I'm currently reading Dinesh D'Souza's new book Life and Death: The Evidence (which I'll be reviewing shortly). But in the meantime, I wanted to share a fun paragraph from P. 84...
The significance of the Anthropic Principle has not been lost on leading atheists who are desperate to avoid the obvious inference to a creator. Richard Dawkins, for example, concedes fine-tuning but argues that “it does not have to mean that the universe was deliberately made in order that we should exist. It need mean only that we are here, and we could not be in a universe that lacked the capacity of producing us.”
This in science is called a selection effect. The difficulty with Dawkins’ argument is exposed by philosopher John Leslie. Leslie asks, suppose a massive terrorist bomb explodes a few feet away from you. Given the extremely low odds, wouldn’t you be amazed to find yourself still alive? How impressed would you be with Dawkins’ contention that there was nothing to warrant surprise; obviously you had to have survived, because if you hadn’t you wouldn’t be here to discuss the subject.
Leslie’s point is that your survival under the circumstances remains highly improbable and in need of explanation. Fine tuning is even less likely than the odds of me buying a lottery ticket in all fifty states and winning every time. How clueless do you have to be to fail to recognize that something very strange is going on here?
A Darwin/I.D. Debate: Who Won?: Luke "The Common Sense Atheist" watches a debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and biologist Francisco Ayala about the viability of Intelligent Design. Who won, according to Luke? Craig! Listen here.
A Compilation of Francis Collins Crap: “People increasingly ask me about Francis Collins’s opposition of ID and what to make of it. The short answer is, 'Though a Christian, Collins is a thorough-going Darwinist, implacably opposes ID, asserts that it has been discredited scientifically, yet gives little evidence of understanding ID’s main arguments and refuses to engage proponents of ID in public discourse.' For the longer answer, see the following replies to Collins by ID proponents…”
Intelligence Squared Hosts a Debate over Catholicism. The debate motion was: “The Catholic church is a force for good in the world.” The audience voted before the debate began: 678 people were in favor of the church, 1102 were against it. But after the debate, they voted again. What happened? A massive 410 people changed their mind from supporting the Catholic Church to being against it. H/T: Luke.
9/11 All Over Again: "Nidal Hasan gave numerous indications to numerous individuals of his hostility and lack of loyalty to the United States, and even of his support for terrorism against the United States, but, like Col. Terry Lee whose TV interview I linked the other day, while they would disagree with him and criticize him (this was the 'harassment' of which he complained), none of them did anything about it…And so Nidal was remained ensconced in the U.S. Army, where he was at liberty to carry out a mass murder of unarmed soldiers who had been waiting for medical exams."
Evolutionist Flock to Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain: "A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin...'I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits,' said Darlene Freiberg." Yes, I know this is a spoof, but what makes it funny is that it has a degree of plausibility.
Why Ayn Rand is Hot Again: "Sources from the New York Times to the United Kingdom's Guardian agree that 2009 is the Year of Ayn Rand...Atlas Shrugged sold 25 percent more copies in the first half of this year than it sold in all of last year, shipping a total of 300,000 copies so far this year."
ARI Thrives Despite Recession:"The Ayn Rand Institute, the largest of the Rand think tanks... has seen revenues shoot up 26 percent over the past three years (to $6.3 million), while net assets jumped 30 percent (to $1.3 million)."
"Originally, atheists prided themselves on being no-nonsense empiricists, who limited their beliefs to what could be seen and measured. Now, we find ourselves in a situation in which the only alternative to belief in God is belief in an infinite number of unobservable parallel universes! You've come along way, baby!"
Yesterday, I wrote about the "Kumbaya Gang" (Robert Wright, Francis Collins, et al.) who want to create a comprehensive peace between Darwinists and believers. And what are the terms of such a peace? The believers must accept Darwinism and - in return - the Darwinists will kindly tolerant them. And what concessions do the Darwinists offer in return? Nothing - besides tolerance, of course. Swell deal.
Anyhoo...Apparently, the new Robert Wright book sparked an online debate between pro-Darwin professor Jerry Coyne and Jim Manzi(who's Jim Manzi? I have no idea. Apparently, he's a contributor to The American Scene). Today, another American Scene contributor - Noah Millman - decided to inject his wisdom into the evolutionary debate.
And how much wisdom did he provide? Not much. Apparently, Mr. Millman is eager to join the "Kumbaya Gang," but it's not clear if the Gang will accept him. Why? Well...you'd think the Gang must have some intellectual standards, right?
Anyhoo...I decided to write the following comment...
There's so much flawed thinking in this post, I'm not sure where to start.Some of the claims (like Darwinism is the "basis of all modern biology") are totally false and have been refuted convincingly and frequently.Therefore, I won't waste much time on them here (if you're interested, you can visit my website).
Instead, I'll focus on just one of Noah's mealy-mouthed, confused statements.
He writes...
"We have to distinguish between factual and hermeneutical claims...With hermeneutical claims, the question that arises is not truth but persuasiveness...The Anthropic Principle and the Many Worlds Hypothesis are competing hermeneutical frameworks for “answering” the question of why we live in a universe with intelligent life as opposed to one without intelligent life...These are hermeneutical rather than factual claims, because they cannot, in principle, be tested."
Umm, here's a factual claim: The universe is real!Oh, here's another one: There's no evidence - zilch - of any universes besides this one.Therefore, the Anthropic Principle is superior to the Many Worlds Hypothesis because it deals with something factual (OUR universe) rather than something that is speculative (OTHER universes).
I apologize in advance for my arrogant tone, but I'm not sure how else to react when such sloppy thinking is articulated in such a casual way.
-TW
This lead to an exchange with "Chet," a pro-Darwin advocate. I won't repost Chet's comments (you can read them here), but needless to say I wasn't impressed.
My first reply to Chet...
Chet: You’re repeating talking points from your college biology professor. Please study this issue before using cliches. Even an honest Darwinist would admit that this claim is bogus.
For example, take the pro-Darwin Penn University Professor Dr. Phillip Skell, who wrote a Feb. 2009 article in Forbes magazine, The Dangers of Selling Evolution.
One quote from his article will suffice:
“Experimental biology has dramatically increased our understanding of the intricate workings within living organisms that account for their survival, showing how they continue to function despite the myriad assaults on them from their environments. These advances in knowledge are attributable to the development of new methodologies and instruments, unimaginable in the preceding centuries, applied to the investigation of living organisms. Crucial to all fruitful experiments in biology is their design, for which Darwin’s and Wallace’s principles apparently provide no guidance.”
To repeat: Darwinism offers “no guidance” to experimental biology.
I’ll also quote from Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who admittedly is a Darwin skeptic, but his quip is too good to ignore: “The only area of thought in which evolutionary studies has a significant role is evolutionary studies. One could fit into a thimble the important scientific advances made possible by evolution.
-TW
And here's my second reply...
Chet: Repeating the same points over and over again isn't going to make them true.No, biology was NOT stamp collecting before Darwin.For example, Grey's Anatomy (the textbook, not the TV show) was published BEFORE Darwin.
You wrote, "The structure of DNA could not have been elucidated by Watson and Crick without knowing that it was the molecule of heredity – and why would anyone assume there was a mutable molecule of heredity except for Darwin?"
Again, this shows distortion and wishful thinking.The principles of genetic heredity were established by Gregor Mendel, NOT Darwin.In fact, Darwinists ignored Mendel's work for decades because it was believed to contradict Father Darwin.For more, see the Wikipedia entry on Mendel.
You wrote, "Why do all organisms (with nearly no exceptions) use the same 22 left-handed amino acids?"You use this as evidence of Darwinism.Actually, this is evidence for the idea of "common descent."Common descent does not equal Darwinism.Dr. Michael Behe, for example, one of the strongest Darwin critics, supports Common Descent, for example.
But I'm glad that you raised the issue of amino acids.What is most interesting is not the physical substance of amino acids, but the information CONTAINED INSIDE the physical substance.
The best way to understand DNA is through Information Theory.DNA is a code.A language.To quote Bill Gates, "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."
The computer you're using now wasn't created by accident, was it?
No.It was created by design.Purposeful design.
-TW
And lastly...
Chet,
In the words of Fred Hoyle (an esteemed astronomer): “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way [natural selection] is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
I wasn’t satisfied with the arguments that were being used, so I emailed Mr. Auster to voice my opinion…
I believe in the existence of God, but the arguments used in your blog post are not "logical, easy to understand, and unanswerable." Rather, they are flimsy, vague, and abstract. If you (or anyone else) wants to validate scientifically the existence of God, you have three solid arguments at your disposal: First is the Anthropic Principle (discovered by Brandon Carter in 1973) which proves (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the laws of physics were "pre-planned" to be "life-friendly" at the conception of the universe because even the slightest tinkering of those laws would make life anywhere impossible. Second is Intelligent Design in biology (best articulated by Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and others), in which the conception of purposeful Design is vastly superior to the blind, meaningless Darwinian paradigm of natural selection. In the past few decades, the evidence from DNA, irreducible complexity, and the fossil record plus the LACK of evidence for Darwinism has shifted the debate radically in favor of a divine solution. Finally, the vast collection of data from Near Death Experiences (NDEs) shows--again, beyond any reasonable doubt--that consciousness is independent of the brain and survives death, and thus, the materialist paradigm ("matter is all there is") is destroyed beyond any hope of repair. The philosophical implications of these breakthroughs is played out in my novel, The Mustard Seed.
A few minutes ago, Lawrence was kind enough to post my email on his website.
-Todd
**UPDATE, AUG. 14, 2009**
Since yesterday, Lawrence and I have exchanged a few emails, and someone named Sage McLaughlin has also provided some commentary (click on Lawrence’s website to read the whole exchange). In case – for some odd reason – my writings get deleted from Lawrence’s site, I’ve posted all of my comments bellow…
I read through Sage McLaughlin's post, and, I have to say, I don't think he characterized my views very well, or drew the right conclusions from them. First of all, I never said there is "scientific proof of God's existence." In fact, I agree with Sage that such a statement is impossible. Rather, I offered "three solid arguments" to "validate scientifically the existence of God." In other words, I am offering what I can consider to be the best arguments to "validate" God's existence through reason, not faith. If you have faith (as Sage apparently does), God bless him, but a lot of people don't have faith, and it's appropriate for us to persuade those people using the tools they are most familiar with--namely, science and reason. This entire discussion between us proves that when faith is absent (after all, we're not obligated to take Sage's opinion on faith), reason is the only means of communication.
I used three arguments for God's existence: The Anthropic Principle, Intelligent Design, and Near-Death Experiences. I'm not sure why Sage was so dismissive of these arguments. In the case of the first two arguments, if I understand him correctly, he's basically saying, "Yeah, they sort of imply God exists, but it doesn't clinch the argument." The only problem is I never claimed it would clinch the argument. As we all agree, the argument about God's existence cannot be clinched. However, just because we don't have certainty doesn't mean we can't go with the probabilities. In the case of the Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design, the probability that material forces can be responsible for the creation of life and the universe are so astronomically remote, any truly objective person would affirm that there is a non-material agent at work (specifically, God). To use an example: If you won the lottery 15 times in a row, I suppose you could shrug and say, "It's all chance," but an honest person would say, "I think the game is fixed." And in a sense, the game IS fixed. And that's important.
In the case of the final argument--Near Death Experiences--Sage is just plain wrong. Why? There are two overarching facts. First, these people are dead. Let me repeat that: DEAD. Whether it's for five minutes, 20 minutes, or some cases longer, they are dead. If you are dead, you cannot hallucinate. You cannot have any sensory or mental experience. Period. Second, there are many, many cases where dead people were later able to document events outside their body--i.e, they were able to describe what was happening in our hospital rooms, what their families were doing at home miles away, etc. This is so well-documented a ten minute Google search would suffice.
In conclusion, it's clear that Sage and I are people of faith who think faith is critical to saving our civilization. I respect him for that. But ultimately, I think he is too quick to dismiss my arguments, and in doing so, he is limiting our ability to actively engage and change our culture for the better.
Later – in response to some further commentary by Lawrence - I wrote…
I think your last post was fair and reasonable. However, I would like to reply to your conclusion, "I can't get all that excited about Back to Deism."
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I presume the source of that statement is an assumption that Deism does not feature a personal God; that God is effectively a "blind watchmaker." However, my faith (which I wouldn't describe as Deism, per se) DOES feature a personal God who loves us. Indeed, that is the evidence provided to us by Near-Dear Experiences and other major mystical events.
But there's an even larger point. For me, the "excitement" doesn't rest in faith directly. Faith itself is not the primary. What is primary is a life of rational self-empowerment. The conviction (supported by experience) that each person, through the use of his mind, is able to succeed and find happiness on this Earth. In other words, our happiness is not contingent on others. We are truly the authors of our own destiny--to the extent that we wish to pick up the pen and write our destiny. That--for me--at least, is something worth getting excited for.
Later still…
I agree that Deists usually use the Anthropic Principle to validate their philosophy. However, I would argue that people shouldn't limit their interpretation of the Anthropic Principle to Deism (the "blind watchmaker" thesis). We know the act of creation was "fine-tuned" to support life. To quote the physicist Freeman Dyson, "the universe knew we were coming." Life - and specifically, conscious human life - was planned from the start. As such, I think we can infer that God cares for his creation (human beings) and is invested in our progress. Indeed, once we recognize this powerful fact, it is
practically illogical to limit our faith to Deism.
There's a lot of talk these days about "the new atheism" - which, led by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens - advocates a louder, more aggressive stance against faith and religion. But there's NO talk about the "new theism." Of course, that's because the "new theism" hasn't been invented yet! But is such a thing as the "new theism" were to exist (and I'd like to think that The Mustard Seed may promote that occurance), here are some historical milestones in that journey. Specifically, I would consider the "new theism" to be a conjoining of science and faith (see Chapter 9 of The Mustard Seed for how that would work).
1973Brandon Carter states the “anthropic principle” at symposium honoring Copernicus's 500th birthday
I'll add to this list as things unfurl from my memory.
One observation: From 1973-96, there's a tremendous effort to build 1) the intellectual roots of the "new theism," and then 2) create institutions to advocate for it. Then, from 1997-2003, there's a large gap where nothing happens. Finally, in 2005, the Dover Trial turns I.D. into a major political ssue. Then, after another brief lull, in 2008,the release of Expelled marks I.D.'s transformation into a part of popular culture.
Where will I.D. go next? Since we already have the intellectual and organizational infrastructure, hopefully we can build on the success of Expelled and continuing reaching into the cultural mainstream.
