden of proof.
--RD Rauser
8.September 16,2009, 3:17AM
>Only one type of cause is currently known to produce extraordinarily complex information like the digital code in DNA and that is design.<
Randal, you keep repeating that. Repetita might iuvant but do not make any assertion truer.
You are a philosopher, aren't you? You should know what a 'false dichotomy' is, you should know what 'burden of proof' means, you should, above all, know that you cannot use an analogy in lieu of an argument.
>Again, I repeat my simple request. If you (or gaga, or anybody else) cares to argue to the contrary,<
Oh, sorry, you don't in fact know what the heck the burden of proof is. Try google.
Randal, you keep repeating that. Repetita might iuvant but do not make any assertion truer.
You are a philosopher, aren't you? You should know what a 'false dichotomy' is, you should know what 'burden of proof' means, you should, above all, know that you cannot use an analogy in lieu of an argument.
>Again, I repeat my simple request. If you (or gaga, or anybody else) cares to argue to the contrary,<
Oh, sorry, you don't in fact know what the heck the burden of proof is. Try google.
--gaga
9.September 15,2009, 3:36PM
beetle496: "Sorry, but the assumption that in absence of evidence that the default explanation is design is worthy of contempt."
Well I didn't argue that, but even if I had, what good is contempt except in moral matters? If I argued something wrong I could see you providing a thorough refutation but save the contempt for the holocaust deniers.
I argue that as a general rule we ought to seek to explain structures and processes that emerged at some point in the past through the types of causes that are currently known to provide those types of structures and processes. Only one type of cause is currently known to produce extraordinarily complex information like the digital code in DNA and that is design.
Again, I repeat my simple request. If you (or gaga, or anybody else) cares to argue to the contrary, make a direct assertion like: "design inferences are a priori excluded because ..." That way we can consider whether the assertion that categorically dismisses design inferences is defensible.
Well I didn't argue that, but even if I had, what good is contempt except in moral matters? If I argued something wrong I could see you providing a thorough refutation but save the contempt for the holocaust deniers.
I argue that as a general rule we ought to seek to explain structures and processes that emerged at some point in the past through the types of causes that are currently known to provide those types of structures and processes. Only one type of cause is currently known to produce extraordinarily complex information like the digital code in DNA and that is design.
Again, I repeat my simple request. If you (or gaga, or anybody else) cares to argue to the contrary, make a direct assertion like: "design inferences are a priori excluded because ..." That way we can consider whether the assertion that categorically dismisses design inferences is defensible.
--RD Rauser
10.September 15,2009, 7:44AM
Coleoptera are a tough lot, apparently :D
Well, I understand him.
So far, perfectly in line with the IDC camp modus operandi, we've had a 200 years old (and widely refuted) analogy, a poorly worded assertion, an irrelevant thought experiment and a whine.
I'm sure there's an argument somewhere, waiting in the wings... you guys give me a call if you hear something, mmkay? :p
Well, I understand him.
So far, perfectly in line with the IDC camp modus operandi, we've had a 200 years old (and widely refuted) analogy, a poorly worded assertion, an irrelevant thought experiment and a whine.
I'm sure there's an argument somewhere, waiting in the wings... you guys give me a call if you hear something, mmkay? :p
--gaga
11.September 15,2009, 7:26AM
> I'm heartened to see that you concede science has no idea how to explain the origin of the digital code in DNA.
Why so much hyperbole with you paraphrase of my position? Indeed science offers several ideas (hypothesis), it is just that none have risen to the level of theory.
> Oh I know, mockery... Sadly, your comment is on the same level.
Sorry, but the assumption that in absence of evidence that the default
explanation is design is worthy of contempt.
> The argument was appealing to intelligence as the best explanation of the given phenomenon given what we know about the origin of highly specified information in other contexts.
This is a intellectually bankrupt position which is indistinguishable from wishful thinking. You have provided no other contexts of highly specified information that are remotely comparable.
> Say something like: "design inferences are a priori excluded because ..."
It is not that a design inference is excluded, it is just that such an inference is wholly unnecessary and does not contribute to scientific understanding.
Why so much hyperbole with you paraphrase of my position? Indeed science offers several ideas (hypothesis), it is just that none have risen to the level of theory.
> Oh I know, mockery... Sadly, your comment is on the same level.
Sorry, but the assumption that in absence of evidence that the default
explanation is design is worthy of contempt.
> The argument was appealing to intelligence as the best explanation of the given phenomenon given what we know about the origin of highly specified information in other contexts.
This is a intellectually bankrupt position which is indistinguishable from wishful thinking. You have provided no other contexts of highly specified information that are remotely comparable.
> Say something like: "design inferences are a priori excluded because ..."
It is not that a design inference is excluded, it is just that such an inference is wholly unnecessary and does not contribute to scientific understanding.
--beetle496
12.September 12,2009, 6:26AM
Randal, my first point was a response to this:
>If you disagree with the argument that design could be a rational (even the most rational) explanation of a given phenomenon even when a scientiic explanation is in place, then explain where the argument goes wrong<
because, again, you have made no argument, so far.
>On your 2) point, you aver (as I read you) that you would find no compunction to infer design if "Happy Birthday beetle496!" was written out in hail on B's birthday. <
Oh no, don't get me wrong. If something like that indeed happened, I'd be right beside beetle in the pew. That kind of thing is precisely the kind of evidence one would need to look seriously into the god hypothesis.
In the same vein, if, during a fund raising by Craig Venter, the sky opened up and a voice had boomed saying:"I did the bloody thing, now stop jerking around with it" being heard by a lot of people and caught on recorder, I'd have been equally compelled to look seriously into the matter.
The thing is, when you move from your analogy to the natural world, you realize that nothing like that actually happened.
It's a nice thought experiment, but it still makes no sense.
>If you disagree with the argument that design could be a rational (even the most rational) explanation of a given phenomenon even when a scientiic explanation is in place, then explain where the argument goes wrong<
because, again, you have made no argument, so far.
>On your 2) point, you aver (as I read you) that you would find no compunction to infer design if "Happy Birthday beetle496!" was written out in hail on B's birthday. <
Oh no, don't get me wrong. If something like that indeed happened, I'd be right beside beetle in the pew. That kind of thing is precisely the kind of evidence one would need to look seriously into the god hypothesis.
In the same vein, if, during a fund raising by Craig Venter, the sky opened up and a voice had boomed saying:"I did the bloody thing, now stop jerking around with it" being heard by a lot of people and caught on recorder, I'd have been equally compelled to look seriously into the matter.
The thing is, when you move from your analogy to the natural world, you realize that nothing like that actually happened.
It's a nice thought experiment, but it still makes no sense.
--gaga
13.September 12,2009, 3:27AM
RD: "But in your blog it sounds like you don't really believe that religious belief is not really properly basic. Rather you believe that it is akin to "nonsense"."
Well, I only alluded to thinking specifically this statement: "Zeus is the perfect creator of the universe because the light turns green when you pray to Zeus" as being nonsense as a foil to motivate you into distinguishing your justification from Bob's justification.
"Dude, when I read that it brought tears to my eyes! How could my good buddy, who had been granting all the while that belief in God, like memory beliefs, beliefs in the external world, other minds, sense perception, and rational intution,is properly basic, actually does not believe it is? Et tu Brute?"
I guess I should have held off on agreeing until I read your full explication of properly basic beliefs... mayhap I was using an operationally different definition. I'll comment on the next entry for those concerns.
Well, I only alluded to thinking specifically this statement: "Zeus is the perfect creator of the universe because the light turns green when you pray to Zeus" as being nonsense as a foil to motivate you into distinguishing your justification from Bob's justification.
"Dude, when I read that it brought tears to my eyes! How could my good buddy, who had been granting all the while that belief in God, like memory beliefs, beliefs in the external world, other minds, sense perception, and rational intution,is properly basic, actually does not believe it is? Et tu Brute?"
I guess I should have held off on agreeing until I read your full explication of properly basic beliefs... mayhap I was using an operationally different definition. I'll comment on the next entry for those concerns.
--ConverseAtheist
14.September 11,2009, 6:43PM
Now for my Conversational Atheist friend.
"Is a puddle of water -- whose shape is just like the pothole it sits -- assembled through a wholly undirected process?"
Well it certainly isn't a design process since it utterly lacks specification. How about a comment that actually follows the argument?
"Is a puddle of water -- whose shape is just like the pothole it sits -- assembled through a wholly undirected process?"
Well it certainly isn't a design process since it utterly lacks specification. How about a comment that actually follows the argument?
--RD Rauser
15.September 11,2009, 6:41PM
beetle496,
"I concur that the origin of life is an interesting question. I must reluctantly admit that science has not yet converged on a satisfactory answer. It would, however, be premature to conclude that gOd diddit."
I'm heartened to see that you concede science has no idea how to explain the origin of the digital code in DNA.
Why do you write "gOd diddit"? Oh I know, mockery. I remember Del Tackett from Focus on the Family's "The Truth Project" describing the evolutionary view of the human person as "imago Goo". Sadly, your comment is on the same level.
The argument was appealing to intelligence as the best explanation of the given phenomenon given what we know about the origin of highly specified information in other contexts. Based on what do you exclude that as an explanation? Please don't let your eyes glaze over and make mocking reference to "gOd diddit" again. Just answer the question. Say something like: "design inferences are a priori excluded because ..."
"I concur that the origin of life is an interesting question. I must reluctantly admit that science has not yet converged on a satisfactory answer. It would, however, be premature to conclude that gOd diddit."
I'm heartened to see that you concede science has no idea how to explain the origin of the digital code in DNA.
Why do you write "gOd diddit"? Oh I know, mockery. I remember Del Tackett from Focus on the Family's "The Truth Project" describing the evolutionary view of the human person as "imago Goo". Sadly, your comment is on the same level.
The argument was appealing to intelligence as the best explanation of the given phenomenon given what we know about the origin of highly specified information in other contexts. Based on what do you exclude that as an explanation? Please don't let your eyes glaze over and make mocking reference to "gOd diddit" again. Just answer the question. Say something like: "design inferences are a priori excluded because ..."
--RD Rauser
16.September 11,2009, 6:36PM
gaga,
Your 1) point is not relevant to what I wrote.
On your 2) point, you aver (as I read you) that you would find no compunction to infer design if "Happy Birthday beetle496!" was written out in hail on B's birthday.
But I wonder if you would draw that same conclusion if the hail spelled out "Happy Birthday gaga" on your birthday.
Seriously, I find your reluctance to be strange. What makes you think that a natural explanation is the only salient one? Why wouldn't the inference of design upon the spelling out of the hail pellets on your birthday be legitimate?
To be frank, you're starting to sound like a cross-eyed fundamentalist rather than the "free thinker" I once took you for.
Your 1) point is not relevant to what I wrote.
On your 2) point, you aver (as I read you) that you would find no compunction to infer design if "Happy Birthday beetle496!" was written out in hail on B's birthday.
But I wonder if you would draw that same conclusion if the hail spelled out "Happy Birthday gaga" on your birthday.
Seriously, I find your reluctance to be strange. What makes you think that a natural explanation is the only salient one? Why wouldn't the inference of design upon the spelling out of the hail pellets on your birthday be legitimate?
To be frank, you're starting to sound like a cross-eyed fundamentalist rather than the "free thinker" I once took you for.
--RD Rauser
17.September 11,2009, 9:12AM
ConverseAtheist,
Read your summary at CONVERSATIONAL ATHEIST (good to have that one cleared up, I thought you had a thing for Converse shoes). With the time and effort you're putting into this I hope there's a big payoff for you at the end.
Here's a quick response: you have repeatedly conceded that religious belief is properly basic absent defeaters. Here's an example from the "nuts" post: "RD, I totally agree with you: your belief in Yahweh is properly basic; just like a person who believe that Zeus is the perfect creator of the universe because when he prays to Zeus for the streetlight to turn green, it DOES."
But in your blog it sounds like you don't really believe that religious belief is not really properly basic. Rather you believe that it is akin to "nonsense".
Dude, when I read that it brought tears to my eyes! How could my good buddy, who had been granting all the while that belief in God, like memory beliefs, beliefs in the external world, other minds, sense perception, and rational intution,is properly basic, actually does not believe it is? Et tu Brute?
To put it another way, it sounds like you are aiming for the Great Pumpkin reductio ad absurdum that Plantinga raised in "Reason and Belief in God" and which atheists like Michael Martin have since taken up.
Either way, my argument for the proper basicality of religious belief is actually critical for your argument. If I can show in the posts coming up that Christian belief can be justified as properly basic absent defeaters then it really doesn't matter whether another belief that you or I find absurd (e.g. belief in Zeus) could likewise be properly basic absent defeaters.
Read your summary at CONVERSATIONAL ATHEIST (good to have that one cleared up, I thought you had a thing for Converse shoes). With the time and effort you're putting into this I hope there's a big payoff for you at the end.
Here's a quick response: you have repeatedly conceded that religious belief is properly basic absent defeaters. Here's an example from the "nuts" post: "RD, I totally agree with you: your belief in Yahweh is properly basic; just like a person who believe that Zeus is the perfect creator of the universe because when he prays to Zeus for the streetlight to turn green, it DOES."
But in your blog it sounds like you don't really believe that religious belief is not really properly basic. Rather you believe that it is akin to "nonsense".
Dude, when I read that it brought tears to my eyes! How could my good buddy, who had been granting all the while that belief in God, like memory beliefs, beliefs in the external world, other minds, sense perception, and rational intution,is properly basic, actually does not believe it is? Et tu Brute?
To put it another way, it sounds like you are aiming for the Great Pumpkin reductio ad absurdum that Plantinga raised in "Reason and Belief in God" and which atheists like Michael Martin have since taken up.
Either way, my argument for the proper basicality of religious belief is actually critical for your argument. If I can show in the posts coming up that Christian belief can be justified as properly basic absent defeaters then it really doesn't matter whether another belief that you or I find absurd (e.g. belief in Zeus) could likewise be properly basic absent defeaters.
--RD Rauser
18.September 11,2009, 8:15AM
> Sorry you misunderstood the question.
I think I would have needed to be a mind reader to anticipate this context for your question. If you read just your post, my comments, your replies to my comments, and my replies back — then this particular post is a non sequitur. But you were carrying on a conversation with two other people besides me, and this is an interesting topic, so certainly that is understandable.
> How did the code get written to begin with?
It is not the writing of the code so much as the start of the code which we are talking about, correct? I am glad you agree that non-directed processes produced the vast store of biological information in the DNA molecule. We are instead discussing the mysterious origin of DNS when it was no doubt fair to characterize the stored information as something less than “vast”. (Significant? Yes. Vast like we see today? No.)
> And with what confidence do you conclude that design is not a plausible (indeed, given the current state of our knowledge, THE most plausible) explanation?
Purely natural undirected processes are sufficient going back three billion years or so. Yes, the *current* state of our knowledge is incomplete, but why would we stop trying to learn more and just assume goddidit?
> by conceding that there is design in this case
“This case” refers to the message in the hailstones, yes?
> you accept that even if we have a full natural account of the origin of a given phenomenon, we could still infer design in the origin of that phenomenon.
Yes, there are plenty of venues for science to provide evidence for intelligent design in nature. That has not been the case yet.
> So to DNA: even if you could produce a "natural" account for the origin of the digital code in DNA, that would not mean it too did not warrant a design inference.
The design inference would have to add something to the accounting to be worth the bother.
> Of course there are two differences ... One is that the latter is person-specific to you... If the stones had spelled out complex instructions for the assembly of a school bus you ought just as readily to infer design, even with a full natural account.
Agreed. And what is the second difference?
I think I would have needed to be a mind reader to anticipate this context for your question. If you read just your post, my comments, your replies to my comments, and my replies back — then this particular post is a non sequitur. But you were carrying on a conversation with two other people besides me, and this is an interesting topic, so certainly that is understandable.
> How did the code get written to begin with?
It is not the writing of the code so much as the start of the code which we are talking about, correct? I am glad you agree that non-directed processes produced the vast store of biological information in the DNA molecule. We are instead discussing the mysterious origin of DNS when it was no doubt fair to characterize the stored information as something less than “vast”. (Significant? Yes. Vast like we see today? No.)
> And with what confidence do you conclude that design is not a plausible (indeed, given the current state of our knowledge, THE most plausible) explanation?
Purely natural undirected processes are sufficient going back three billion years or so. Yes, the *current* state of our knowledge is incomplete, but why would we stop trying to learn more and just assume goddidit?
> by conceding that there is design in this case
“This case” refers to the message in the hailstones, yes?
> you accept that even if we have a full natural account of the origin of a given phenomenon, we could still infer design in the origin of that phenomenon.
Yes, there are plenty of venues for science to provide evidence for intelligent design in nature. That has not been the case yet.
> So to DNA: even if you could produce a "natural" account for the origin of the digital code in DNA, that would not mean it too did not warrant a design inference.
The design inference would have to add something to the accounting to be worth the bother.
> Of course there are two differences ... One is that the latter is person-specific to you... If the stones had spelled out complex instructions for the assembly of a school bus you ought just as readily to infer design, even with a full natural account.
Agreed. And what is the second difference?
--beetle496
19.September 11,2009, 3:35AM
I wrote a rather long entry for you RD:
http://conversationalatheist.com/2009/09/the-atheist-vs-the-christian-theologian/
http://conversationalatheist.com/2009/09/the-atheist-vs-the-christian-theologian/
--ConverseAtheist
20.September 10,2009, 10:50PM
RD: "But I was asking for evidence that DNA and RNA were originally assembled through wholly undirected processes."
Is a puddle of water -- whose shape is just like the pothole it sits -- assembled through a wholly undirected process?
Not quite -- but to call 'gravity' a directed process seems a bit odd, doesn't it?
Is a puddle of water -- whose shape is just like the pothole it sits -- assembled through a wholly undirected process?
Not quite -- but to call 'gravity' a directed process seems a bit odd, doesn't it?
--ConverseAtheist
21.September 10,2009, 3:06PM
Methinks it's a beetle?
--gaga
22.September 10,2009, 2:56PM
RD said, "Of course there are two differences between DNA digital code and 'Happy Birthday beetle496!'"
There is another, more important difference between the scenario described above and DNA code. Beetle's Happy Birthday message is a one time event that happens more or less in one fell swoop, which is why it seems miraculous. However, one could imagine an individual gradually preserving the hail that approximates the targeted message and eliminating those that do not, over time, until the message is eventually spelled out. A "selection" process such as that would require no miracles or divine forces. (Of course it is still directed by an intelligent person, but the selection process would be more analogous to DNA code than the message appearing all at once).
There is another, more important difference between the scenario described above and DNA code. Beetle's Happy Birthday message is a one time event that happens more or less in one fell swoop, which is why it seems miraculous. However, one could imagine an individual gradually preserving the hail that approximates the targeted message and eliminating those that do not, over time, until the message is eventually spelled out. A "selection" process such as that would require no miracles or divine forces. (Of course it is still directed by an intelligent person, but the selection process would be more analogous to DNA code than the message appearing all at once).
--AnAtheist.Net
23.September 10,2009, 2:32PM
Randal
which argument?
1) for the nth time, if you think that the design inference is a good explanation, please bring forth the evidence or make at least a cogent argument. Burden of proof, meet Randal, Randal this is Burden of proof. You two should get acquainted.
There's a reason why we proceed this way: given that there's in principle an infinite number of assertions that one can make and given that, obviously, most of them are going to be wrong, it's insane to think that we should go about trying to disprove every possible notion one might hold, no matter how loony. The guy who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. In the case of the goddiddna proposition, that means *you*.
2) I wasn't trying to obfuscate or make fun of you. I was trying (too subtly, apparently) to have you notice that your analogy and the conclusion you seem to be drawing from it make no sense.
I'll spell it more clearly: if you have a perfectly reasonable natural explanation for a phenomenon, there is no point in append a useless god to it, except for some warm fuzzy feeling. You are welcome to have them.
If, on the other hand, something happens for which there isn't a reasonable, readily available, natural explanation, it means that there's something we still don't know. If you are of a theistic persuasion and are conviced that there cannot be a natural explanation, this would be your chance to step forward and bring evidence that everyone can appreciate.
If you don't mind, considering that this course of action has had, throughout history, the batting average of a blind quadruplegic, I would be funding scientific research in the meantime. You know, just to cover all bases.
which argument?
1) for the nth time, if you think that the design inference is a good explanation, please bring forth the evidence or make at least a cogent argument. Burden of proof, meet Randal, Randal this is Burden of proof. You two should get acquainted.
There's a reason why we proceed this way: given that there's in principle an infinite number of assertions that one can make and given that, obviously, most of them are going to be wrong, it's insane to think that we should go about trying to disprove every possible notion one might hold, no matter how loony. The guy who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. In the case of the goddiddna proposition, that means *you*.
2) I wasn't trying to obfuscate or make fun of you. I was trying (too subtly, apparently) to have you notice that your analogy and the conclusion you seem to be drawing from it make no sense.
I'll spell it more clearly: if you have a perfectly reasonable natural explanation for a phenomenon, there is no point in append a useless god to it, except for some warm fuzzy feeling. You are welcome to have them.
If, on the other hand, something happens for which there isn't a reasonable, readily available, natural explanation, it means that there's something we still don't know. If you are of a theistic persuasion and are conviced that there cannot be a natural explanation, this would be your chance to step forward and bring evidence that everyone can appreciate.
If you don't mind, considering that this course of action has had, throughout history, the batting average of a blind quadruplegic, I would be funding scientific research in the meantime. You know, just to cover all bases.
--gaga
24.September 10,2009, 1:55PM
gaga,
Note how, rather than engage the argument, you made a vague comment that is not even tangentially relevant.
If you disagree with the argument that design could be a rational (even the most rational) explanation of a given phenomenon even when a scientiic explanation is in place, then explain where the argument goes wrong. Don't throw out irrelevant distractions, red herrings and rabbit trails.
Note how, rather than engage the argument, you made a vague comment that is not even tangentially relevant.
If you disagree with the argument that design could be a rational (even the most rational) explanation of a given phenomenon even when a scientiic explanation is in place, then explain where the argument goes wrong. Don't throw out irrelevant distractions, red herrings and rabbit trails.
--RD Rauser
25.September 10,2009, 1:03PM
>The real cause of my happiness is the second point: by conceding that there is design in this case you accept that even if we have a full natural account of the origin of a given phenomenon, we could still infer design in the origin of that phenomenon.<
Sure, you can also say that gravity does not exist and god personally intervenes every time you drop a pen*. It's an useless concept but if it makes you happy, please go right ahead. Don't mind the bemused audience.
*the original draft had a much more graphic and probably blasphemous object, but I'm feeling nice today :p
Sure, you can also say that gravity does not exist and god personally intervenes every time you drop a pen*. It's an useless concept but if it makes you happy, please go right ahead. Don't mind the bemused audience.
*the original draft had a much more graphic and probably blasphemous object, but I'm feeling nice today :p
--gaga
26.September 10,2009, 11:51AM
beetle496,
Sorry you misunderstood the question. I can appreciate how a computer program can produce novel information once it is in place. Natch for the digital code in DNA as well. The question is: how did the code get written to begin with? And with what confidence do you conclude that design is not a plausible (indeed, given the current state of our knowledge, THE most plausible) explanation?
I am familiar with the current chaotic understanding of weather systems. That is not germane to the thought experiment however.
For two reasons I am heartened by your concession: "I would call such a phenomenon a miracle and it would certainly make a believer out of me."
First, this establishes that the concept of miracle is not tied at all to the notion of a violation of a law of nature (the most popular definition among atheists).
But that is a side benefit. The real cause of my happiness is the second point: by conceding that there is design in this case you accept that even if we have a full natural account of the origin of a given phenomenon, we could still infer design in the origin of that phenomenon.
So to DNA: even if you could produce a "natural" account for the origin of the digital code in DNA, that would not mean it too did not warrant a design inference.
Of course there are two differences between DNA digital code and "Happy Birthday beetle496!" One is that the latter is person-specific to you. That would support a design inference more readily for the hail stones. But does that mean that non-person specific information which was vastly more complex (like DNA) would not warrant a design inference? Hardly. If the stones had spelled out complex instructions for the assembly of a school bus (and thus had nothing to do with your birthday) you ought just as readily to infer design, even with a full natural account.
Sorry you misunderstood the question. I can appreciate how a computer program can produce novel information once it is in place. Natch for the digital code in DNA as well. The question is: how did the code get written to begin with? And with what confidence do you conclude that design is not a plausible (indeed, given the current state of our knowledge, THE most plausible) explanation?
I am familiar with the current chaotic understanding of weather systems. That is not germane to the thought experiment however.
For two reasons I am heartened by your concession: "I would call such a phenomenon a miracle and it would certainly make a believer out of me."
First, this establishes that the concept of miracle is not tied at all to the notion of a violation of a law of nature (the most popular definition among atheists).
But that is a side benefit. The real cause of my happiness is the second point: by conceding that there is design in this case you accept that even if we have a full natural account of the origin of a given phenomenon, we could still infer design in the origin of that phenomenon.
So to DNA: even if you could produce a "natural" account for the origin of the digital code in DNA, that would not mean it too did not warrant a design inference.
Of course there are two differences between DNA digital code and "Happy Birthday beetle496!" One is that the latter is person-specific to you. That would support a design inference more readily for the hail stones. But does that mean that non-person specific information which was vastly more complex (like DNA) would not warrant a design inference? Hardly. If the stones had spelled out complex instructions for the assembly of a school bus (and thus had nothing to do with your birthday) you ought just as readily to infer design, even with a full natural account.
--RD Rauser
27.September 10,2009, 8:04AM
The main subject in that post (Design: The debate continues) was the *human* genome, not the origins of RNA/DNA. My citation was responsive.
For the purposes of this post you changed your question from:
> Are you saying there is an account of how non-directed processes produced the vast store of biological information in the [human] DNA molecule?
To:
> Are you saying there is an account of how non-directed processes produced the vast store of biological information in the [first] DNA molecule?
I concur that the origin of life is an interesting question. I must reluctantly admit that science has not yet converged on a satisfactory answer. It would, however, be premature to conclude that gOd diddit.
I don’t follow the connection to the hailstones, but I am happy to consider the scenario.
I concur that such a phenomenon does not violate the laws of physics, and seems to be easily within the power of your hypothetical deity. I would call such a phenomenon a miracle and it would certainly make a believer out of me. (It is not uncommon for atheists to be able to imagine evidence which would cause them to change their minds.)
The meteorological anticipation of this miracle seems less plausible to me than the miracle itself. Chaos theory already tells us that our ability to predict the weather is extremely constrained by mathematics, not the state of instruments nor our models.
For the purposes of this post you changed your question from:
> Are you saying there is an account of how non-directed processes produced the vast store of biological information in the [human] DNA molecule?
To:
> Are you saying there is an account of how non-directed processes produced the vast store of biological information in the [first] DNA molecule?
I concur that the origin of life is an interesting question. I must reluctantly admit that science has not yet converged on a satisfactory answer. It would, however, be premature to conclude that gOd diddit.
I don’t follow the connection to the hailstones, but I am happy to consider the scenario.
I concur that such a phenomenon does not violate the laws of physics, and seems to be easily within the power of your hypothetical deity. I would call such a phenomenon a miracle and it would certainly make a believer out of me. (It is not uncommon for atheists to be able to imagine evidence which would cause them to change their minds.)
The meteorological anticipation of this miracle seems less plausible to me than the miracle itself. Chaos theory already tells us that our ability to predict the weather is extremely constrained by mathematics, not the state of instruments nor our models.
--beetle496
28.September 10,2009, 3:58AM
Come on Randal, this isn't very nice. You leave aepling to do the dirty work of trying to make an argument for you while you slaughter some more innocent electrons posting this.
1) the link provided by beetle496 is germane to the issue you brought up.
We know that natural processes like gene duplications, mutations, etc. can (and do) dramatically increase the amount of information in a genome.
We could make the argument, extrapolating from there, that the starting genome was simple enough to be the result of a simple process. Obviously, I don't know if that was beetle496's intention, but you could have just asked, I suppose.
2) the rest of your post makes no sense. If we had a perfect knowledge of what produces a given phenomenon there would be no point in wondering at what happens. The fact that we do wonder, means that we do not have, in fact, a perfect knowledge. duh.
So what? What profound and staggering conclusion should I draw from this? 'cause I'm not getting it.
1) the link provided by beetle496 is germane to the issue you brought up.
We know that natural processes like gene duplications, mutations, etc. can (and do) dramatically increase the amount of information in a genome.
We could make the argument, extrapolating from there, that the starting genome was simple enough to be the result of a simple process. Obviously, I don't know if that was beetle496's intention, but you could have just asked, I suppose.
2) the rest of your post makes no sense. If we had a perfect knowledge of what produces a given phenomenon there would be no point in wondering at what happens. The fact that we do wonder, means that we do not have, in fact, a perfect knowledge. duh.
So what? What profound and staggering conclusion should I draw from this? 'cause I'm not getting it.
--gaga
29.September 09,2009, 6:53PM
PaulaJ,
If gifts miraculously appeared under Christmas trees every Christmas eve, Santa Claus might be a plausible hypothesis. As it stands there is presently no evidence for Santa and a number of defeaters against the existence of Santa.
Supplementary question: does this hypothetical Santa story have any bearing whatsoever on the argument that the inference to design is compatible with a complete, predictive scientific explanation? The answer: no.
If gifts miraculously appeared under Christmas trees every Christmas eve, Santa Claus might be a plausible hypothesis. As it stands there is presently no evidence for Santa and a number of defeaters against the existence of Santa.
Supplementary question: does this hypothetical Santa story have any bearing whatsoever on the argument that the inference to design is compatible with a complete, predictive scientific explanation? The answer: no.
--RD Rauser
30.September 09,2009, 6:33PM
Imagine that in the early hours of christmas morning, Randall Rauser is awoken by a strange noise in his chimney. He gets out of bed and peers through a crack between the door and the frame. He sees a fat man with a red cloak and a bushy white beard putting toys underneath his christmas tree and then disappearing back up the chimney. Ought Randall to conclude that Santa Claus exists? Yes.
Supplementary question: does this hypothetical story have any bearing whatsoever on whether Santa actually does exist in the real world? Well, it has as much as Randall's hail story has on whether Intelligent Design exists. So that's no.
Supplementary question: does this hypothetical story have any bearing whatsoever on whether Santa actually does exist in the real world? Well, it has as much as Randall's hail story has on whether Intelligent Design exists. So that's no.
--PaulaJ
31.September 09,2009, 6:21PM
Homoousia316,
What an empty comment! And I'll come back when you've read your Hegel and Malebranche, oh yeah and don't forget Nicholas of Cusa, Pierre Bayle and Henri Bergson.
What an empty comment! And I'll come back when you've read your Hegel and Malebranche, oh yeah and don't forget Nicholas of Cusa, Pierre Bayle and Henri Bergson.
--RD Rauser
32.September 09,2009, 6:01PM
I'll come back when you've read your Hume, Randy. Though I'm worrying that I'm inviting you to misrepresent his arguments as you did of all those philosophers I've called you on lying about in the past.
--Homoousia316
About this blog
An exploration of faith, knowledge, reason and doubt (with the occasional trite pop culture reference thrown in for good measure).
Subscribe
Recent Posts
-
February 08,2010 | Comments
9 -
February 08,2010 | Comments 19
-
February 05,2010 | Comments 13
-
February 03,2010 | Comments 28
-
February 01,2010 | Comments 55
-
January 28,2010 | Comments 51
Contributor
Randal Rauser is associate professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Canada and was granted Taylor's first annual teaching award for Outstanding Service to Students in 2005.
Most Popular
Most Commented
- The Tim Tebow Ad: Has Focus on the Family gone too far?
- Do people in hell continue to curse God?
- Do Christians need a historical Adam and Eve? (Part 1)
- Is hell merely the sum total of our poor choices?
- When there is hell to pay: On the problem of eternal punishment
- On pulling teeth and asking AnAtheist for some evidence
- Hell: Christianity's most burning issue
- "The Lovely Bones," and why Roger Ebert will not like a film version of "The Shack"
- Is God behind the earthquake in Haiti?
- When there is hell to pay: On the problem of eternal punishment
- Hell: Christianity's most burning issue
- How Haiti's earthquake has shaken us all
- How dare religious zealots blame Haiti for its misery
- Is hell merely the sum total of our poor choices?
- Does God hate those he does not save?
- Do Christians need a historical Adam and Eve? (Part 1)
Most Popular on CP
Most Commented on CP
- 'Imagine No Religion' Billboards Hit Detroit
- Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games
- Report: Over 350 Public Schools Teaching the Bible
- 'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution
- Protestants, Catholics Celebrate 10 Years of Consensus on Salvation
- Film Uncovers Dark Underworld of Modern-Day Slavery
- 'Blasphemy Day' Draws Fire from Event Sponsor's Founder
- 'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution
- Protestants, Catholics Celebrate 10 Years of Consensus on Salvation
- 'Imagine No Religion' Billboards Hit Detroit
- Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games
- Judge Orders Prop. 8 Proponents to Release Private Records
- Prayerful Americans Called to 'Adopt a Liberal'
- Report: Over 350 Public Schools Teaching the Bible
RSS