"Blogging from Chicagoland to the Nations about the Hope and Wholeness of Jesus Christ!"

Follow codytibm on Twitter

Resources on the Intelligent Design Debate

     In my review of Ben Stein’s Expelled, I kind of opened the can of worms that is the creation science debate.  I’m really not a scientist.  I enjoyed my undergrad astronomy and biotechnology courses (got an “A” in both, thank you), and had a good junior high science teacher (shout out to Coach Hamilton), but beyond that, I’m really trying to quit.  Biblical theology, on the other hand, is a different story.  So, what I thought I’d do here is begin by recommending a couple nice lay-level resources for those of you that really want to dig deeper into the whole intelligent design debate.  Then, in my next blog, I’ll move on to some Biblical thoughts about where we really need to be fighting this battle with Darwinism.

     The resources I like are first a DVD called The Case for a Creator.  This is a Lee Strobel documentary inspired by his book by the same name.  Here you have what is essentially a well-reasoned summary of the case in favor of intelligent design.  It is a well-made film that is both interesting and compelling, so you won’t have feel embarrassed showing it to your church, kids, friends, or whoever.  You will have a hard time finding it at your local rental store or even your public library, so you’ll need to just buy it, but I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

     Secondly, I’d recommend a book by apologist Hank Hanegraaff called The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution.  Hanegraaff is a master at presenting strong apologetic arguments in a memorable form.  In The Face, which I read years ago, some of the most basic arguments against Darwinism are presented.  Please don’t misunderstand what I mean by “basic.” I don’t mean simplistic.  I mean that these are arguments that are simple to communicate and grasp but nearly impossible to answer.  For example, one of Hanegraaff’s chapters is on chance.  Atheistic Darwinism simply has no choice but to rely on random chance to explain the origin of biological life.*  Hanegraaff provides a compelling argument based on statistical analysis to demonstrate that “chance doesn’t have a chance.”

     I like to think of the chance argument in Yahtzee terms—a game that we just don’t play enough anymore.  All of you who have played know how hard it is to role a Yahtzee (all 5 dice showing the same face).  I mean it happens, but not every game—and you get three rolls per turn.  Now, imagine you only got one roll.  Well, now rolling a Yahtzee is going to be more like a once-a-year phenomenon.   Now double the number of dice and all the sudden rolling a Yahtzee becomes a once-in-a-lifetime event.  Make it, say, 50 dice, and now rolling a Yahtzee will simply never happen.  Even if that’s all you did over and over again without so much as a potty break, you just are never going to be able to put 50 dice in a cup and have them all come out with the same value.  Now, I’ll leave it to higher minds to figure out just how many dice you’d really have to put into the cup to accurately parallel your chances of “rolling” a single protein molecule.  I just know it’s more than 50.

     At the end of the day, this is really the old “watchmaker argument” (or teleological argument), rehashed.  I once heard a Darwinist say so as if simply identifying it as “the old watchmaker argument” actually defeats the argument.  It doesn’t, by the way.  It is amazing how questions that are never adequately answered just don’t go away.  The simple fact is that the Darwinist is in trouble on this issue because they cannot get the evolutionary engine running without someone turning the key. 

     So, check out these resources and let me know what you think.  Also, if you have read or watched something that you found helpful on this issue, let us all know in the comments section of this blog.

 

Blessings.

 

 

 

[* Yes, I am aware that some Darwinists posit a theory of origins that suggests that biological life was “seeded” on our planet by some highly evolved organism—think: Mission to Mars, the Gary Sinise movie.  This is essentially a space alien theory, which, silliness aside, only kicks the can down the road a bit further.  I mean, how did the aliens come into existence?]

 

20 comments (Add your own)

1. Cody wrote:
This thread seems lonely next to its many-a-commented-upon predecessor. So, here's a comment just to make it feel better.

January 3, 2009 @ 2:58 PM

2. trimtab wrote:
"[* Yes, I am aware that some Darwinists posit a theory of origins that suggests that biological life was “seeded” on our planet by some highly evolved organism—think: Mission to Mars, the Gary Sinise movie. This is essentially a space alien theory, which, silliness aside, only kicks the can down the road a bit further. I mean, how did the aliens come into existence?]"

You're taking this from the Dawkins interview in Expelled, right? Stein apparently asked Dawkins if he could imagine, at all, an intelligent designer, capable of producing life, and what form this designer could take. The movie, through simple editing, makes Dawkins' answer seem as though he believes in this hypotheses. But Dawkins absolutely does not ascribe any significant probability to this hypothesis. He has said so before, and after Expelled, and also pointed out in numerous interviews how such a hypothesis answers nothing about the origin of life.

This in intellectually dishonest on the part of Expelled's authors. All documented at www.expelledexposed.com.

January 18, 2009 @ 1:29 AM

3. trimtab wrote:
"Atheistic Darwinism simply has no choice but to rely on random chance to explain the origin of biological life.* Hanegraaff provides a compelling argument based on statistical analysis to demonstrate that “chance doesn’t have a chance.”"

1) The theory of evolution is not, per se, atheistic.
2) Evolution does not rely on chance. It is very much non-random.

You are peddling falsehoods and, by extension, disinformation. You so badly want opposing arguments to evolution to be right, that you're willing to risk being wrong. So sad. Get an education.

January 18, 2009 @ 1:38 AM

4. trimtab wrote:
"It is amazing how questions that are never adequately answered just don’t go away."

The reason the teleological argument is rejected by the scientists in general, and biologists in particular, is because there exist other means of obtaining order and design, which do not involve intelligence or cognition.

Occam's Razor, remember?

January 18, 2009 @ 1:43 AM

5. Cody wrote:
Trimtab,

Not a lot of time. Let's see how quick I can be.

Seeding theory - got that from Crick. Dawkins does mention it in the video, but Crick made the theory famous.

"1) The theory of evolution is not, per se, atheistic."

I know, I am referring specifically to "atheistic Darwinism" - Darwinism that is atheistic. Theistic evolutionists are excused from that line of argument.

Without intelligent design, of course, I think the argument from chance stands. And I invite you to demonstrate how something can come from nothing.

Occam's Razor. Yeah, I pretty much think the Razor is stupid. I mean who's to say the simplest explanation is the best or even what explanation is really the simplest.

January 18, 2009 @ 3:20 AM

6. trimtab wrote:
"Without intelligent design, of course, I think the argument from chance stands."

Using another argument from personal incredulity, or ignorance? Is your opinion based on empirical evidence? If so, then what evidence? If not, then you're being dogmatic, i.e., non-scientific. What you believe is worthless if you can't back it up.

"And I invite you to demonstrate how something can come from nothing."

I don't know where this expression comes from and what it has to do with this debate. I've heard many creationists throw it around, as a sort of bravado/refutation of evolution. But there seems to be a gap in the reasoning.

Firstly, evolutionary theory addresses and explains the diversity of life, once life appears. Secondly, abiogenesis is a field which addresses the question of how life arose in the absence of previously existing life. Now, you're presumably talking about the origin of matter or the origin of the Universe in the absence of said matter or Universe. Those are somewhat different considerations.

Personally, I don't know how one explain could explain the apparition of matter, the cosmos, etc. I don't know if science is able to address this issue, yet, or will ever be able to do so. However, saying "I don't know," does not imply that just any alternative is scientifically valid. If you're trying to claim that since science is unable to answer where matter comes from, therefore, the personal god of the bible is scientifically true and is responsible for the apparition of matter and the pooffing into existence of life (plants, animals, and humans) 6000 years ago, then that's a bit of a stretch.

It does not follow that because science does not know how life arose in the first place that Genesis is true. That's a non sequitur, to say the least.

"Occam's Razor. Yeah, I pretty much think the Razor is stupid. I mean who's to say the simplest explanation is the best or even what explanation is really the simplest."

It's funny how, historically, scientists have quite unanimously converged and accepted "simpler" theories, but you, Cody, do not. You don't accept this meta-scientific principle, because... because you might misconstrue the notion of "simplicity" or how to attribute it to an explanation? Luckily for you, scientists and philosophers of science have thought this through long ago. The notion of simplicity is limited to a narrow understanding pertaining to "entities." (Look up one of my other posts in the Expelled thread.) These are fundamental concepts a theory must invoke in order to achieve the necessary explanatory power. Sure, it's often difficult to compare theories, but that's science for ya.

What would you do when confronted with two, otherwise identical, theories? How would you distinguish which one is more accurate/true. There may be cases where this is not possible to decide. Up till now, that has not been a significant problem for scientists. Currently, ID is so deficient, there is no need to invoke Occam's Razor. It can't even get past falsifiability.

January 18, 2009 @ 5:03 PM

7. bigbadbedwetter wrote:
This is quite the interesting article to me because I've heard and have been using the "Yahtzee argument" illustrate to creationist how evolution by natural selection works. It works just like Yahtzee in that complexity is built up through many iterations of trial and error with the successes being kept to possibly be part of a more complex set. In other words, the complexity produced by evolution through natural selection is not the process that you describe in this article of putting all 50 die in the cup every time and starting from scratch every try. As you point out in this article, keeping desired, random outcomes of each shake greatly increases the odds of getting organized results. Which is what evolution by natural selection is.

January 28, 2009 @ 5:12 AM

8. Cody wrote:
BBBW,thank you for your comment.

What you are describing seems to be a fair representation of what is meant by natural selection. However, you may be misunderstanding how I am using the "Yahtzee argument." The question I am raising is related to the origin of biological life, not the development. Because there is a certain level of irreducible complexity in the most basic building blocks of life (e.g. protein molecules), you are indeed stuck having to role an impossible Yahtzee to get the evolutionary machine running in the first place.

January 28, 2009 @ 6:59 AM

9. bigbadbedwetter wrote:
Natural selection applies to abiogenesis/chemical evolution too because the process is the same as Yahtzee and dissimilar to the "starting from scratch every time" method that you proposed with your 50 die illustration. Applied to chemical evolution, irreducible complexity relies on there being no possible way for parts of a protein molecule to exist other than as part of a complete protein molecule. That assumption has to be considered as unfounded at best. Here is an old video of Richard Dawkins (no gray hair :D ) explaining how a human eye could have evolved from simpler forms and have been useful at each stage of development.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4742301713635559854

If such a complex structure as the human eye can be shown not to be irreducibly complex, then surely it is believable that a much simpler thing as protein molecule might not be irreducibly complex, and we can't assume that protein molecules are irreducibly complex. Even if that irreducibly complexity assumption were true for proteins, and your "50 die start from scratch every time model" was how it had to happen, there were in effect innumerable billions upon billions of trial and error attempts at forming a complete protein molecule going on simultaneously and consecutivly. Your 50 die example includes only one cup to shake the die in at a time when a closer approximation to our universe would be innumerable billions of cups shaking 50 die each simultaneously as well as consecutively faster than is humanly possible. This is why I think your 50 die model and other similar probability calculations are deeply flawed and assumptions of irreducible complexity unfounded.

January 28, 2009 @ 6:49 PM

10. Cody wrote:
BBBW,

Does your nickname imply that you are bad at bed wetting or that your a really good at it?

Anyway, I watched the Dawkins video and honestly don't find it very compelling. I don't think he really shows "how" this can happen. He rather just speculates on how it would have to happen without an intelligent designer. My first question comes at the very beginning. He starts with a "sheet of light sensitive cells." I'm not really sure what that is, but I wonder where it came from. I mean, my skin is light-sensitive, but that's not what he means. He's got a "sheet" that can photographically distinguish light from dark - which has to include sending image-like messages to the brain. Look, I really am a layman on these things, but I don't know how you get the eyeball rolling - so to speak.

Plus, you have to assume that extraordinarily small mutations (like a very small part of a single light-sensitive cell) provide your animal with some kind of advantage in reproduction. I can't really imagine how.

The protein molecule, I think, really is a different ball game. You have to make a transition from inorganic to organic. But natural selection is all about biological reproduction and genetics right? Inorganic matter doesn't procreate and pass down genetic info. You have dice in a cup and you really do have to get the right combo for things to work.

Now, I would venture to say (not being a statistician) that you'd actually need a few more than 50 dice to really approximate the "rolling" of a protein molecule. I think it is a number with quite a few zeros after it. And there comes a point, I think, when your probabilities are so low that it really just ceases to be existentially possible (even if it is mathematically so). My wife, who was a math minor, is having a bit of a problem with that idea. Math is supposed to work. But I have no particular allegiances to it (and math has never been all that good to me). The funny thing about stats is that while coin flips are supposed to be 50/50 and it works out that if you flip the coin enough it does tend to work out that way, it doesn't do so perfectly. And, everybody has flipped 3-4 heads in a row. Of course, everybody is going to bet on tails with the next flip, but there is nothing to say that it won't be heads again. There is no force of probability that is helping you "roll your protein." Not to mention that you don't have any driving force that requires rolling to even happen. Why assume that your dice aren't just sitting in the cups gathering dust?

Anyway, I'm pondering. I appreciate your comments.

January 28, 2009 @ 8:31 PM

11. bigbadbedwetter wrote:
I think that you're being a bit obtuse here. The Dawkins video is spoon feeding the information to you in very simple terms, yet you are veering off on tangent subjects of not being able to imagine how light sensitivity is an advantage to an organism, brains and simpler cell structures than was the scope of the video. It seems a waste of time to converse with someone who would present an argument from incredulity as even worth the waste of time to type the words "I can't really imagine how." You don't even seem to know what an organic molecule is nor could you bother to Google it to find out before you posted. No wonder you have such a hard time imagining how this universe works, you don't even know the definition of the words that you use. So, I'll leave you to your bubble of fantasy that you insulate so well with the words "I can't really imagine how." Enjoy.

January 28, 2009 @ 10:12 PM

12. trimtab wrote:
Cody wrote:

"Plus, you have to assume that extraordinarily small mutations (like a very small part of a single light-sensitive cell) provide your animal with some kind of advantage in reproduction. I can't really imagine how."

Small mutations -- small parts of cells? I can't parse this. Whatever.

First, mutations, even small ones, can affect more than just "one" cell in a multi-celled organism. Secondly, mutations, whether beneficial or detrimental, may not reveal them selves to be so immediately. Some can, but no all. Mutations can accumulate in a population, albeit slowly, and only when an environmental change occurs will these mutations reveal themselves to be beneficial or detrimental. Only then would advantageous mutations propagate through the species rapidly.

Perhaps you'd like to look up "phototaxis" or "phototropism" just to imagine what advantages might be had by developing a thin layer of photosensitive cells.

Also, the following link is interesting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030215105.htm

January 28, 2009 @ 10:57 PM

13. Cody wrote:
Ah, the old "your-just-stupid-and-i'm-not-going-to-talk-to-you-anymore" argument. Nice.

Bottom line again is that I have honest questions. You may think the questions are stupid, but as long as you make no effort to answer them, they remain questions.

So, I repeat two key ones for me:

1. How do you go from not having any "light-sensitive cells" to having a "sheet of light sensitive cells" that allow the brain to distinguish light from dark?

2. How does natural selection transform inorganic material into organic material?

January 29, 2009 @ 9:10 AM

14. trimtab wrote:
Cody wrote:

"1. How do you go from not having any "light-sensitive cells" to having a "sheet of light sensitive cells" that allow the brain to distinguish light from dark?"

As per the article linked in my last post, by having the light-sensitive cells being nothing other than brain cells to begin with. Of course, this does not answer the question of "what does a light-sensitive brain cell do to an organism so as to give it a procreative advantage?". I'll try to find that out for ya.

"2. How does natural selection transform inorganic material into organic material?"

Personally, I don't know. I'll try to find that out for ya as well.

January 29, 2009 @ 1:31 PM

15. trimtab wrote:
Oh darn. I just remembered. You don't need natural selection to go from inorganic to organic. It happens all the time. Even in space. Naturally. Mindlessly. By design. Naturalistic mindless design, that is.

January 29, 2009 @ 4:17 PM

16. Cody wrote:
Hmmm . . . even in space? I'll just let that comment hang there. Mindless design. Nice.

It happens all the time? Maybe my head has been in the sand for too long. When?

January 29, 2009 @ 4:34 PM

17. trimtab wrote:
A priori, I would tend to think that natural selection has nothing to do with the emergence of primitive life, or self-replicating molecules, other than if a series of systems might had been involved in the emergence of the first cellular life forms. It appears that current cellular life forms might be the by-product of evolutionary forces, i.e. of adaptation and symbiosis. That's Lynn Margulies' hypothesis.

Plainly put, I don't think there's a working and accepted scientific theory that explains the origin of life. I.e., we don't know, scientifically speaking.

What you do after that, that's your call. Scientists tend to pursue research. IDers tend to infer "therefore, ID-did-it(TM)." Religious folks tend to infer "therefore, God-did-it(TM)". Scientists reply that "'ID-did-it(TM)' and 'God-did-it(TM)' do not follow necessarily from the absence of a working scientific theory."

January 29, 2009 @ 5:16 PM

18. trimtab wrote:
Cody Wrote:

"Hmmm . . . even in space? I'll just let that comment hang there. Mindless design. Nice.
It happens all the time? Maybe my head has been in the sand for too long. When?"

I just took the following snippets from Wikipedia:

"Origin of organic molecules
There are two possible sources of organic molecules on the early Earth:
Terrestrial origins - organic synthesis driven by impact shocks or by other energy sources (such as ultraviolet light or electrical discharges) (eg.Miller's experiments).
Extraterrestrial origins - delivery by objects (eg carbonaceous chondrites) or gravitational attraction of organic molecules or primitive life-forms from space.
Recently, estimates of these sources suggest that the heavy bombardment before 3.5 Gyr ago within the early atmosphere made available quantities of organics comparable to those produced by other energy sources.[29]"

and

"Spaceborne organic molecules:
A 2008 analysis of 12C/13C isotopic ratios of organic compounds found in the Murchison meteorite indicates a non-terrestrial origin for these molecules rather than terrestrial contamination. Biologically relevant molecules so identified included uracil, an RNA nucleobase, and xanthine.[24][25]"

and from
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060808_st_life_molecules.html

"The newfound molecules bring the total number of biologically-relevant molecules found in interstellar space to 141."

Then take it out of the sand, open your eyes, and actually use them.

January 29, 2009 @ 9:23 PM

19. Cody wrote:
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, guffaw, snort, ha, hee, ha.

January 29, 2009 @ 9:32 PM

20. Cody wrote:
Sorry . . . give me a minute . . .

January 29, 2009 @ 9:32 PM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.


Click here to see all TIBM recommended books, films, and music.


If you are South Asian young adult in Chicagoland, help us out by taking this quick survey.

The Ramblings Archive Month by Month