The arrows of my title are not being directed toward Richard Dawkins, one of the two people engaged in this extraordinary conversation. My title is directed toward creationist Wendy Wright. Her obstructionist tactics suggest that it is simply not fruitful to discuss evolution by natural selection with someone who doesn’t understand it and doesn’t want to understand it.
I’ve pasted Part 2 of 7 of this exchange above. The other parts are available at Youtube. Richard Dawkins is a model of patience here. Ms. Wright repeatedly invokes a handful of tactics to stretch out this ostensible conversation endlessly. One tactic is to change the topic whenever Dawkins tries to focus upon real world facts. Another is to send out broad accusations, such as accusing Darwin of racism when, in reality, the Victorian world was filled with people who held views that would now be considered racist and, in fact, Darwin and his writings were notably not racist. In fact, Darwin expressed abolitionist views.
In a recent comment I wrote the following:
I’m tempted to begin a new “policy” from today forward. Those disparaging the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection must, in order to deserve a reply (other than a copy and paste of this comment) must, in their own words, describe the basic elements of the theory and at least a few of the many types of evidence supporting the theory. They must also make it clear that they know how a scientific theory differs from pure speculation.
It is my repeated impression that those attempting to criticize the facts and theory of evolution by natural selection are actually attacking some something else, something that biologists, geo-biologists, geneticists, botanists and other scientists do not support. In short, they are attacking straw men. The only reasonable reply to such attacks is to direct the commenter to set aside a few hours and to read a good book on natural selection.
There’s a lot more discussion about this video a website with a most extraordinary name: WhyWontGodHealAmputee.com. Soricidae’s Blog offers a play by play for one section of the Wright-Dawkins exchange.
Karl writes:—"Why is there no known paired gravitational repulsion force to the gravitational attraction force between masses?"
Because it is not a force in the same way electromagnetism is—it's an effect. My reading of Einstein has always suggested that and further discussion with a number of physicists over the years has confirmed it. This is an unfortunate consequence of the language. Gravity is a consequence of warped spacetime, not a "force", which is also why it is the weakest of the four.
—"Explain how any model that uses random variation and/or spontaneous change which is a mathematical construct can ever fully be said to be scientifically credible? Sounds like one big crap shoot to me with the odds way less favorable than craps."
To take it out of the realm of biology for a moment, it's called Quantum Mechanics, which has oodles and oodles of experimental verification.
I suspect that you, like many others, tend to misconstrue "random" as "chance" or "luck." Random merely means that the change indicated has an unpredictable time and form of manifestation, not that its manifestation is in any way unlikely.
Really, Karl, some of this is basic stuff.
Karl
Not only are you swimming with lead straws, you now have enough to make little homunculi! so cute!
In order, then
Why do you suppose there must be one? Actually, there are many hypotheses regarding 'repulsion' (it's part of almost every cosmological theory somewhere, and is part of 'M' theory that you were noising about last week) but it's generally posited to be effective only at extremely small scales (sub planck length) but, of course, you already know this, being so au fait with science, and all.
However – so far as I know science has made no claim (many hypotheses but no claim) that there must be a repulsive force. Various scientists have postulated that a repulsive force would be 'cleaner' and neater. But that's just people seeking order. Sometimes there is asymmetry (such as the preponderance for left handed amino acids — one theory for why involves the effect of water on bond energies. It's real science all the way down)
So – one strawman down. Oh you have more – oh good [/snark].
Perhaps you don't understand what the forces are nor what effect they have.
Gravity is a very small magnitude force, but like all others, it is relentless. We only notice it because the masses involved are so large.
Electromagnetism suffices to drown out and overcome the effect of gravity, even at extremely low field strengths (have you ever played with electromagnets, or even simple iron magnets). (it was through balancing these two forces that Milliken demonstrated and calculated the charge on the electron in his famous 'oil drop' experiment. Consider the mass and charge of the electron, versus the mass of the oildrop that was overcome in that simple but brilliant demonstration.). Also – go do some reading on the heliopause, and then come back and explain to me what that means for electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of Sol. (consider it some homework)
Weak, and Strong nuclear are even more local, because the things they affect, are already tightly bound. We can liberate some of the binding electro-weak or electro-strong energy (through fusion or fission) – which is why nuclear explosions are so devastating.
Asking WHY gravity is the weakest is simply a question with a null response. It simply IS that force, and it simply ACTS on gross matter. it's the one we notice the most so, of course, we ascribe to it much greater importance. But without the others, we would have no life. No fusion to create new elements, and no fusion to provide an abundance of photon energy to power our life and our world, no chemistry to enable the extraction and conversion of that energy to other forms.
So your question may sound intriguing, but is actually stupid – it implies some intent or precedence in the structuring of the various interactive forces governing the universe. There is none. It just is.
Nope: That's YOUR understanding of biology and cell theory. What we KNOW is that at some point in history, pre-biotic chemicals chanced upon a structure that allowed self replication. After still further time, such self-replicating pre-biotics evolved into the cellular biotic life that recognize.
We already know many examples of self replicating chemicals (there have been numerous 'pop science' write ups – so go look for yourself, it will be instructive)
We also know that it is both simple and straightforward for lipids to form enclosing membranes. (also – many experiments… plus a whole heap of process engineering to avoid lipid membranes forming in production facilities… they are actively avoided as they case problems for 'compounding' and later mixes and reactions)
We have also observed in experiments, lipid membranes enclosing 'chemical packages'.
That is the path – hypothesized. No one saw it. No one, likely, ever will. But I feel pretty certain that we'll be building completely custom cells in a generation of two at the most.
But you really don't like that chance is a sufficient answer – despite the fact that we are here at the far end of that chance event. What most creationists who use math to discredit such chance events fail to note is that it only takes that first event to happen (not very unlikely). When it does the subsequent events have much greater potential — it is easier to get to cells if you already have lipid membranes, for instance. But you guys want it all to come in one package. One moment undifferentiated chemical soup, next moment, BLAM!, a cell!
Sorry to disappoint, but the scientific consensus is that it happened gradually in the way I described. Hand waving a god into the equation is a lot less likely and realistic than predicating the transition events leading from pre- to post-biotic.
And another lead homunculus sinks below the waves. glug.
Well if you state it like that it does sound unlikely – but perhaps you should pay some credence to reality and less to your preferred strawmen.
Lets do this again.
Changes happen (we know this from observation and experiment). These changes are stochastic in nature.
Then – in conjunction with the environment (breeding partners, competitors, etc.) those chance 'mutations' are either preserved or discarded. If preserved, they form the basis for further change and mutation.
Mutations that damage thee ability to propagate are negatively selected, unless breeding occurs before the negative effect normally manifests (propensity for arthritis, or short-sightedness are two examples – generally age related, genetically carried, does not impact breeding ability)
You only see the negative effect (mutation is always bad) when we KNOW this is not the case. In fact, the majority of mutations are 'null events' neither bad nor good. However, minor changes add up, and will eventually lead to changes that do impact abilities and capabilities. That's it. That's evolution. You seem to be stuck on some 1950's anti-fallout propagandist's version of mutation.
SO in general – good try at putting together some questions. Questions are good. I love questions. I enjoy the Socratic approach to learning, so questions are where I'm happiest!
However, next time expend some effort and make then actual questions, not simply poorly-disguised strawmen.
Mark says:
"But there’s no ultimate Why. You’re looking for meaning. You have to make that for yourself."
The "meanings" established by too many people have little to do with emotional honesty, but are rather ego building worldviews constructed to protect their partial answers to ultimate questions from critical analysis.
I would like to think that intellectual knowledge is not a type of meaning that means more to me than interpersonal relatedness, but I know at times I do favor the defense of my thoughts as something I cling to and this shows itself in a preference to rather not risk public scrutiny of a priori beliefs.
I'm not looking for meaning in the sense of interpreted information or declarative factual knowledge whether specific or general. Solomon shows us how vain and futile such an endeavor can actually be.
People reach for the golden ring and somehow its just been moved out of reach once again. I'm not even looking for the grand unifying theory of everything.
I'm looking for the grand unifying ground of existence that is best explained as honesty in relation to myself and honesty in my relationships with other people.
This is essentially the equivalent of loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.
It is my reactions towards other people in regards to my own experiences and my presumed a priori assumptions (knowledge) that I find I constantly search for ways to better understand the relational dynamics that are present during interactions.
This is the self-examined life that does not try to assume that I can create a meaning for life from the materials, chemical processes and emergent behaviors that I could call the sum of my experience.
If I either knowingly or unknowingly fail to consider the experiences of others to be potentially as valid as my own I have put my personal intellectual knowledge on such a level that I risk losing the only sense of meaning that matters in the end.
Did you ever consider both your proponents and your opponents’ experiences as two sides of the same coin?
Do you consider that any piece of evidence could actually be validly interpreted in more than one way which means one or both sets of a priori assumptions could be in error or even both correct?
I can clearly see a progression in the history of university science instruction. If there are no ultimate explain how this occurred?
I can see how Darwin's ideas were used by proponents of atheism to consider that perhaps a creator was no longer necessary and then ultimately these same proponents dictated that no longer was a creator not needed but that he had worn out a welcome as part of the a priori beliefs of "respectable" science.
Science for what its worth should at least be open to considering the same evidence used for support of evolution as having other possible interpretations.
To be unwilling to consider that the inferences of a theory could be wrong reveals intellectual dishonesty and knowledge run amuck through the formation of unverified facts with only circular reasoning to support the foundation.
I can also see how those who hold to there being more to life than physiological responses find it very offensive when matters like the "spirit" are kept from discussion and therefore out of consideration as a rational way of thinking.
Each statement
1) There is evidence for a creator.
2) There is no evidence for a creator.
is claimed to be a priori knowledge, neither one can be shown by using interpreted evidence from science to be false
Karl has an odd habit of asking questions, posed as insoluble or irrefutable, that we have already fully answered.
Answering both his #1 and #2: Gravity is weak compared to any other known force at a short distances (Planck lengths, microns, meters). However, it is a unary force; there simply is no anti-gravity. It only adds, never cancels. So it adds up very predictably over great distances (thousands of miles, light years, etc). Most other forces are binary, like electricity. Charges cancel out in the aggregate, so are weak over distances.
Your first #3: All currently known living cells are highly evolved, complex aggregates containing at least two distinct sets of DNA. Precursor cells were simpler, and their nature is revealed by studying actual parts of cells. Back in 2007, we posted The Origin of Life Just Got Easier. In 2008, we shared this video on The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis. These are both current theories backed by evidence on how proto-cells probably evolved; missing links between non-life and life.
Karl's second #3 calls into question the statistical methods that form the foundation of most science. Apparently he claims that any model that uses Gaussian synthesis (bell curve fitting, random assumptions) to show likelihood is the same as saying "I dunno". Randomness of a single result does not mean unpredictable in the aggregate. Craps players know that seven is six times as likely as snake-eyes. Randomness is well studied. Now we have chaos theory to take many things that used to be considered random and rigorously model their behavior.
Dan and Erich,
There are two ways in which "why" terminolgy can be put forward, either as a causal relationship or as a premise (or definition) in support of an argument.
I apparently need to spell out that "premises in support of an argument" are obviously what I was talking about when I stated that people commonly take an answers to who, what, where, when and how questions and substitute them as valid answers to the causitive "why" inquiries.
Hope that clarifies the last post a little bit.
You can define something from so many angles and so thoroughly that you can eventually believe your description explains the existence of things like a unary force. Good job Luke Skywalker, you have described the contradictory nature of the phenomenon being observed.
Doesn't work for me.
Even mathematical models including statistical analysis are only descriptive of what is observed, they are not causitively responsible for what they are describing.
Karl: An explanation is a description that makes you feel good. For me to feel good, though, it takes a self-critical explanation substantiated by precise experiments or findings.
Here's what continues to amaze me. You are playing a shell game and you won't admit it. For science, you require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For religion, mere speculation is good enough, even if it is not based on any evidence and even if it conflicts with facts that are well known.
Just an FYI when paragraphs utilizing the following phrases "it is assumed that", It is probable", this suggests that, or "the idea is", this is not evidence. But if you put the words "highly" in front, such as "it is highly probable" or "strongly suggested", well, it sounds more convincing,but still not evidence. Combining dismissive ridicule and assertiveness is a common tactic amongst atheists and evolutionists alike, thus trying to make their arguments sound more persuasive.
Microevolution is a slam dunk, no one argues with microevolution. It is macroevolution that lacks credible evidence. Here is an example of Richard Dawkins "computer games". He programs a computer to generate random combinations of letters and then compares them with a target sequence that forms an intelligible sentence. Any matching letters that occur in the same position as the target sequence are retained. The computer replaces the rest with other random selection of letters. This continues until all the letters match the target sequence. The computer takes maybe about 40 tries. Excuse me, Mr Dawkins, this kindergartner has a question. How many tries would it take to simultaneously produce the entire sequence of letters and spaces by pure chance? This simulation theory is totally unrealistic.
Science, is a great thing. It has contributed to many beneficial advancements in the medical community in particular. The treatment of diabetes, cervical cancer and breast cancer are a tiny few of the many benefits of science. These studies all produce evidence. It is a fact that excessive sun exposure causes skin cancer. It is not a fact that sea sponges considered "not true animals" and do not have a gut and nervous system, but have the "developmental toolkit" to possibly develop a nervous system and it therefore poses a "strong argument" that the animal kingdom "may have evolved" from these organisms some 600 million years ago. Also, Do you know what all of those intentional experiments on fruit flies produced? FRUIT FLIES.
Doesn't critical thinking require the use of the "why" question? How can anyone come to a comprehensive opinion or conclusion without asking this very important question? I have been fortunate enough to see the workings of the human body almost everyday, the human body is truly amazing. I have seen too many brains to count. However, I have never seen the mind. The mind is an intrinsic invisible part of man. Parallel this with the spirit of a man. No one has ever seen the spirit of a man. It is this spirit combined with the mind that asks the important "why" questions, which eventually leads him to the true knowledge of Christ. This has been my own personal experience.
Walter: Please go read a good book on evolution. Only then will I respond. You are not attacking science here. You are demonstrating that you do not understand what biologists have shown.
Wait a minute – has AiG posted some new talking points? Suddenly the comments are chock full of epistemology!
Walter – when I make a statement using "it is highly probable" or "the evidence suggests" – that is simply echoing the approach used by science. EVERY STATEMENT IS A QUALIFIED STATEMENT.
Absolutes are for authoritarian deists – people who think everything comes from a sky-fairy.
There are no absolutes. So qualification is simply saying "so far as we know this is the case, but new evidence may arise that will cause me to rethink, and restate… so everything I say is provisional and entirely based upon the evidence presented"
Sorry to disappoint you.
Oh, and Dawkin's little program. You don't understand it. Your buddies don't understand it. It was a simple metaphor – not a simulation, not a 'template' and never an "accurate model of evolution". So don't attempt to portray it as such.
Karl: regarding
You mean the way that Christians reference the bible as the word of god, and state that they know it is the word of god because it says so in the bible (and because other people tell them it is so). Of course, no good Christian would lie, and certainly the word of god could never be a lie, so of course the bible is the word of god.
Or were you referring to something else?
Karl
You need to go back to the dictionary and really understand the meaning if words…
You state that because science states that there is no evidence for a creator, that somehow that implies an a priori assumption on the part of science.
um, no.
What that means is simply that no evidence exists that defines and determines the necessity for a creator.
Do you understand that yet.
Also – science also makes the claim there is no evidence for leprechauns. Is science making any a priori assumptions here about the physics of rainbows or the magic of four-leaf clovers?
Nope. Didn't think so.
You can't just change the rules of argument and evidence mid-stream because it doesn't suit your position. Get with the program.
Evidence means evidence. Lack of evidence is simply lack of evidence.
You are the one tap-dancing on the head of a pin. Maybe you need to stop, lie down, and have a little nap?
Erich, re Karl
You are playing a shell game and you won’t admit it. For science, you require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For religion, mere speculation is good enough, even if it is not based on any evidence and even if it conflicts with facts that are well known.
Bravo, and well said!
You win two internets!
Tony (and Karl): It is this shell game that convinces me that it is not furthering any understanding by engaging with Karl. Unless, of course, he would admit that he was playing this shell game. Maybe then, it would be worth it to further discuss any of these topics with Karl.
Karl, are you subjecting your religious beliefs and scientific theories to the same standard of proof?
Erich, Tony and Dan,
In case you haven't noticed. You have answered my "why" questions with who, what, where, when, and how answers. Seems to me that one of you would have
somehow got up the gumption to say at some point along the way. "I don't really know the answer to the "why" questions."
This is the clearest example I can give of how a bunch of "who, what , where, when and how" answers that claims to be a sufficient descriptions of plain specific scientific observations goes one step beyond certitude and makes the evidence related causally to the existence of the observations.
Nearly everything you have been saying goes back to what you claim science or scientists "know" or have "evidence" about.
Not one of the matters you have so succinctly "enlightened" me about gets to the root of the matter. Why is anyone, anything, anyplace. anytime and anymeans possible able to provide a sufficient answer to a "why" question for you?
I have stated what people have come to convince themselves are the best answers to use have put together for themselves and others what they scientifically understand about a given set of observations. The "Why" has not been answered.
Well, you can go right on trying to convince others that what you have is an air tight case for the elimination of a creator but I'll just leave the ultimate answers to any "why" questions I may be in doubt about in a place where the mind of man can't think it has the answers.
This is what people have meant for centuries that you can't put God in a box.
Karl
We haven't answered your question of "Why" because there is no why to answer.
Our understanding of cognition and human psyche informs us of our need to explain – we build narratives, and as with every good narrative, we expect there to be a writer for that narrative – the ultimate story-teller.
There is no story teller, other than ourselves. We have woven the narrative of life, and decorated it over time with legends and gods. They are our creation.
You ask why. I answer, because of this, that, and that other. You presume these answers to be insufficient, because you still feel emotionally dissatisfied. Surely there's more? What is he not telling me? What is he hiding?
I can't help you with your emotional acceptance of plain and simple truth. Only you can do that.
I can simply help you see that what you seek is a phantasm of your own creation. A deep-seated psychic chimera, that changes whenever light is shone upon it. One which gets smaller and harder to find with every new scientific investigation, but somehow (in some) seems to gain strength by that very dissolution.
You ask why. We tell you there is no why, there simply is. You fail to comprehend and continue asking.
A wise man once said, the sign of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results.
These results won't change, just because you wish it were so.
Embrace reality. Live with it, don't fight it.
If this is a shell game, then it applies to both parties. For religion, you require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For evolution (macro), mere speculation is good enough, even if it is not based on enough substantial evidence for evolution. This sounds like circular reasoning.
Walter. Again, go read a good science book on evolution. Until then (as Tony stated), *crickets*
Walter
When you can demonstrate even an inkling of the evidence on the side of evolution – then you may make such a statement.
Until then – *crickets*
Karl,
For the record, is your "Why?" to do with Purpose? What is the reason all this is here and not something else?
Walter,
For evolution, we already have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For the existence of god, we have none at all.
Mark
For evolution, we have proof beyond even an unreasonable doubt – but then Walter seemingly wants word from on-high to bless his acceptance of anything. Absent that, he'll continue to be skeptical of whatever his priests and pastors tell him to be skeptical of.
I think that Karl has a different take on what "why" means. To him, apparently, if an object or event exists, it must be because a thinking agent brought it into being. As such, "why?" means, "What was the purpose of the agent for creating (whatever)?"
Given that we dispute the need for — or existence of — a creator, we have a blind spot regarding her purposes. "Why" questions only go as far back as basic observations.
In the Creator paradigm, "Why is a photon at 370nm wavelength seen as blue?" is worthy of deep deliberation. As rationalists, we answer, "That is the definition of blue," and are completely satisfied.
As to Karl disbelieving in unary forces: They exist. Consider gravity and photon energy. There is no evidence of either anti-gravity, or dark photons (that cancel light photons).
Binary forces also exist, like electricity and electron spin.
There are also trinary "forces", like "charm" in quarks.
There is no natural law requiring two sides to anything. Neither "at least", nor "only". The binary postulate of Christian theology (and Boolean logic) is a logical construct, useful in its way. But the universe shows no tendency to obey it. Fuzzy logic is more useful than Boolean in considering the real world.
Heat and cold, dark and light, good and evil are not absolute opposites by any measure. They are just different measurable levels of the same unary stuff.
Yes, good and evil can be measured, if you define them by their effects on the environment. This is how electricity and gravity and all other forces are measured; by their effects.
Dan, Erich, Mark and Tony,
My understanding of a simple "why" question is simply this.
Whether one is implying intelligent or unintelligent design, guided or unguided evolution, or something like purposeless or randomly biases chaos theory, Most people will subconsciously arrive at an acceptable answer to a "why" question in a way that doesn't short circuit their worldview.
This is why I am not satisfied with any answer to a "why" question that says "Well that's just the way it is, get over it." It is also why a description of what is can answer "why" for an atheistic naturalist.
As a believer in a creator and a redeemer I refuse to let a description of a physical mechanism suffice to explain the wonder of the world.
I can find wonder in many different ways – but I chose to not let the wonder reside in my interpretation of the physical world alone – I purposely make it my goal to always see if my worldview matches with both my spirit (emotional honesty) and mind (intellectual honesty).
Karl: Here seems to be another contrast between the way you and I think. I do not think that A) constructing a scientific explanation for something and B) finding wonder in that thing, are mutually exclusive. For me, finding an elegant scientific explanation is part of the process of finding wonder in the process. Perhaps this distinction informs me better about our differences than the thousands of words that you have previously offered to the readership of this website.
Karl said
I refuse to let a description of a physical mechanism suffice to explain the wonder of the world.
And there's the rub.
You refuse to admit the evidence, even that which you recognize!
Don't you see how insane that sounds?
Don't you see how insane that is?
Erich, Tony, et al,
Karl has honestly answered the question. In my view, it comes down to a form of aesthetics. If the answer doesn't satisfy, it doesn't. You can explain to someone all you want how C & W music is "good" but if that person doesn't find any value in it, that's the end of the conversation.
The problem actually comes in where that dissatisfaction requires one to dismiss theories out of hand because they don't allow for that particular satisfaction. To claim that certain evidence is simply not evidence because it doesn't conform to an aesthetic predisposition…
But it's not fair to argue with him over his definition of wonder.
Mark
I hear you – if it were only a matter of aesthetics I would be perfectly happy to live and let live. (I would be a complete hypocrite, otherwise, since I know that my own personal aesthetic includes many things, distasteful, ugly, or just strange to others)
But it's not just aesthetics.
Karl finds disagreement with everything. No argument is strong enough. No evidence is sufficiently clear. No proof sufficiently rigorous.
He couches his disagreement in appeals to emotion, but what he really wants is for the evidence to just go away. He wishes the preponderance of evidence for evolution wasn't there – so he pretends not to see it. He wishes the earth to be young and recently created – so pretends not to see the abundance of evidence otherwise.
That's not aesthetic disagreement. That's delusion, or just plain lying.
Tony,
Hence my earlier assertion that he is one with the Alchemists. We must be wrong because the answer is comprehensible.
I'm not trying to make anyone change what they find wonderful, that's personal and I respect people too much to say they are not being intellectually honest with the inductive premises they have formed into their worldview.
I just try to get people consider what emotional components were or were not factors that may have been somewhat a part of the decision to accept the evidence as overwhelming in favor of there not being a creator.
I like to see what is involved when anyone decides to accept an idea, belief or theory as fact. I cannot make anyone reconsider what they consider as a true premise, but I can learn from others their perspective on such matters.
I only wish for people to realize that there will never be sufficient overwhelming evidence from the physical world for me to state that I don't believe in a creator. To me the preponderance of evidence agrees with my worldview of wonder in both the working mechanisms and the creator of those mechanisms.
My mind is not forever stupid, ignorant, willfully lying, or out to show anybody the error of their ways.