This is a transferral of my conversation with Anonymous over at www.atheistethicist.blogspot.com, since I've clogged up enough of Mr. Fyfe's comment thread space already.
Anon's last comment:
The theory of evolution includes the big bang it is not just from when life began. If it includes the big bang then it includes cosmic evolution. If your idea of the theory of evolution starts when life has appeared on the earth then why do you have a problem with creation.
Creationist rhetoricians, I think, like to group theories like evolution with others like abiogenesis and the big bang to make a "stronger" case of - "Oh look at how insurmountable the odds must have been for x, y and z!!!."
UC Berkeley has a helpful introductory site to the theory.
There, it defines evolution thus:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life. *The theory of evolution does not demand or imply the Big Bang theory, nor does it demand or imply that abiogenesis occurred. Notably, among educated scientists, approximately 0.14% (an extremely small number) do not believe the theory of evolution describes reality.** Yet polls suggest - from what I've heard - that at least 50% of scientists call themselves Christian or theistic. I may be wrong here...
However it is certainly not the case that a belief in evolution is inconsistent with a belief in a God.
To answer the second part of your question:
I'm an atheist. Basically every reason I have for being such doubles as "a problem I have with creation."
* http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
**http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
10 comments:
You're right that abiogenesis does not necessarily have a ton to do with evolution, strictly speaking.
At the same time, it is so close that I find it very worthwhile talk about!
Could you outline:
1) How you think life BEGAN?
2) How you think time, energy, and matter BEGAN?
Thanks!
Peace,
Rhology
You and your off-topic comments again! Since this topic is a conversation with Anonymous, I'll keep my response to you pretty limited:
1) www.talkorigins.org is a great reference.
2) I don't really know much about those hypotheses - or even if such hypothesizing fits in the realm of "scientific understanding," so I can't offer anything resembling an educated opinion.
HI G-man
Off-topic comments?
Your post is entitled: "The T.O.E. and the Big Bang"
At most, #1 is off topic. But not flagrantly so. I didn't ask you to defend transitional forms in the fossil record or to tell me why Hinduism is wrong.
As for #2, how is this qualitatively different than a backwater Southern Babdist who believes everything his pastor tells him?
"Lawdy, lawdy, halleelooyah! Gawd made the world in 6 dayz and that's all there iz to't!!"
I'm not trying to mock you, not calling you stupid. What I *am* saying is that you seem to have checked your brain at the door to the large auditorium of Scientism, where the high priests migrate sometimes from their ivory tower university offices to pontificate upon their willing listeners.
"Nothing exploded and formed the universe in its incipient form!"
"There are literally infinite multiverses out there!"
"The universe has always existed. Forget the thermodynamic law of entropy! FORGET IT, I said!!!"
Surely you must have SOME idea.
That was one of the things that led me straight outta atheism. I don't see how atheism can account for the existence of the universe.
Peace,
Rhology
Sorry Rho, the title mentioned the theory of evolution and the big bang because the topic makes an effort to separate the two. Since Anon has failed to make any more comments, though, I might answer your off-topic questions.
"you seem to have checked your brain at the door to the large auditorium of Scientism, where the high priests migrate sometimes from their ivory tower university offices to pontificate upon their willing listeners."
Wait a sec... I start explaining the (quite obvious, to the scientifically literate) fact that the theory of evolution and the big bang are not related or dependent on one another, and all of a sudden I've checked my brain at the door? And science is a religion? Sheesh.
As for what came before the universe - well, I'm not being evasive in saying nobody can really know that! I don't think it lies within the realm of science to speculate.
Ha- and your comment about entropy... if you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, your grasp of science is much worse than I fathomed.
"I don't see how atheism can account for the existence of the universe."
It's needless to say, but... your inability to grasp any given concept does not falsify it.
G-man,
So you consider the origin of life a separate question than TOE and the BB?
Yeah, I guess I can see what you mean, if one were inclined to discuss those subjects within more or less strict limitations.
Do you think, though, that a naturalistic defense for abiogenesis is called for when defending the slightly-wider subject of NATURALISTIC evolution? I mean, given that there is no Designer or anything...
---------------
My off-topic questions (OK, I admit it! :-) )
And science is a religion?
No, not "science" per se. ScienTISM, which is what you exhibited in your "2) I don't really know much about those hypotheses" comment.
You have no proof, no evidence; you're accepting that science WILL SOMEDAY come up with an explanation, on faith. Aren't you?
(Faith here = "belief in future events based on perceived reliability of the object of faith given past experiences", which is a major element of how I define "faith" as in "faith in Jesus Christ".)
I don't think it lies within the realm of science to speculate.
Hmm, well, I respect you for being honest enough to say that much.
This has big implications for the TOE - the kind of evolution in question has never been observed, so it's assumed. It's not science.
Anyway...
Ha- and your comment about entropy... if you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, your grasp of science is much worse than I fathomed.
What I was proposing was this, and I invite your thoughts as you have time:
The universe is a closed system AFAWK. If it were infinitely old, it would have run out of usable energy an infinite amount of time ago.
Given entropy, the universe cannot be infinitely old.
Peace,
Rhology
" So you consider the origin of life a separate question than TOE and the BB? Yeah, I guess I can see what you mean..."
There's hope for the world yet! If a Christian can see what an atheist means... hooray!
A naturalistic defense for abiogenesis is only "called for" for those who believe abiogenesis occurred naturalistically. One could very easily believe God created everything and then died, leaving the origin of life supernatural but the ongoing process of evolution completely naturalistic.
Abiogenesis, at any rate, is the best known scientific theory for how life first arose. As research has made it stronger and stronger - and as a less complicated theory is to be preferred to a more complicated one when both have the same explanatory power - there's no good reason for scientists (and the scientifically literate population) to accept abiogenesis as the current best theory.
" You have no proof, no evidence; you're accepting that science WILL SOMEDAY come up with an explanation, on faith. Aren't you? "
Well, let me try to explain. It's anybody's guess as to how the universe began. Science can explain a lot about what happened since (and thus can infer some things about how it started) but nobody can know what happened to bring it about. So no, I don't expect scientists to come up with an answer.
People can believe a higher power caused the universe. Of course, if they say a higher power *must have* created the universe, and then cite facts about the universe to support their claims about the pre-universe... then I don't believe they're making valid arguments. However, regardless of how the universe came about, it does not seem readily apparent that a higher power has guided the origin of, or the subsequent steps, life has taken since that time.
This leads me to your definition of "faith." The scientific method has a tremendously good track record of adjusting our explanations of phenomena from "supernatural" to "natural" causes. We have found time and again that natural causes are the true causes in these cases.
If I read you correctly, you define faith in terms of the reliability of the method that has produced results for us in the past. So rather than faith being a route to belief, faith is an expression of the degree to which we trust other methods of knowing.
In that case, my faith in science is as strong as my faith in my perceptions. I know the strengths and weaknesses of my perception - I am more confident that my hands and feet exist than I am that I can tell when somebody is lying by their eye movements, for instance. Knowing the limits of science, I do not expect to find a scientific response to questions of how the universe came about. However, I expect science to continue to produce cures for diseases - and to function best, scientists must operate on the assumption that a natural explanation exists for phenomena. To do otherwise makes it virtually impossible for science to come to reliable conclusions.
That's not to say that supernatural explanations must be entirely ruled out - but it is essential that natural explanations be exhausted before supernatural ones are posited.
Ok, you then said that there are big implications for the theory of evolution if science can't speculate about the origins of the universe. This is not the case if you and I agree on what evolution is. I like to define it as "descent with modification" (and I know I'm not alone in doing so).
If you keep up with even the writings of intelligent design proponents, you'll agree that this is a phenomena that does occur in nature. You'll probably also agree that even slight modifications can, in some environments, be beneficial - and that those organisms with beneficial modifications have a tendency to be "selected" by that environment and to pass those genes on to their offspring.
As there has never been proposed a legitimate process to block or reverse these changes, it makes sense that over generations these modifications will accrue and, eventually, could produce organisms so different from one another that they are unable to inter-breed. This has, in fact, been observed.
To connect this more closely with what I think you're saying: the theory of evolution in its entirety is in no way incompatible with the existence of God/gods. Elements of the TOE are, of course, incompatible with the belief that the earth is only thousands of years old. However, that's another topic :)
Still, I have to disagree with you when you say "this type" of evolution has never been observed. Speciation has been observed. Similarly, evidence in the fossil record counts as "observation" of the gradual increase in complexity of animals over time.
I completely agree with your last point. The universe as a whole is a closed system and therefore, to the extent of our current understanding, cannot be infinitely old. Barring some odd thing like wormholes transferring dark energy from parallel universes or something, I'm sure there are good reasons to believe this is true :)
It's good advice, I believe, to question the ideas that flow from the scientific profession (or the high priests mitigating from their ivory tower offices). I suggest applying reasoned criticism to all beliefs - and all objects of faith, for that matter, if we're going from your definition - but I can certainly bow to the greater understanding and literacy of the science academia where we differ on matters of fact.
Hi G-man,
An atheist can't believe that God caused abiogenesis...that's why I've been asking about it.
If it's the current best scientific theory, then I snicker a bit at where "science" has gotten with its naturalistic presuppositions.
This is alchemy, believing that values turn into their opposites. I don't put much stock in alchemy; I don't know about you.
Next they'll be telling us that they've calculated that the existence of God is mathematically improbable... oh wait, never mind.
We have found time and again that natural causes are the true causes in these cases.
Well, that they're the *contingent* causes. Science has no mechanism to delve into what might be the cause behind those, if there is one.
you define faith in terms of the reliability of the method that has produced results for us in the past
For the purposes of explaining what I mean when I say "I have faith in Jesus Christ". Not necessarily for any other context.
to function best, scientists must operate on the assumption that a natural explanation exists for phenomena.
I agree to a point. But you run into problems when naturalistic processes are the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation, ruling out anythg else.
it is essential that natural explanations be exhausted before supernatural ones are posited.
Unless you're an atheist, right?
f you keep up with even the writings of intelligent design proponents, you'll agree that this is a phenomena that does occur in nature.
I'm not well-read in ID stuff, but I agree with what you say here.
it makes sense that over generations these modifications will accrue and, eventually, could produce organisms so different from one another that they are unable to inter-breed. This has, in fact, been observed.
But I'm not interested in this micro-evolution. I'm interested in amœbæ becoming broccoli. Or lizards turning into birds.
Nobody is disputing micro-ev. Appealing to it to justify the assumption of a common ancestor, however, is fallacious.
Similarly, evidence in the fossil record counts as "observation" of the gradual increase in complexity of animals over time.
Since it can easily be accounted for by other models such as Young Earth Creationism, I don't see why.
And even staunch evolutionists disagree with this, and I see their point. These fossils are so very, very old (according to the normal evolutionary model), it's impossible to make pretty much any analysis of them. You don't know to whom they were related. You don't know if they had children. You don't know how long they lived. You don't know how to string them together related to other organisms in other regions. It's not a knock against science, it's just reality. It's a call to pull (the collective) your head out of your rear and get off your (collective) high horse.
The universe as a whole is a closed system and therefore, to the extent of our current understanding, cannot be infinitely old.
Hey, we agree again!
Man, it's kind of a weird day. :-) But I like it.
Peace,
Rhology
Hey, whaddayaknow! Agreement!
I really have some doubts about how strongly I can present this case to you - why naturalistic presuppositions are so important in scientific understanding.
You agree with me that "to function best, scientists must operate on the assumption that a natural explanation exists for phenomena." Excellent. Since science, of course, deals with physical laws and theories explaining physical phenomena, science cannot really talk about "God," right?
Consider what the result might be if scientists mulling the origin of life just threw up their hands: "Hey, we just can't get all the answers. I guess we'll never find an explanation after all." They'd be making a John Loftus-like argument. Example:
"1). If I don't have all the answers to attacks on Christianity, it is not worth holding the faith.
2). I do not have all the answers to attacks on Christianity.
3). Therefore, I am justified in letting go of Christianity."
[ https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7604550744606060177&postID=2860488938057186645 ]
(I don't actually know how to include hyperlinks in comments...)
Need I explain how invalid that is? Now consider the research that's been done concerning abiogenesis. In a broad range of possible early-earth conditions, amino acids have been observed to form in repeatable laboratory experiments. There are many proposed mechanisms for how the transition to "life" could happen (while I'm not qualified as an authority on the subject, contributors to www.talkorigins.org are).
Occam's Razor provides just one practical reason to show preference - or at least consider! - the answer that doesn't propose the existence of an entirely separate and untestable realm of reality: that answer being abiogenesis.
"Well, that they're the *contingent* causes."
Sure, but that's a bit peripheral. Science is not especially concerned with "ultimate causes," (which I don't even find to be necessary); science is concerned with theories that explain natural phenomena. In all cases, supernatural explanations have given way to natural explanations. Never has the reverse been found true. When asked about how life began, I (despite what Bertrand Russell might say) believe it is a valid assumption to say "In the past, natural explanations have replaced supernatural explanations. Probably such is the case here."
You wrote, "But you run into problems when naturalistic processes are the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation, ruling out anythg else."
Generally, this is true. Ruling out a category of explanation a priori, though, is still something science is entitled to do. That is, quite simply, because the range of natural explanations IS the range of scientific explanations. Science was not designed to tackle questions of the supernatural, nor can it be equipped to do so.
The day natural explanations are exhausted for some phenomena... well, on that day I imagine I'll cease to be an atheist :)
Regarding faith:
I'd like to make sure we're making sense here. "Faith" describes the trust a person has in a method of knowing - like "whatever Jesus said is true" - but only in the case of those who have faith in Jesus?
Why the split definition of faith? What would "faith" mean, say, to an atheist? Or what would "faith" mean in your understanding, if used in another context?
Regarding evolution:
"But I'm not interested in this micro-evolution."
The emergence of new species is not microevolution, Rho. But let me try a quick mental exercise. Let's say a population of lizards, over the course of time, gains a series of mutations. In this isolated population, the beneficial mutations continue to guide the genetic makeup of the population. Can you propose to me anything, besides the constrictions of time, that would prevent that population's genetic changes from accumulating until the animals no longer look like lizards - they look more like something else, perhaps birds? Is there any mechanism to stop or reverse the accumulation of these changes?
There's no difference between micro and macro evolution except that the latter is expanded to include a greater length of time.
Regarding the fossil record:
Young Earth Creationism does not count as "another model" on the same level as actual science, Rho. Necessarily YEC can account for anything: "God just put the fossils there, yo." That simply won't do - not if we're realistically trying to find a *real* explanation for phenomena.
Sorry to rant, but the topic often makes me impatient. At any rate, the boundless evidence that the earth - and life on it - has been around for eons gives us a framework in which to study fossils. What we invariably find is that the deeper we dig, the less complex fossils we find. It all makes sense in the evolutionary model.
As for that link - ha! Anybody who says "We can't possibly know what killed the dinosaurs off, because we weren't there to see it," obviously does not put much stock in forensic science. The problem with these books, Rho (and keep an eye out for this) is that they can be published without being submitted to peer evaluation - or any scientific scrutiny at all. Feel free to apply the same criticism to some of Dawkins' writings as well, if you'd like.
Of course he's right that there's uncertainty - there's always uncertainty - but science operates on theories, which are necessarily uncertain.
But we CAN learn to what the fossils were related! We can know if they had children, an unfriendly divorce... we can know how long that species lived! The degree of accuracy may not be as precise as you want it to be, but that's why people keep learning!
Hmm... long response. Hopefully you're not overwhelmed.
G-man,
Since science, of course, deals with physical laws and theories explaining physical phenomena, science cannot really talk about "God," right?
Correct.
The problem is that science frequently oversteps its bounds, starts assuming that naturalistic explanations can account for EVERYthing to the point of making up ad hoc, desperate "explanations" like TOE to explain stuff.
Need I explain how invalid that is?
No, and no one is arguing they should.
But they should know their boundaries. Holding desperately to sinking ships while snidely and constantly asserting that God is "highly improbable" is the kind of thing I'm criticising.
In a broad range of possible early-earth conditions, amino acids have been observed to form in repeatable laboratory experiments.
1) You're not talking about Urey-Miller, are you?
2) Is it not true that other chemicals were also formed by the same reactions that would prevent the formation of life? Ammonia, O2, etc?
3) Whooptie do - intelligently-designed amino acids! This is an advertisement for ID, not for TOE.
Occam's Razor
1) Occam's Razor is highly subjective in its application.
2) One cause - God - is far simpler than the quadrillions of causes required for naturalistic abiogenesis.
3) OR doesn't apply when you have a choice between the impossible (noncaused events) versus the possible.
"In the past, natural explanations have replaced supernatural explanations.
In the meantime, you accept all this by faith that would put a Sunday School teacher to shame. Hardly the chest-thumping "we're the guardians of all reason!" I usually hear.
You are saying that, someday, alchemy will be shown to be valid. I'm not holding my breath.
I'll say it again - your faith that values can turn into their opposites given nothing more than time is astounding!
Ruling out a category of explanation a priori, though, is still something science is entitled to do.
No it's not; that's a metaphysical claim.
Science was not designed to tackle questions of the supernatural, nor can it be equipped to do so.
1) Then let it SAY so and stop doing it!
2) Lab science is also unqualified to make judgments on things that happened in the past, but that fact hasn't stopped it from doing so.
What would "faith" mean, say, to an atheist?
See above.
The emergence of new species is not microevolution, Rho.
Yes it is, sorry.
I'm looking for evidence that lizards turned into birds. That amoebae became mice. That sort of thing.
Can you propose to me anything, besides the constrictions of time, that would prevent that population's genetic changes from accumulating until the animals no longer look like lizards - they look more like something else, perhaps birds?
Yes, the fact that they're LIZARDS.
Hey man, ANYone can make up fairy tales like the one you've just dreamed up. It's less than evidence.
Is there any mechanism to stop or reverse the accumulation of these changes?
One thing that springs to mind is that "beneficial" mutations are highly rare; most mutations screw up organisms.
And I question, of course, the premise that more information can be added out of nowhere.
Oh yeah, that reminds me! TOE posits the creation ex nihilo of new information. It's most fascinating how this stuff pops up when you think about it a little. Which is one reason I'm not an atheist anymore.
Young Earth Creationism does not count as "another model" on the same level as actual science, Rho.
1) I'm brokenhearted that the Mighty G-Man doesn't count YEC as "real science".
2) Not that I care; I'm looking for the TRUTH, not "correct scientific procedure", which has apparently led to the hogwash that is TOE.
3) YEC is a model of origins; that's what I meant.
Necessarily YEC can account for anything: "God just put the fossils there, yo."
Precisely.
Why won't that count? Give me a reason beyond a naked assertion.
What we invariably find is that the deeper we dig, the less complex fossils we find.
1) Easily explainable in the YEC model.
2) Drawing assumptions based on these fossils does not impress me. I'm interested in arguments, not assumptions.
3) As Henry Gee's _In Search of Deep Time_ recently and eloquently pointed out, fossils tell you little.
4) The pattern is not as invariable as you claim it.
5) And sometimes these "fossils" are organisms that are still alive.
Anybody who says "We can't possibly know what killed the dinosaurs off, because we weren't there to see it," obviously does not put much stock in forensic science.
Forensic science is not the same as lab science.
And it's not repeatable. Therefore it is based on PROBABILITY and many assumptions. That's just the nature of the game.
Feel free to apply the same criticism to some of Dawkins' writings as well, if you'd like.
1) Dawkins' stuff doesn't even get that far - it has to make some rational sense before being submitted for peer review.
2) The writings from Dawkins to which I refer - his rantings on how evil religion is - are not peer-reviewed. Nor are they his field of expertise. Nor do they show any sophistication of argumentation.
But we CAN learn to what the fossils were related! We can know if they had children, an unfriendly divorce.
Haha. No you can't. Henry Gee, chief editor of Nature magazine, would disagree with you.
But I'm game - describe how we could know that.
we can know how long that species lived!
How?
Hopefully you're not overwhelmed.
Only by your faith. I'll say this - you make me a little embarrassed that I don't believe as fervently in my religion as you do in yours!
Peace,
Rhology
Please see my newest post, titled "more about science/atheism."
Post a Comment