science Archives - Page 3 of 9

Tag Archive for: science

The Case for Heaven with Lee Strobel

Is there really an afterlife? Is there any evidence outside the Bible that we live on after death? What will Heaven be like?

The great Lee Strobel is back on the show with another wonderful “case” book, this one is called The Case for Heaven. Frank asks Lee several intriguing questions that are answered in his new book such as:

What evidence is there that we have a soul?
What do Near Death Experiences tell us about the afterlife?
How can we confirm that NDEs are real and not invented stories? (Some have been invented, but others verified.)
What is Hell like?
Is it possible that Hell is temporary?
Why would God punish someone eternally for temporal sin?
Where do we go when we die?
Is there are a chance to accept Christ after death?
What is Heaven really like? It’s not one long church service, is it?

If Heaven is real (and it is), you don’t want to miss it!

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

October 15, 2021/by Frank Turek

Are You a Moody Christian?

Podcast

Are you a Moody Christian?

Do you rely on your feelings about Christianity or the evidence for Christianity?

Should you have certain feelings that confirm you are saved?

Frank answers those questions and offers some practical insights from C.S. Lewis on not only how to develop your relationship with Christ but how to develop your relationships with your loved ones. He also shows why most of what you know is based on the testimony of others. That’s even true for scientists! Finally, Frank shows why you can trust the testimonies of the New Testament writers.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

October 8, 2021/by Frank Turek

What is faith? And why everyone has it!

Podcast

• What is faith?
• Is faith blind?
• Doesn’t the Bible say that faith is the conviction of things not seen?
• What is the difference between “belief that” and “belief in”?
• Did Jesus use evidence to prove who he was?
• What is the relationship between faith and reason?
• Is there a difference between knowledge and certainty?
• Do atheists just lack a belief in God or do they have faith too?

Join Frank as he investigates these questions and shows why everyone has faith, from Christians to atheists and everyone in between.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

October 1, 2021/by Frank Turek

Person of Interest | with J. Warner Wallace

Podcast

Detective Wallace is back to show us through his new book, Person of Interest, the monumental and unparalleled impact Jesus of Nazareth has had on the entire world. But this isn’t a softball interview. Frank plays devil’s advocate with Jim to see how he responds to some tough objection’s skeptics might levy against some of his points, such as:

Sure, Jesus has had a big impact, but couldn’t Christianity be based on a lie and then promoted by the Roman empire?
You say Christians started science, but everyone was a Christian back then, so what’s the big deal?
Aren’t science and Christianity at odds? After all, look at how the church treated Galileo!

As for the book, it is truly a unique and inspiring work that helps you realize the tremendous influence of the historical Jesus, which is best explained by His resurrection from the dead. Person of Interest is wonderfully argued and illustrated (over 400 drawings). If you want to buy the book or view a sample chapter, go to www.personofinterestbook.com.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

September 24, 2021/by Frank Turek

Do You Trust Science?

Podcast

Do you trust experts? Do you trust science? Why do we get conflicting advice from experts and scientists?

Frank investigates those questions by citing the bogus papers Dr. Peter Boghossian published in academic journals which exposes that experts, like the rest of us, are susceptible to biases, social pressure, ideological blindness, and groupthink. Be especially wary when people claim there is a scientific “consensus”! That normally means there really isn’t a consensus, and people will pressure dissenters into silence. But the history of science shows that our knowledge advances when we question the prevailing orthodoxy— when we ask for the evidence that people use to come to their conclusions.

Frank also cites evidence that science related to Covid has become politicized— that certain policies and treatment recommendations lead to contradictions and questions. The censors will be out for this episode!

Links cited:

My University Sacrificed Ideas for Ideology. So Today I Quit.

Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

The Grievance Studies Affair revealed

There is no American monarchy

Ivermectin Wins in India

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

September 17, 2021/by Frank Turek

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross ― Audio Book Highlight

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

If you consume a large portion of your material through audio, it is hard to get past a good deal on an excellent audiobook. Twice every year ChristianAudio.com runs a sale on most of their collection, and you can usually pick up these great audio resources for $7.49. The time has come for the first sale of 2021 (and beyond), so I will be highlighting some of my favorite audiobooks. I’ll include a few of my favorite quotes from the books, my recommendation from my chapter-by-chapter reviews, links to posts that were inspired by the books, and, of course, I will include links to the audiobook deal throughout the article. Today, I am highlighting Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home by Dr. Hugh Ross.

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross– My Recommendation

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home is the highly anticipated “sequel” to Dr. Hugh Ross’ book Why The Universe Is The Way It Is. In the first work, Dr. Ross examined several biblical purposes God has for this creation and how these purposes are evidenced in the history of the universe. In this new book, Dr. Ross zooms in from the perspective of the entire universe and multiple purposes to the earth and God’s purpose of redemption. Dr. Ross’ goal in this volume is to demonstrate how the history of our planet is not merely some naturalistic “just-so story” but rather a complex, multi-stage project with an explicit purpose as its end-goal. He intends to marshal the latest scientific discoveries from numerous scientific disciplines to make his case for the design of our planet.

It is an amazing listen. I work with several project managers at my job, and they have shown me representations of the schedules of their various projects. These include the necessary order of numerous steps, deadlines for the steps, the goals of each step, and the final purpose. Many of the steps must be done together and within certain time periods; otherwise, the project will fail. If you have ever mapped out a project or have seen one mapped out, you may be familiar with Gantt charts and how complex they can be. As I was only a couple chapters into this book, I could not help but imagine the incredible complexity behind the project that God planned and executed perfectly to accomplish His purposes. The projects that I have seen at work do not compare to the project that was our planet. If it is reasonable to think that the smaller and less complex projects at work were the product of designers, then it is even more reasonable to understand the project that was our planet is the product of a Designer.

Dr. Ross skillfully brings numerous discoveries of numerous disciplines of science together to give the big picture of the project of our planet. He then shows from the Bible what the end purpose was, and how it all comes together into a cohesive worldview that ends with Christian evangelism. He shows how God did not merely start the process at the big bang and wait for natural processes to eventually and accidentally complete each step. Rather God initiated each step at the earliest moment possible after the previous step was completed, and while certain steps were being completed, God was working on other necessary steps. Dr. Ross shows how it was necessary that each step be completed within precise boundaries and deadlines that, if crossed or missed, we would not exist.

Dr. Ross masterfully demonstrates God’s patient yet highly active execution of His cosmic project. The argument from design in this book is awe-inspiring scientifically and theologically. The way the argument is presented makes it nearly impossible to be intellectually dismissed, especially by those even remotely involved in engineering or project management. I highly recommend that all Christians pick up a copy of this book. It will give you a new appreciation for the creation and the power, care, patience, and love of our Creator and Savior. It will also give you a tremendous tool to discuss and defend the truth of the Christian worldview from the latest discoveries in the hard sciences.

I especially recommend this audiobook to Christian apologists interested in arguments from design. This book takes the teleological argument to the next level. It goes beyond just identifying the finely-tuned constants of the universe to show how, even within a finely-tuned universe, in order for the arrival of advanced life such as humans, the processes that formed the final site of advanced life had to be meticulously planned and actively guided. The argument in the book appeals directly to what is known about the necessity of a designer behind projects, and implied throughout the book is the exponentially decreasing probabilistic resources available to the naturalist to explain our existence. Scientists, every day, are discovering new features of the history of our planet that cry out for a purposeful explanation. Improbable Planet needs to be in your personal library and part of your collection of tools to defend the truth that God created this universe and us for a purpose: to redeem us through the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You can read the complete chapter-by-chapter summary review by clicking or tapping here.

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross ― Favorite Quotes

“Only in a spiral galaxy is a long history of life possible. A spiral galaxy of the just-right size and the just-right structure can yield adequate heavy elements for life as well as a possible location where a planetary system can reside for billions of years without being exposed to deadly radiation and without gravitational disruptions from adjacent stars and molecular clouds.”

“The Local Group represents a rarity. As far as astronomers are able to see, the Local Group is the only grouping of galaxies wherein a host galaxy can sustain a planet on which a long history of diverse, complex, and abundant life is possible.”

“The list of rarities, all of which serve the eventual needs of long-enduring life, up to and including advanced civilization, starts with the [solar] system’s origin cluster and goes on to include its ejection from that cluster, the Grand Tack sequence, the Moon-forming event, the late veneer, the late heavy bombardment, the fifth planet’s timing, and jumping Jupiter. The existence and locations of our planetary system’s five asteroid and comet belts simply add to the already long list of features that must be in place before life can originate on Earth and possess any possibility of survival for a few billion years. The ‘coincidences’ compound with each new discovery.”

“Destructive mean motion resonances are nearly ubiquitous. As it is, Uranus is close to a 7:1 resonance with Jupiter, a 2:1 resonance with Neptune, and a 3:1 resonance with Saturn. Meanwhile, Jupiter and Saturn are very close to a 5:2 resonance. If any of these gas giant planets’ orbital positions were to shift even slightly, that shift would generate instabilities in the orbit of one or more of the solar system’s eight planets. Such instabilities would shatter the possibility of a long history of life on Earth, a history leading to human life and civilization.”

“The conditions under which the Moon formed seem so unlikely, from a naturalistic worldview, as to defy credibility.”

“The ideal place for any kind of life as we know it turns out to be the solar system like ours, within a galaxy like the Milky Way, within a supercluster system like ours, within a galaxy like the Milky Way, within a supercluster of galaxies like the Virgo supercluster, within a super-supercluster like the Laniakea super-supercluster. In other words, we happen to live in the best, perhaps the one and only, neighborhood that allows not only for physical life’s existence but also for its enduring survival.”

“Ongoing research tells us that Earth has been shaped not only by an intricately orchestrated interplay of physical forces and conditions but also by its vast abundance and diversity of life-forms. By means that no depth and breadth of scientific research can explain, life arose early in Earth’s history under anything but the benign conditions it would seem to require and somehow persisted through multiple mass extinction events, always appearing or reappearing at just-right times and in just-right forms to meet the needs and demands of the revised environment.”

“Both plate tectonics and life must remain at certain levels at different times throughout the past 3.8 billion years so that the history of life and of plate tectonics will produce all the resources for humanity’s eventual existence and launch of global, technologically advanced civilization.”

“The great diversity and abundance established early in life’s history drove the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur cycles to levels eventually sufficient for the entry of advanced life. The sulfate-reducing bacteria played an especially critical role. Their metabolic reactions transformed much of the soluble metal resources in the oceans and crust into insoluble concentrated metal ore deposits. Thus, a potentially poisonous environment for advanced life became an optimal resource repository, one that would later allow humanity to quickly transition from Stone Age machinery and tools to metallurgy-based technologies.”

“Without abundant photosynthetic life, plate tectonic activity on Earth would have shut down relatively quickly, making the crust a stationary lid over anything and everything beneath it. Without plate tectonics, the removal of greenhouse gases from Earth’s atmosphere would have shut down. Without removal of greenhouse gases, the Sun’s increasing luminosity would have raised Earth’s surface temperature beyond what life can tolerate. Earth would have become permanently sterile.”

“Unless plate tectonics had become established as a sustained, aggressive, globally manifested phenomenon as early as 3.0 billion years ago, Earth’s surface might never have attained the necessary conditions for advanced life in the time window between the Late Heavy Bombardment and the Sun’s brightening to catastrophic levels.”

“Thanks to the long history of progressively more advanced life-forms, the mineral inventory in Earth’s crust grew from 250 minerals up to its present stock of 4,300 distinct minerals. Many of these minerals have made possible the technology and standard of living humanity enjoy today. Billions of years of life appearing in progressively more advanced forms also provided humanity with an enormous treasure chest of biodeposits. This treasure includes several feet of rich topsoil and humus (amorphous organic matter) on sedimentary plains all over Earth’s landmasses–essential for extensive, intensive cultivation. Earth’s long history of life and tectonic activity also laid down vast stores of fossil fuels and building materials. That history speaks of a rich endowment that built up over billions of years of speciation events, deaths, and extinctions, new speciation events, more deaths and extinctions, and more life.”

“When research runs head-on into nature’s limits only scientism, not science, would rule out consideration of any cause other than nature. At such places, to invoke the possibility of a power and intelligence beyond nature may be the most rational response.”

Challenges to neo-Darwinian theories of development

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science

By Julie Hannah

In Article 1, “The arising of our universe: design or chance?” I discussed evidence for the design behind our finely-tuned universe, which has convinced some mainstream scientists of the existence of a transcendent Creator. Article 2, “Can living cells arise randomly from non-living chemicals?” presented recent research findings that call into question the theory that living cells could have arisen from random operations on non-living chemicals. This article considers challenges to reductionist aspects of neo-Darwinian theories of evolution.

How does science account for the range of complex life forms? According to the deterministic neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis model, random errors in DNA-copying cause mutations, and only some of the resulting forms survive the environmental process of natural selection. It is generally agreed that these gene-driven processes can account for some aspects of development, but many scientists are questioning whether they can fully explain the complexity of all life forms. Eugene Koonin, an evolutionary biologist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information makes this blunt observation: “The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone” (“Origin at 150,” 474–75).

Standard evolutionary theory is being challenged in the following three major areas.

Challenge 1: Only small, continuous changes?

Microevolution involves minor genetic mutations and natural selection. But according to geneticists Baguñà and Garcia-Fernàndez, repeated microevolution does not explain major evolutionary transitions, and as a result, “even to the most unbounded optimist, we are still far from understanding morphological diversity and evolution” (“Evo-Devo,” 706). Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that there was a fundamental difference between minor adaptations and the formation of new species, an opinion that is also expressed by paleobiologist Douglas Erwin of the Smithsonian Institute in his article, “Macroevolution is More Than Repeated Rounds of Microevolution.” Anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz points out that some major groups “appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus—full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations” (Sudden Origins, 3). And Eugene Koonin concludes that “the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable” (“Origin at 150,” 474).

Challenge 2: Only random variations and natural selection?

Some scientists are questioning the purely random nature of evolutionary change. For example, molecular geneticist James Shapiro makes this observation: “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change” (Evolution, 82). Gerd Müller, Head of the Department of Theoretical Biology at the University of Vienna, argues that developmental systems seem to have innate tendencies towards certain solutions, and these tendencies have as strong an influence on development as random DNA variations (“Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” 4, 7). Professor of evolutionary biology Kevin Laland agrees that “much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others” (“Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” 162).

The theory of random variations also presents unresolved problems. According to genetic biologists Thornton and DeSalle, “It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts . . . It is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the chicken and the egg” (“Gene Family Evolution,” 64).

Simon Conway Morris, who holds the Chair in Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge, also argues that adaptation is not an undirected, random walk through all possibilities. For example, when muscle tissue develops into organs that produce electricity, the process requires very precise amino acid replacements at specific sites, together with accelerated evolution of the new function, and Conway Morris concludes that “there is little doubt that these changes are very far from random” (Runes of Evolution, 38). He therefore argues that while the underlying principles of Darwinian evolution are correct, they do not provide a complete explanation of development, and a more comprehensive theory of evolution is required.

Gould also pointed out that many evolutionists now doubt the exclusive role of natural selection in genetic change (“New and General Theory of Evolution,” 12). And Andras Pellionisz, an expert in genome informatics, suggests that the theory of natural selection should be extended to include goal-directed aspects (“Principle of Recursive Genome Function,” 349).

Challenge 3: What about the complex genetic code?

It is generally accepted that the modern genetic code evolved from a simpler form, but there is no agreement about when or how this initial code evolved. In their article, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” microbiologist Jack Trevors and cyberneticist David Abel explain why they believe natural selection could not be the primary mechanism for developing DNA coding (“Chance and Necessity,” 734 – 35):

“Without the machinery and protein workers, the [DNA] message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled . . . It is not reasonable to expect hundreds to thousands of random sequence polymers to all cooperatively selforganize into an amazingly efficient holistic metabolic network.”
“Natural processes, mechanisms, and chemical catalyses do not explain any of these emergent conceptual phenomena. . . . Even ‘meaningful’ RNA or DNA inserted into a lifeless physical world such as the ancient Earth, would not be ‘readable.’ It could not communicate its coded message for protein synthesis unless a language (operating system) context already existed.”
“Contentions that offer nothing more than long periods of time offer no mechanism of explanation for the derivation of genetic programming. No new information is provided by such tautologies. The argument simply says it happened. As such, it is nothing more than blind belief.” In other words, “time made it happen” might be science’s version of “God made it happen.”

Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins insists there is only an “illusion of design in the living world” (God Delusion, 25), and he claims that “cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence of life’s complex design” (Blind Watchmaker, 317, original emphasis). However, atheist geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin disagrees, pointing out that Dawkins’s adamant assertion ignores an enormous amount of recent research. He writes: “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing non-selective forces in evolution” (“Billions of Demons,” 29).

Computational physiologist Denis Noble argues that the highly reductionist and deterministic worldview of neo-Darwinism is not a necessary conclusion from the scientific evidence. He expresses the desire of many biologists to “distance [themselves] from the biased conceptual scheme that neo-Darwinism has brought to biology, made more problematic by the fact that it has been presented as literal truth” (“Evolution Beyond neo-Darwinism,” 12). And as Gerd Müller points out, this is not the view of only a handful of fringe scientists because an increasing number of publications call for a major revision of standard evolutionary theory (“Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” 2).

The more recent approach to evolutionary development is not deterministic or gene-driven. Instead, it argues that there are complex non-random processes at work. However, Laland et al. point out that there is passionate resistance to the newer Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES): “The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly . . . Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists . . . This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline” (“Evolutionary Theory,” 162).

Marcos Eberlin, a winner of the Thomson Medal in Chemistry, summarized a wide range of recent scientific findings in his 2019 book Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose, which is endorsed by three winners of Nobel Prizes in science. Eberlin reaches this conclusion about the evidence regarding the development of life on Earth: it “seems to point beyond any blind evolutionary process to the workings of an attribute unique to minds—foresight. And yes, I know: We’re told that it’s out of bounds for science to go there… [but] I urge you to inspect the evidence” (Foresight, 13–14).

Note

Adapted from A Skeptic’s Investigation into Jesus, J P Hannah.

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Investigation-into-Jesus/dp/1532674619

Used with kind permission from Wipf and Stock Publishers: www.wipfandstock.com.

References

Baguñà, Jaume, and Jordi García -Fernàndez. “Evo-Devo: the Long and Winding Road.” The International Journal of Developmental Biology 47 (2003) 705–13.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8892395_Evo-Devo_The_Long_and_Winding_Road

Conway Morris, Simon. The Runes of Evolution: How the Universe Became Self-Aware. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton, 2005.

Eberlin, Marcos. Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose. Seattle: Discovery Institute, 2019.

Erwin, Douglas H. “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.” Evolution and Development 2 (2000) 78–84.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Gould, Stephen Jay. “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology 6 (1980) 119–30.

http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/gould.pdf

Koonin Eugene V. “The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?” Trends in Genetics 25 (2009) 473–75. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.09.007.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

Laland Kevin N., et al. “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Nature 514 (2014) 161–64.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerd_Mueller/publication/278258986_Does_evolutionary_theory_need_a_rethink_-_POINT_Yes_urgently/links/55cd2f8708aebd6b88e05e5f/Does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-POINT-Yes-urgently.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Lewontin, Richard. “Billions and Billions of Demons: A Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan.” New York Review of Books 44 (1997) 28–30.

http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

Müller, Gerd B. “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.” Interface Focus 7: 20170015.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

Noble, Denis. “Evolution beyond neo-darwinism: a new conceptual framework.” The Journal of Experimental Biology 218 (2015) 7–13.

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/218/1/7.full.pdf

Pellionisz, Andras J. “The Principle of Recursive Genome Function.” Cerebellum 7 (2008) 348–59. http://ww.junkdna.com/pellionisz_principle_of_recursive_genome_function.pdf

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species. New York: Wiley, 1999.

Shapiro, James, A. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2011.

Thornton, Joseph W., and Rob DeSalle. “Gene Family Evolution and Homology: Genomics Meets Phylogenetics.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 1 (2000) 41–73.

https://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~nicholls/BIOSCI743/thorntonanddesalle.pdf

Trevors, Jack T., and David L. Abel. “Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.” Cell Biology International 28 (2004) 729–39.

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~stevel/565/literature/Chance%20and%20necessity%20do%20not%20explain%20the%20origin%20of%20life.pdf

Defrocking The Priests Of Scientism

Philosophy of Science

By Bob Perry

The way large church authorities deal with heretics hasn’t changed much over the centuries. They demand adherence to dogma. They threaten or silence those who defy the hierarchy. Finally, they excommunicate those who refuse to submit to their demands. The religion of scientism is no different. Denying its dogma will have consequences. Heresy will be punished. No matter which denomination they represent, scientism’s priests are ruthless enforcers of the church’s rules.

We’re All “Religious”

The “skeptical” materialist, Michael Shermer has offered the following as a description of his atheism:

“There’s no, like, central set of tenets that we adhere to or believe in, or anything like … a Christian or a Jew or whatever. We don’t have anything like that, because there is nothing. It’s just simply we just don’t believe.”

Shermer’s denial of any adherence to religious belief is instructive. It pays to remember what a “religion” is. This is especially true because Dr. Shermer regularly rejects the legitimacy of any religious point of view in the scientific marketplace of ideas.

A religion is a template we use to understand and respond to the world. Everybody has one. Shermer’s religion is simply informed by a belief that God does not exist. But that assertion does not allow him to escape the fact that he holds to a systematic view of the world. He has just tried to construct his ideas about ethics, truth, and ultimate reality without God. The question is not about who holds religious views. The question is which of those views correspond best with the way the world actually is.

The Atheist Religion

Pointing out the religious nature of scientific materialism is not just a clever way to make a trivial point. Not when we have been trained to believe that any discussion about things that really matter must begin by accepting something like Shermer’s naturalism. Any view that questions that mindset is categorically dismissed as a matter of personal opinion that no one needs to take seriously. Only scientists may offer us “proof.” Our scientific culture ordains scientists as the source of all wisdom and authority.

They are scientism’s priests.

The Religion Of Scientism

If Materialism (the idea that everything is physical) is true, this all makes sense. If the physical world is all that is real, every phenomenon must be understood as a consequence of molecules in motion. And if material causes are the only kind we are allowed to invoke, it stands to reason that science – the study of the material world – is the only explanatory game in town. If science holds all truth, our belief in science – scientism – is our greatest hope.

But if Scientific Materialism is the only tool we’re allowed to use to analyze things, what do we do with things that it cannot explain even in principle? In other words, how do the priests of scientism propose to explain real things that are not physical?

Can Science Disprove God?

Surely you’ve heard this one: “Science has disproved God!” This is an odd claim. It has to take into account two mutually exclusive truths. First, that science is the study of the physical universe. Second, that no credible theist has ever claimed that God is part of the physical universe.

These details seem to be lost on the priests of scientism who proclaim their disbelief in the deity with a smug wave of the hand and a demand for “evidence.” They insist on having physical evidence for a non-physical entity. But the scientific clergy has already dismissed such a thing by mere assumption.

Do they not see the circularity in their reasoning? Without it, the entire scaffolding of scientism collapses under the weight of its own criteria for identifying truth.

The Language Of Science

Take mathematics. It is wildly ironic that the priests of scientism seem to be ignorant of the language of their faith. Science depends on mathematics to make its case. But Materialist scientists have described mathematics as “an abstract, immutable entity existing outside space and time.” Math describes the structure, orderliness, and invariant properties we observe in nature. Cosmologist Max Tegmark calls it “something bordering on the mysterious” that has “an eerily real feel” to it and satisfies “a central criterion of objective existence.” Stephen Hawking wondered where things like mathematics and the laws of physics and chemistry could have originated.* Even atheist Bertrand Russell once remarked that mathematics holds both “truth and supreme beauty.”

Mathematics is the language of science – the vocabulary of those who deny non-physical reality. Yet mathematics is a combination of numbers and concepts. Neither of these is physical. But both of them are undeniably real.

Faith In The Unseen And Unseeable

Scientists use mathematics to present the quantum metaphysics they use to evade the clear inference that a Big Bang requires a Big Banger. The design of the universe, they say, really requires no explanation at all. Their math tells them that the inexplicable degree of fine-tuning in this universe implies that our universe is just one among an infinite number of alternate universes. We just happen to live in the one that got things just right.

As Max Tegmark has put it, this “idea … seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it because it is supported by astronomical observations.”

Of course, the priests never address the fact that these alternate universes are, by definition, unobservable. In other words, the priests who demand “evidence” from theists actually hold “blind faith” in something for which they can never gather physical evidence.

They just want us to “live with it.”

Blind Answers To Life’s Big Questions

Agent causation. Life from non-life. Mind from matter. Each of these are things we see and experience every day. And each is completely inconsistent with a materialistic view of the world.

This is not to say that the scientific enterprise is misguided. Far from it. The point is that Christian theism understands science in its proper context. Theists see science as the rational method we use to discover and understand the order and majesty of God’s creative work. When you look at it that way, you see that theism makes each of these conundrums vanish. They each make sense inside a more comprehensive view of nature. It turns out that the explanatory power of Christian theism far exceeds the materialistic alternative.

Priests And Prophets

Scientism actually diminishes science. It idolizes a view of the world that cannot account for all of reality. It tells us, “Be patient. Science may not have explained these things yet, but it will. Just give it time.”

The priests of scientism think this is persuasive. But their pious exhortation serves only to confirm their religious zeal.

The priests, it seems, also fancy themselves as prophets.

* Quoted by Dean Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (New York, New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1997), 159.

Jeff Hester Debates William Lane Craig On The Topic “Is Belief In God Rational In A Scientific Age?”

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I was very excited to see a recent debate by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig against atheist astronomer Jeff Hester. When I summarize a debate, I do a fair, objective summary if the atheist is intelligent and informed, as with Peter Millican, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, or Austin Dacey. But the following summary is rated VS for Very Snarky, and you’ll soon see why.

The debate itself starts at 29 minutes:

The audio is very poor.

Dr. Craig’s opening speech

Dr. Craig went first, and he presented four arguments, as well as the ontological argument, which I won’t summarize or discuss. He later added another argument for theism from the existence of the universe that does not require an origin of the universe.

A1. Counter-examples

Theists who are elite scientists cannot be “irrational,” for example Allan Sandage, Gustav Tammann, George Ellis, Don Page, Christopher Isham

A2. Kalam cosmological argument

Whatever begins to exist requires a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe requires a cause.

A3. Fine-tuning of the universe to permit complex, intelligent life

The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore it is due to design.

A4. Moral argument

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Dr. Hester’s opening speech

Dr. Hester went second and presented two arguments, which both committed the genetic fallacy, a logical fallacy that makes the arguments have no force.

Hester starts his opening speech by asserting that Albert Einstein was irrational because he denied quantum mechanics.

Hester explains that he became an atheist at 15. This would have been before the evidence for the origin of the universe became widespread before we had very many examples of fine-tuning before the discovery that the origin of life problem is a problem of the origin of complex, specified information, etc. What kind of reasons can a 15-year-old child have for becoming an atheist? It’s hard to say, but I would suspect that they were psychological. Children often desire autonomy from moral authorities. They want to be free to pursue pleasure. They don’t want to be thought of as superstitious and morally straight by their non-religious peers.

Later on in the debate, Hester volunteers that he hated his father because his father professed to be a Christian, but he was focused on his career and making money. In the absence of any arguments for atheism, it’s reasonable to speculate that Hester became an atheist for psychological reasons. And as we’ll see, just like the typical 15-year-old child, he has no rational basis for atheism. What’s astonishing is how he continues to hold to the atheism of his teens when it has been falsified over and over by scientific discoveries in the years since.

Dr. Craig’s deductive arguments do have premises that reach a conclusion through the laws of logic. On the contrary, he just asserts that God exists as his conclusion, and then says that this assertion is the best explanation of a gap in our scientific knowledge. Some of the gaps in our scientific knowledge he uses in his arguments are: 1) he doesn’t understand why the Sun moves through the sky, so God exists, 2) he doesn’t understand why the wind blows, so God exists.

What counts as “rational” are things that have not been disproved. The progress of science has shown that the universe did not need a cause in order to begin to exist, and also there is no cosmic fine-tuning.

A1. The success of evolution in the software industry proves that there is no God.

All hardware and software are developed using genetic algorithms that exactly match Darwinian processes. All the major computer companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, etc. are just generating products using mutation and selection to evolve products over long periods of time. If you look over a typical software engineering degree, it’s all about Darwinian evolution, and nothing about design patterns, object-oriented design, etc.

This widespread use of evolution in the software industry undermines all of the arguments for God’s existence. Evolution caused the origin of the universe. Evolution explains why the universe is fine-tuned for life. Evolution, which requires replication already be in place in order to work, explains the origin of the first self-replicating organism.

A2. Theist’s view of the world is just a result of peer pressure from their tribes.

All of Dr. Craig’s logical arguments supported by scientific evidence don’t matter, because he got them from a primitive tribe of Christians that existed 2000 years ago. Everyone gets their view of origins, morality, meaning in life, death, etc. from their tribes. Except for me, I’m getting my beliefs from reason and evidence because I’m a smart atheist. I don’t have an atheist tribe in the university that would sanction me if I disagreed with nonsense like homosexuality is 100% genetic, transgenderism, man-made catastrophic global warming, fully naturalistic evolution, aliens seeded the Earth with life, infanticide is moral, socialism works, overpopulation will cause mass starvation, nuclear winter, etc. Also, my argument isn’t the genetic fallacy at all, because smart atheists don’t commit elementary logical fallacies that even a first-year philosophy student would know.

A3. Our brains evolved, so our rational faculties are unreliable, so God does not exist.

The logical reasoning that Dr. Craig uses to argue for theism are all nonsense, because human minds just have an illusion of consciousness, an illusion of rationality, and an illusion of free will. Everything Dr. Craig says is just deluded nonsense caused by chemicals in his brain. He has cognitive biases the undermine all his logical arguments and scientific evidence. He just invented an imaginary friend with superpowers. Except me, I’m a smart atheist, so I actually have real consciousness, real reasoning powers, and no cognitive biases. Also, my argument isn’t the genetic fallacy at all, because my arguments would not get an F in a first-year philosophy course.

Discussion

I’m not going to summarize everything in the discussion, or the question and answer time. I’m just going to list out some of the more interesting points.

Dr. Craig asks him how it is that he has managed to escape these biases from tribalism, projection, etc. He talks about how brave and noble atheist rebels are. The moderator asks him the same question. He repeats how brave and noble atheist rebels are.

Dr. Hester is asked whether he affirms a causeless beginning of the universe or an eternal universe. He replies he states that the universe came into being without a cause because causality doesn’t apply to the beginning of the universe. He also asserts with the explanation that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin have undermined the kalam cosmological argument, mentioning a web site.

Dr. Craig replied to this phantom argument after the debate on Facebook:

Speaking of which, although I haven’t had time to consult the website mentioned by Dr. Hester concerning Guth and Vilenkin on the kalam cosmological argument, I know the work of these two gentlemen well enough to predict what one will find there. Since neither one is yet a theist (so much, by the way, for the dreaded confirmation bias!), they have to reject at least one of the premises of the kalam cosmological argument.

Guth wants to deny premiss (2) The universe began to exist–for which Vilenkin has rebuked him. Guth would avoid the implications of their theorem by holding our hope for the Carroll-Chen model, which denies the single condition of the BGV theorem. This gambit is, however, unsuccessful, since the Carroll-Chen model does so only by positing a reversal of the arrow of time at some point in the finite past. This is not only highly non-physical but fails to avert the universe’s beginning since that time-reversed, mirror universe is no sense in our past. The model really postulates two different universes with a common beginning.

So Vilenkin is forced to deny premiss (1) Whatever begins to exists has a cause. He says that if the positive energy associated with matter exactly counterbalances the negative energy associated with gravity, then the net sum of the energy is zero, and so the conservation of energy is not violated if the universe pops into being from nothing! But this is like saying that if your assets exactly balance your debts, then your net worth is zero, and so there does not need to be a cause of your financial situation! As Christopher Isham points out, there still needs to be “ontic seeding” in order to create positive and negative energy in the first place, even if on balance, their sum is zero.

Dr. Hester is asked how he explains the evidence for fine-tuning. He literally says that “Life is fine-tuned for the Universe,” i.e., that evolution will create living beings regardless of the laws of physics, constants, etc. For example, he thinks that in a universe with a weaker strong force, which would have only hydrogen atoms, evolution would still evolve life. And in a universe that recollapses in a hot fireball, and never forms stars or planets, evolution would produce life. Physicist Luke Barnes, who was commenting on the YouTube chat for the video, said this:

“Life is fine-tuned for the Universe” – complete ignorance of the field. Read a book.

Hester tries to cite Jeremy England to try to argue for life appearing regardless of what the laws of physics are. Barnes comments:

Jeremy England’s work supports no such claim.

Hester appealed to the multiverse, which faces numerous theoretical and observational difficulties. For example, the multiverse models have to have some mechanism to spawn different universes, but these mechanisms themselves require fine-tuning, as Robin Collins argues. And the multiverse is falsified observationally by the Boltzmann brain problem. It was so ironic that Hester claimed to be so committed to testing theories. The multiverse theory cannot be tested experimentally and must be accepted on faith.

Dr. Hester is asked how he grounds morality on atheism. He says there are no objective moral values and duties. He instead lists off a bunch of Christian beliefs which he thinks are objectively wrong. Even his statements about these moral issues are misinformed. For example, he asserts that homosexuality is causally determined by biology, but this is contradicted by identical twin studies that have a rate of 20-40% where both twins are gay.

Dr. Hester is asked about free will, which is required in order to make moral choices. He denies the existence of a free will, which undermines his earlier statements about morality. Morality is only possible if humans can make free choices to act in accordance with a moral standard. So, he claims that Christians are immoral, then he claims that they have no freedom to act other than they do.

Dr. Hester also volunteered that his father believed in the prosperity gospel, and tithed in order to be rewarded with money by God. Dr. Craig immediately says, “no wonder you’re in rebellion against Christianity.” Indeed.

Dr. Hester is asked about his view that human beings are unable to unable to perceive the world objectively. How is he able to perceive the world objectively, when all of the rest of us are unable to? His response is that he is just smarter than everyone else because his ideas have never been falsified by testing.

Scoring the debate

Dr. Craig’s five arguments went unrefuted. Hester’s argument about genetic algorithms was ludicrous to anyone who understands software engineering. His arguments about tribalism and unreliable mental faculties were self-refuting and committed the genetic fallacy. At several points, Hester denied mainstream science in favor of untested and untestable speculations. It was the worst defeat of atheism I have ever witnessed. He was uninformed and arrogant. He didn’t know what he was talking about, and he tried to resort to speculative, mystical bullshit to cover up his failure to meet Dr. Craig’s challenge.

There’s More Than One Way To “Trust The Science”

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

I have made the case before that scientism is a dangerous belief system. And the COVID-19 Pandemic has done nothing but prove the point. In their response to the virus, many in power exhort us to “trust the science.” Listen to the doctors. Their wisdom should guide the trajectory of our collective futures. But accepting that view greatly depends on your understanding of what science is … and whose science you’re trusting. The truth is that science never provides answers to anything. Scientists do. And that means we not only have to know what branch of science they’re representing, we also have to trust the scientists’ judgment. Our leaders can make decisions using science as a tool. But we accept those decisions on other grounds. That’s because science is not the arbiter of anything. People are. We can’t just “trust the science.” We have to know how our leaders are using evidence, logic, and moral reasoning to reach their science-based conclusions.

Science -vs- Scientists

My point is that there is a vast difference between what science is … and what scientists say. The scientific data about this disease can tell us how to identify its DNA makeup, how it attacks our bodies, how transmissible it is, how long it lasts, how deadly it is, and how to create a vaccine to combat it. We can use that data to evaluate the threat the virus poses and generate statistical analyses from it. The science describes the physical and biological facts about COVID-19.

But scientists interpret that data. They analyze the statistics and suggesting measures to combat it. And those scientists have biases and opinions they bring to the table. Let me offer an example of what I mean.

The Scientists We Trust

During this pandemic, there is perhaps no one who we are being asked to trust more than Doctor Anthony Fauci. And let me be clear. I don’t envy his position or question his credentials. Fauci is a highly educated immunologist. He’s a brilliant man, probably the most qualified person in America to be in the position he holds. But he has also made some public policy statements about the pandemic.

When asked about restarting sporting events, for instance:

“The best way to perhaps begin baseball on TV — say, around July 4 — would be to get players tested and put them in hotels. Keep them very well surveilled … have them tested, like every week. Buy a gazillion tests. And make sure they don’t wind up infecting each other or their family.’”

So, Doctor Fauci endorses the continuous surveillance and monitoring of U.S. citizens. But there’s more.

As it pertains to social interaction during the crisis, Fauci was asked:

Interviewer: “If you’re swiping on a dating [hook-up] app like Tinder … or Grindr [its LGBTQ alternative], and you match with someone that you think is hot, and you’re just kind of like, ‘Maybe it’s fine if this one stranger comes over.’ What do you say to that person?”

Fauci: “You know, that’s tough … Because that’s what’s called relative risk … If you’re willing to take a risk — and you know, everybody has their own tolerance for risks — you could figure out if you want to meet somebody …”

Complicated Answers

Whatever you think of Doctor Fauci’s positions on the Bill of Rights or “relative risk,” one thing is clear. Neither of his answers has anything to do with a need to “trust the science.”

Fauci’s answers are a perfect example of the intersection of ideas that are in play. He is willing to accept the medical and moral risk of a hook-up, but not the risk of human suffering due to an economic collapse. The point is that these things are complicated, and not just because the science is complicated. The reality is that we are not only living with the opinions and biases of different scientists. We are also dealing with the intersection of different kinds of science.

Economics is a Science

Much has been written and said about the economic impact of shutting the world down for this virus. One Yale study shows that rising unemployment causes higher death rates. Another study reveals a link between unemployment and suicide. These are not hypothetical outcomes. The human suffering that will result from this shutdown may be more threatening than the virus itself.

If you’re a Christian, don’t be lured into denying this. And don’t accept the notion that to do so is to value your retirement account more than you value human life. As my friend, Scott Klusendorf argues persuasively, that is a false choice:

“Absent important qualifiers, ‘life over profits’ is moralistic reductionism masquerading as biblical ethics. Seen holistically, ‘profits’ are not just about money. Rather, wrapped up in our economic considerations are clusters of intrinsic goods, such as educating our children, providing for our families, giving to charity, building up our marriages, and pursuing Christian fellowship — all of which contribute to the common good.”

Political Science

On April 15, 2020, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy banned religious services in his state. Fifteen people were arrested as a result. It doesn’t take much thought to understand that this directly impacts both the right to assemble and the religious liberty that are guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. When he was pressed on this issue, Murphy responded:

“I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this … The science says people have to stay away from each other.” New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy

For those of us who value the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that enumerates them, this is not just an academic triviality. The whole point of those rights is that the government does not create them. God does. Our government exists primarily to protect them. And when it fails to do so, tyranny is the result.

If you have any doubts about the importance of that dichotomy, look at history. Tyranny crushes the human spirit. Liberty allows it to flourish. History is littered with the wreckage to human life that occurs when the powerful engage in the former.

Sociology is Science

Free market economics works because it is grounded in human nature. We are social beings. And we are meant to interact. Shutting off that aspect of what it means to be human also has devastating effects. When we are prohibited from interacting with other humans, it damages our souls. Anger and irritability run rampant. People are frustrated and short-tempered. Suicides increase.

There is a reason solitary confinement is considered such an awful punishment, even for the worst of criminals. And there are reasons infants deprived of human contact suffer long-term mental health effects or even death.

Defining Science

The dictionary defines science as, “a branch study … that gives systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” It comes from the Latin word scientia, which means “knowledge.” And that may be where the corruption of our thought about it began. Before the scientific revolution that supposedly led to our “Enlightenment,” there was another branch of science that no one talks about these days. It’s a branch of knowledge that is the key to understanding every other branch.

Theology.

The Queen of the Sciences

They used to call Theology the “Queen of the Sciences” for a reason. Theology identifies the Creator and sustainer of all things. But it does more than that. It makes the case that the mind of God is the basis for truth and reason. And that means His character undergirds every other scientific discipline.

How so?

All matter, mind, power, and morality have their foundation in the nature of God. And we are made in His image. So, it follows that our ability to reason and create are reflections of God’s character. Knowing that changes the way we understand everything else. In the doctrine of the Trinity and the eternal relationship between the Persons of the Godhead, we have the basis for love itself. It’s the model for all human relationships. And that means it is foundational to how we understand community, sacrifice, and cooperation.

If you want to have a robust view of chemistry, biology, anatomy, anthropology, psychology, sociology — you name the discipline — you must understand that theology ties them all together.

Today it sounds absurd to call theology a “science.” But that’s not because we’ve found something wrong with theology. It’s because we have accepted a corrupted and truncated view of science itself. We’ve limited it to matter, energy, space, and time. But we’ve lost our souls and spirits in the process.

Holistic Science

Today, we’ve bought the lie that our study of the physical world is the only way to know things. But there are other ways to acquire knowledge. And each of them includes reason and rationality. It is human beings who practice science every day, whether they think of themselves as scientists or not.

Yes, we need to respect the scientific data. But data doesn’t make decisions. People do. Those people must analyze the data within a holistic view of the world — a view that incorporates all of what it means to be human into the solutions to our problems. Medicine and immunology are not the only important disciplines in play. We need discernment. And that means including everything from our basic human nature to our interpersonal relationships to the makeup of our social fabric in the decision-making process.

“Trust the science” is an empty slogan. When you hear it you should ask, “Which one?” And realize you are listening to someone who holds to a sterilized view of the world.

Tag Archive for: science

Introduction

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross– My Recommendation

Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross ― Favorite Quotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Challenge 1: Only small, continuous changes?

Challenge 2: Only random variations and natural selection?

Challenge 3: What about the complex genetic code?

Note

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

We’re All “Religious”

The Atheist Religion

The Religion Of Scientism

Can Science Disprove God?

The Language Of Science

Faith In The Unseen And Unseeable

Blind Answers To Life’s Big Questions

Priests And Prophets

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Dr. Craig’s opening speech

Dr. Hester’s opening speech

Discussion

Scoring the debate

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Science -vs- Scientists

The Scientists We Trust

Complicated Answers

Economics is a Science

Political Science

Sociology is Science

Defining Science

The Queen of the Sciences

Holistic Science

Recommended resources related to the topic: