Part 2: Idealism/Materialism and QM
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA
Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic
Part 7: Evolution and panspermia
Scott Youngren has a web site, godevidence.com, which I found somehow during a Google Walkabout. I haven't seen much of it, but in it he seems to present all the standard Christian apologetic arguments, with a heavy emphasis on deriding materialism (this seems to be his go-to argument), and a heavy, heavy emphasis on argumentation by quotation.
Not that I have a reason to think Scott Youngren would be dishonest, but I've been burned before with moderated comments. He also doesn't seem to have any recent posts (I guess he's gone through the apologetics books he has [Edit 10/30/14 Looks like he got a new book.]), so I don't know how long his site will be around. So I'm going to mirror the discussion here--if for no other reason than to collect my thoughts in one place (and maybe I'll look back in a few years and say, "I used to think that?")
His article can be found here. Below is the chain of responses. I will edit out opening and closing salutations. After thinking about it, I'm also going to unbold some of his typeface. For some reason he loves to bold entire quote blocks, and I'm finding it annoying to look at; maybe I'm just getting old. I won't change any bold/italics within the content; just huge chunks of it that appear to be bolded for no reason. He also bolds my responses, which I'll undo here.
I should note that I was really rushing when I first posted, and didn't edit well. Had I edited my thoughts, I would not have started off with such an argumentative tone. The conversation would have likely gone that way anyway, because Scott has the aggressive arrogance of the fundamentalist believer, but that doesn't excuse me for starting things off on such a negative foot. If I chronicle other interactions here, I'll try to be my more normal, less confrontational, self. The real mistake I made was not reading more of his site before responding. Had I read more, I would have moved on and not wasted any time with him. Scott is almost Hovind-like in that his basic ignorance of science is matched only by his confidence that he has near-expert mastery of it.
Oct 2. Non: My, you’re one giant quote-mining machine, aren’t you? You claim you’re providing evidence, but it’s only quotes from people long dead followed by blank assertions such as, “The physical laws like thermodynamics and gravity (like everything else) are the manifestations of consciousness.” Not a piece of actual evidence.
The problem is likely that you’re used to arguing science the same way theists argue theology–by proof-texting, quoting some ‘authority’ and sitting back proudly like you’ve presented some solid evidence. (At least it’s somewhat valid within theology debates, since that’s mostly about interpretation, and one man’s interpretation is as good as another’s.)
Oct 2. Scott: I have never been able to get an atheist to explain to me what “quote mining” is. How does “quote mining” differ from the use of citations which is a routine part of rational discourse…such as in virtually any scholarly journal? Please explain inspecific terms. Please note that rational discourse would be virtually impossible if the use of citations were disallowed.
It seems clear to me that you are making an accusation of “quote mining” (whatever that means) in order to distract attention from your inability to furnish a rationally constructed and fact-based rebuttal to the points made in this essay. An argument which is intended to change the subject, and thereby distract attention, is known as a “red herring.” Click here to read a wikipedia post about “red herrings”.
You state that there is “not a piece of actual evidence” for God. This is completely false. There is overwhelming evidence for God. Below are a few introductory pieces of evidence which I would like you to respond to with rationally constructed and fact-based rebuttals (not red herrings or rhetorical language).
1) The evidence for God from modern physics as presented in God Is Real: Why Modern Physics Has Discredited Atheism. In this essay, I discuss how modern physics has demonstrated that there is no reality independent of consciousness (mind). (Yes, I am going to use a citation now since rational discourse would be virtually impossible without the use of citations. Feel free to accuse me of “quote mining” but please don’t forget to explain what “quote mining” is). Physicist Richard Conn Henry from Johns Hopkins University explains why atheists try so desperately to ignore or deny the insights of modern physics:
“Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.” ["Solipsism" is defined as "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."]
Similarly, the knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer Sir James Jeans says (in his book The Mysterious Universe)…
“There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” (italics added)
2) The evidence for God in the language of life (DNA), as presented in How Atheism Relies on Special Pleading and Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God. DNA is a language, since it uses symbolic representation to provide a set of instructions. These symbols are known as “codons” in the language of biology.
As I describe in the above essays, information science (not to mention everyday common sense) tells us that code or language is BY NECESSITY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind. Therefore, you must decide which conscious and intelligent mind is responsible for the origin of life.
Atheists who vigorously deny the insights of modern physics have been forced to resort to such absurdities as the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life (known as “directed panspermia.”) Click here to view a video of the famous atheist biologist Richard Dawkins endorsing this hypothesis in an interview. Click here to read an article about how the atheist biologist Francis Crick endorsed this hypothesis in his book titled Life Itself. Crick is famous as the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix.
Which conscious and intelligent mind do you think is responsible for the language of life….God or the space aliens? Some other mind?
Will you join your fellow atheists by rejecting the insights of modern physics and endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life?
I am very extremely curious to hear your reply.
Oct. 6. Non: Quote mining is quoting someone out of context to make it appear they are saying something they’re not. Another form of it would be quoting someone and representing their words as the consensus; ignoring that they represent a tiny minority, and ignoring the fact that their claims have been debunked. Now, all of your quotes are not quote mining—though they certainly don’t tell the whole story.
However, your follow-up, contains a *perfect* example of quote mining. You say, in a response attempting to deny being a quote-miner, that Dawkins endorses ‘directed panspermia’ and link to Expelled. Have you actually watched that movie? Actually, it doesn’t matter, because Dawkins provides the context in the link you provide.
First he clearly states he doesn’t know how the first self-replicating molecule ‘happened.’ He says not only that he doesn’t know, but that nobody knows.
Secondly, when asked to give a scenario in which it *could* have happened, he mentions life-seeding aliens, repeatedly saying, “It could come about… it could be that… perhaps… it’s a possibility… I suppose it’s possible that… could well be…”
Thirdly, *twice* in that answer he says these life-seeding aliens *would themselves have come about by natural means*. He begins by saying this earlier civilization would itself have evolved, “probably by some Darwinian means,” and then designed another form of life. And he concludes by repeating that higher intelligence would need a natural explanation.
How could you possibly have missed all this context? Have you not heard the myriad complaints of scientists saying this movie, Expelled, is shameless in its misquoting of the experts? Having heard that (how could you have missed it if you felt confident enough to quote it as proof that Dawkins ‘endorses’ directed transpermia) how could an honest man not look to see if perhaps Dawkins himself said something about this quote (assuming you missed the obvious context of even that short clip)?
Even a cursory search would turn up Dawkins’ clear statements regarding this ridiculous misrepresentation of his words:
“Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (“oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn’t rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists’ whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.” - http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394-lying-for-jesus
Oct. 6. Scott: [Here Scott begins bolding my words. I'll just set them off using block quotes.]
Quote mining is quoting someone out of context to make it appear they are saying something they’re not. Another form of it would be quoting someone and representing their words as the consensus; ignoring that they represent a tiny minority, and ignoring the fact that their claims have been debunked. Now, all of your quotes are not quote mining—though they certainly don’t tell the whole story.
Please give me even a single example of where I “quote someone out of context to make it appear they are saying something they are not.” You accuse me of “quote mining” in my essay titled Riddles for Atheists. Please tell me specifically what quote I took out of context and what you feel the correct context is.
For example, in this essay, I cite Albert Einstein. Did I take his quote out of context by failing to mention that he made the comments in the context of a stand-up comedy routine? Did I attempt to fool people by failing to mention that he made these comments in the context of a joke? Please, please explain.
You say that I am not telling “the whole story.” Well, go ahead and tell the part of the story that I am not telling. Does the other part of the story consist of the fact that there are people who do not agree with me? Is that your broader context?!
“However, your follow-up, contains a *perfect* example of quote mining. You say, in a response attempting to deny being a quote-miner, that Dawkins endorses ‘directed panspermia’ and link to Expelled. Have you actually watched that movie? Actually, it doesn’t matter, because Dawkins provides the context in the link you provide.
First he clearly states he doesn’t know how the first self-replicating molecule ‘happened.’ He says not only that he doesn’t know, but that nobody knows.
Secondly, when asked to give a scenario in which it *could* have happened, he mentions life-seeding aliens, repeatedly saying, “It could come about… it could be that… perhaps… it’s a possibility… I suppose it’s possible that… could well be…”
Thirdly, *twice* in that answer he says these life-seeding aliens *would themselves have come about by natural means*. He begins by saying this earlier civilization would itself have evolved, “probably by some Darwinian means,” and then designed another form of life. And he concludes by repeating that higher intelligence would need a natural explanation.
How could you possibly have missed all this context? Have you not heard the myriad complaints of scientists saying this movie, Expelled, is shameless in its misquoting of the experts? Having heard that (how could you have missed it if you felt confident enough to quote it as proof that Dawkins ‘endorses’ directed transpermia) how could an honest man not look to see if perhaps Dawkins himself said something about this quote (assuming you missed the obvious context of even that short clip)?”
Missed this context?! I didn’t miss this context! Suggesting that the Darwinian mechanism can apply to non-living things is one thing which is so absurd!
Please note that the Darwinian mechanism utilizes the random mutation of genes and the natural selection of reproductive offspring. Unfortunately for Dawkins and other atheists, only things that are ALREADY ALIVE have genes to mutate and reproductive offspring to naturally select.
This is part of the absurdity that I am trying to call him out on!! He is citing a mechanism that only applies to things which are already alive to explain how the space aliens (that brought life to earth in their spaceship) evolved from non-living matter!
Below are some of the words that Dawkins spoke in the interview:
It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now, that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Non-Credenti, what SPECIFICALLY in your citation of Dawkins changes the context in which he made these comments…so as to make his absurd speculation less absurd? What SPECIFICALLY in his comments is there that constitutes a rationally constructed and fact based counter-explanation to the theistic explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter? Please note that merely falling back on his worldview and citing “some kind of Darwinian means” is in no sense a logically constructed counter-explanation.
Bo Jinn writes in his book Illogical Atheism:
Why on Earth does Richard Dawkins propose that life could have been designed by extra-terrestrials after he had devoted an entire repertoire of literature staunchly opposed to the entire designer hypothesis? It is palpable that there is something extremely wrong with that, which is not to be ignored by any conscientious thinker. It is painfully obvious that the problem being faced by atheist ‘evolutionists’ is not with a ‘designer’ at all, but rather with a very particular type of designer.
Further, you have failed to explain why we should accept mindless natural explanations for the origin of life in light of the BROADER CONTEXT of what modern physics tells us about the primacy of consciousness (mind) in the production of the physical world. You have utterly ignored my points about the broader context of the insights of modern physics. A copy and paste of a citation from a previous comment since you have ignored this broader context:
Physicist Richard Conn Henry from Johns Hopkins University explains why atheists try so desperately to ignore or deny the insights of modern physics:
Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism. ["Solipsism" is defined as "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."]
Similarly, the knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer Sir James Jeans says (in his book The Mysterious Universe):
There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (italics added)
Here are the points that I am trying to make by citing the video of Dawkins endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter (“directed panspermia”):
1) Dawkins and other ultra-elite atheist scientists such as Francis Crick, Leslie Orgel, Fred Hoyle, and Chandra Wickaramsinghe clearly understand that life is the product of a conscious and intelligent mind. As I mentioned before, DNA is a language that uses symbols (“codons”) to provide a set of codified instructions. And we know from the insights of information science (not to mention everyday common sense) that language or code is BY NECESSITY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.
2) Because their worldview requires them to deny God, atheists must ignore the insights of modern physics (about the primacy of mind in the production of the physical world) and resort to absurd speculations such as the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter. The aliens were, in turn, brought into existence by “some sort of Darwinian means” even though the Darwinian mechanism only applies to things which are ALREADY ALIVE. Please recall that non-living things have neither genes to mutate nor reproductive offspring to naturally select.
The fact that Dawkins reverts back to his worldview and cites “some kind of Darwinian means” to explain the emergence of the space aliens only makes my point stronger!
Oct. 9 Non: You object that “the Darwinian mechanism utilizes the random mutation of genes…” and this only works on things that are already alive. This stems from a lack of understanding of evolution. Take a wild guess how many times the words “gene” or “DNA” appear in Darwin’s Origin. You are conflating a general mechanism of evolution with a specific mechanism of evolution. At its core, evolution requires some means of replication, some means of change, and some means of selection. Abiogenetic theories include means of replication other than DNA. Are you truly not able to extrapolate to the more general principle of evolution and figure out that when “Dawkins and other atheists” talk about abiogenesis they are talking about a means of replication that doesn’t involve genes?
Anyway, that’s really an aside. The issue is quote-mining, and the context of Dawkins’ words. You said Dawkins “endorses” directed panspermia. That is false, and the context of his words shows that he was not endorsing it as anything more than a wild hypothetical possibility. He presented it as a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Because he says something is “possible” does not mean he’s endorsing it as the explanation for life on earth. If someone did that to you, would you say it was accurate, or fair to twist the conversation like that?
You ask:
What SPECIFICALLY in your citation of Dawkins changes the context in which he made these comments…so as to make his absurd speculation less absurd? What SPECIFICALLY in his comments is there that constitutes a rationally constructed and fact based counter-explanation to the theistic explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter? Please note that merely falling back on his worldview and citing “some kind of Darwinian means” is in no sense a logically constructed counter-explanation.
Merely saying his answer is not logically constructed does not make it so. You need to point out his failure in logic. If you are referring to your earlier complaint that evolution requires genes, then we can drop this as asked and answered (you now understand that ”some kind of Darwinian means” doesn’t necessitate DNA, right?). If you mean something else, point out where the logic breaks down.
Next you quote Bo Jinn, who asks, Why on Earth does Richard Dawkins propose that life could have been designed by extra-terrestrials after he had devoted an entire repertoire of literature staunchly opposed to the entire designer hypothesis?Dawkins was asked to forget his ‘repertoire’ and, for the sake of argument, propose a possible scenario in which life <em>could have</em> arisen by means of a designer, so he answered the hypothetical. In his later explanation he chastised himself for not recognizing the dishonesty of the situation. I chastise him, also. For as many times as honest scientists have their words twisted by people like Bo Jinn to imply that they’re contradicting themselves, or are “endorsing” ID (or in this case, directed panspermia), they keep falling for it.
You ask about the broader context of how modern physics has killed idealism. You seem to be headed down a certain road with this, so let me ask you a few questions so I’m clear:
Are you a monist idealist?
Are you saying the consensus of modern physicists is one of monist idealism?
If monist idealism is the consensus of modern physicists, are you saying I should accept monist idealism because that is the consensus among the experts?Since Dawkins didn’t “endorse” it, your first point is moot, as I hope is clear by now. As for information theory, that is a very complicated topic (only slightly less complicated then QM) and, frankly, until you can show that you understand basic scientific concepts, it would be a waste of time to discuss it with you.
I know that’s offensive, and I apologize, but there’s no way around it. You don’t understand evolution, the second law of thermodynamics, or even what a scientific law is, so how can you possibly hope to understand vastly more complicated concepts? I know that’s a terribly confrontational thing to say, but I don’t want you to keep quoting large blocks of text saying I’m not answering, when it would just be completely pointless.
Oct. 10 Scott: You are very transparently trying to avoid questions which cannot be coherently answered from within the framework of your atheist belief system. To accomplish this, you both passively ignore and actively attempt to evade these questions.
Oct. 10 Scott: You are very transparently trying to avoid questions which cannot be coherently answered from within the framework of your atheist belief system. To accomplish this, you both passively ignore and actively attempt to evade these questions.
Your accusing me of “quote mining” is an example of where you
attempt to actively evade questions that you cannot coherently answer. This
accusation is a transparent attempt to divert attention away from your
inability to answer these questions (known as a “red herring argument”). Third
party observers of this debate can be assured that it is a diversionary tactic
because you accused me of quote mining in my essay titled Riddles
for Atheists, but you have conveniently avoided telling me what
citation in this essay I took out of context…or what the correct context is for
the out-of-context quote. Suggesting that something was taken out of
context—–without being able to explain what the CORRECT context
is—–demonstrates conclusively that you do not understand the words that you are
using.
Here is a question that you have avoided by both ignoring, and
by active evasion: Which conscious and intelligent mind do you think is
responsible for DNA, the language of life….God or the space aliens? Some other
mind?
DNA utilizes symbolic representation to provide a set of
instructions (the symbols are known as “codons” in the language of biology).
Information science (not to mention everyday common sense) tells
us that code or language is BY NECESSITY the product of a conscious and
intelligent mind. Therefore, you must decide WHICH conscious and intelligent
mind is responsible for the origin of life.
NON CREDENTI: WHAT CONSCIOUS AND INTELLIGENT MIND IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION PRESENT IN DNA?!?!
Your atheist belief system requires you to reject God, so was it
space aliens or some other mind? When an atheist ignores or evades my
questions, I find it helpful to keep a counter of times that the question has
been asked:
THE COUNTER IS ON THREE (3) for the
question of what mind was responsible for the DNA and the origin of life from
non-living matter.
You cite “abiogenetic theories that include means of replication
other than DNA.” WHY DO YOU CITE SUCH UNSPECIFIED “ABIOGENETIC THEORIES”?! TO EXPLAIN
THE SPACE ALIENS WHO IN TURN CREATED DNA? IT IS THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION
PRESENT IN DNA THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED!! Please, please explain.
You can cite “general mechanisms of evolution” and “specific
mechanisms of evolution” all that you wish. But by citing these mechanisms, you
are trying to evade the question which you cannot coherently answer: WHAT
CONSCIOUS AND INTELLIGENT MIND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION
PRESENT IN DNA?!?!
SPIT IT OUT!!!!!
If you do not want to agree with the ultra-elite atheist
scientists who endorse the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship
explanation for the origin of life (including not only Richard Dawkins, but
Francis Crick—in his book Life Itself, Leslie Orgel, Chandra Wickaramsinghe,
and Fred Hoyle) that is fine. But you must either cite what mind was
responsible for DNA or you must try to deny that symbolic representation is
NECESSARILY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind…and therefore deny
the conclusions of both information science and everyday common sense.
WHICH IS IT GONNA BE?!?!?!?
READERS, PLEASE TAKE NOTE BECAUSE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE: Atheists
must try to evade the question of what conscious and intelligent mind is responsible
for the symbolic representation present in DNA with every tool in their
arsenal, because atheism cannot coherently answer this question.
Even the world’s most outspoken atheist, the biologist Richard
Dawkins, concedes that DNA is a language very similar to a computer language.
In his book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of
Life,
Dawkins writes:
“…The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.
Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal
might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”
Elsewhere, Dawkins writes:
“What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of
information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same
sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal
truth.”
You write, “The context of his [Dawkins’] words
shows that he was not endorsing it [directed panspermia] as anything more than
a wild hypothetical possibility. He presented it as a hypothetical answer to a
hypothetical question. Because he says something is ‘possible’ does not mean
he’s endorsing it as the explanation for life on earth. If someone did that to
you, would you say it was accurate, or fair to twist the conversation like
that?”
I never suggested that he endorsed it as anything other than a
wild hypothetical possibility. If you are suggesting otherwise, then this is a
straw-man argument. YOU KEEP MISSING THE CRUCIAL POINT: DNA utilizes symbolic
representation, and symbolic representation is NECESSARILY the product of a
conscious and intelligent mind. Because atheists deny God, they must resort to
such wild speculations (“hypothetical possibilities”) to explain what conscious
and intelligent mind is responsible for the symbolic representation present in
DNA. WHAT HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITY DO YOU USE TO EXPLAIN THE SYMBOLIC
REPRESENTATION PRESENT IN DNA? SOME OTHER MIND THAN THE SPACE ALIENS?
Discussing whether or not Dawkins “endorses” directed panspermia
amounts to quibbling about semantics. Such quibbling about semantics is another
attempt to divert attention from your inability to answer the question of what
conscious and intelligent mind was responsible for the symbolic representation
present in DNA.
You ask me: “Are you saying that it is impossible for
aliens to exist? Are you saying it’s impossible for sufficiently-advanced
aliens to design and seed life? If so, you need to support that idea. If not,
then you need to explain why allowing for a possibility is absurd.”
No, I am not saying that it is impossible for aliens to exist.
As an aside, ARE YOU NOW ENDORSING THE SPACE ALIENS EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN
OF LIFE?!
Here is what I AM saying: Living things require a set of
instructions to grow and develop…reproductive capability necessarily involves information
storage and retrieval (which requires symbolic representation). So, you can
punt the ball and say that space aliens were responsible for the origin of the
symbolic representation present in DNA, but you must then specify what
conscious and intelligent mind was responsible for the origin of the symbolic
representation that allows for the alien life that created DNA.
You write: “Merely saying his answer is not
logically constructed does not make it so. You need to point out his failure in
logic. If you are referring to your earlier complaint that evolution requires
genes, then we can drop this as asked and answered (you now understand that
”some kind of Darwinian means” doesn’t necessitate DNA, right?). If you mean
something else, point out where the logic breaks down.”
Non Credenti, what needs to be explained is the symbolic
representation present in DNA….or in the alien life if you are going to endorse
the “hypothetical possibility” (in your words) that space aliens created DNA.
Reproductive capability requires symbolic representation since information
storage and retrieval are necessary components of reproductive capability. How
can reproduction occur if a set of instructions is not present? How can a set
of instructions occur without code/language (symbolic representation)?
The absurdity of the space-aliens-created-DNA explanation is
that it just conveniently kicks the can down the road so as to evade the
question of how the symbolic representation present in reproductive capability
came into being.
You write: “You ask about the broader context of
how modern physics has killed idealism. You seem to be headed down a certain
road with this, so let me ask you a few questions so I’m clear:
Are you a monist idealist?
Are you saying the consensus of modern physicists is one of idealism?
If idealism is the consensus of modern physicists, are you saying I should accept idealism because that is the consensus among the experts?”
Are you a monist idealist?
Are you saying the consensus of modern physicists is one of idealism?
If idealism is the consensus of modern physicists, are you saying I should accept idealism because that is the consensus among the experts?”
No, I am not a monist idealist. I am a Christian theist.
Whether or not the consensus of modern physicists is one of
idealism is of no relevance. The relevant question is whether or not
idealist/theist explanations are true or not. Scientific consensus cannot be
used to judge what is true or not. Only the application of reason can be used
to determine what is true.
It is impossible to coherently explain all of the facts without
resorting to theism. This includes the facts that we know from modern physics
and modern biology, as well as facts from other branches of science and human experience.
Modern physics declares that there is no physical reality
independent of mind. This points to an immaterial mind that is responsible for
the production of physical reality (read: God). I recommend an article titled
Mental Universe by the Johns Hopkins University physicist Richard Conn Henry:
An excerpt from this article:
The 1925 discovery of Quantum Mechanics solved the problem of the universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable—this time—that the universe is mental. According to [the nighted the knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer} Sir James Jeans:‘There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.’
I recommend the following video which describes the famous
double-slit experiment in order to understand why we know that mind is
responsible for the production of physical reality:
Please also watch the following video to understand why quantum
physics has conclusively debunked materialism (in which atheism is rooted):
These theistic conclusions dovetail neatly with what we know
about the symbolic representation present in DNA. The Nobel Prize-winning
Harvard University biologist George Wald was forced to admit the following in
his 1984 address to the Quantum Biology Symposium titled “Life and Mind in the
Universe”, despite begin ideologically opposed to theism:
It has occurred to me lately—I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities—that both questions [the origin of mind and the origin of life from nonliving matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality—the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals.
Did I take these citations out of context? If so, what is the
right context? Again, I asked you to specify what citations in my essay Riddles
for Atheists that I
took out of context, but you have conveniently ignored the question. Suggesting
that something was taken out of context—–without being able to explain what the
CORRECT context is—–demonstrates conclusively that you do not understand the
words that you are using.
You write: “Since Dawkins didn’t ‘endorse’ it,
your first point is moot, as I hope is clear by now. As for information theory,
that is a very complicated topic (only slightly less complicated then QM) and,
frankly, until you can show that you understand basic scientific concepts, it
would be a waste of time to discuss it with you.”
Again, whether or not Dawkins “endorses” directed panspermia is
a quibbling about semantics. The aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship
explanation for the symbolic representation present in DNA is the best
explanation that Dawkins can come up with from within the framework of his
atheist belief system.
“Endorsement” or a mere “wild speculation”, this is the best
explanation that the atheist explanatory framework can produce. That was my
only point.
Of course you will not discuss information
theory with me! You are
afraid that it will expose the incoherence of your atheist belief system.
Making a personal attack against me by suggesting that I cannot understand
something constitutes a textbook example of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy.
This logical fallacy occurs when a person launches an attack against the
person making an argument in
order to avoid responding to the logical argument itself.
You write: “I know that’s offensive, and I
apologize, but there’s no way around it. You don’t understand evolution, the
second law of thermodynamics, or even what a scientific law is, so how can you
possibly hope to understand vastly more complicated concepts? I know that’s a
terribly confrontational thing to say, but I don’t want you to keep quoting
large blocks of text saying I’m not answering, when it would just be completely
pointless.”
Non Credenti, so as to not make it inescapably clear that you
are trying to distract attention from your inability to logically defend your
atheist belief system with a personal attack against me (again, the Ad Hominem
logical fallacy), why don’t you point out SPECIFICALLY what I do not understand
about “evolution, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or even what a scientific law
is”?
Who do you think that you are fooling? What intelligent third
party observer is going to be fooled by this smoke-screen? If I don’t
understand something, then go ahead and point out what it is that I don’t
understand? Could it be that you cannot explain what I do not understand since
you are desperately trying to distract attention from your inability to
construct a coherent rebuttal to my arguments?
Trying to assume a posture of
intellectual superiority in order to avoid presenting a logically coherent
explanation will not fool any intelligent third party viewer of this debate.
Vague references to unspecified “abiogenetic theories” (while simultaneously
ignoring the fact that symbolic representation is necessarily mental in nature) does not constitute
a logically coherent explanation for the origin of life (and DNA).
Oct. 14 Non: Sorry for the delay in responding. There are two significant issues I’m trying to respond to, along with some minor ones. To save a little time, could you clarify something for me?
Your main question seems to be about DNA-as-code. You repeatedly say “DNA utilizes symbolic representation,” and a “mind is responsible for the symbolic representation present in DNA.” So that I can answer, can you tell me exactly what you mean by symbolic representation? What are the symbols, and what are they referring to?
Also, when you say DNA is “the language of life” are you saying that literally, or figuratively?
Oct. 14 Scott: DNA uses symbols known as “codons” (in the language of biology) to provide a set of instructions.
Even the world’s most outspoken atheist, the biologist Richard Dawkins, concedes that DNA is a language very similar to a computer language. In his book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Dawkins writes:
The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.
Elsewhere, Dawkins points out that calling DNA a language is very much literal, not a mere figure of speech:
What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.
The simplest living thing (the single celled organism) is described by Oxford University scientist Franklin M. Harold in The Way of the Cell:
…a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction … [and] a capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.
Non-Credenti, mindless processes cannot, even in principle, produce something such as an “artificial language and decoding systems,” etc..
Oct. 14 Non: Thank you. Another question. When asked if you’re a monistic idealist, you responded “No, I am not a monist idealist. I am a Christian theist.” Does that mean you’re a dualist idealist? Pluralist idealist? Judging by your writings (or at least, by the people you quote) you’re not a materialist, but I can’t tell beyond that. I’m pretty sure the most common camp a Christian would choose, if they couldn’t pick any type of materialism or monistic idealism, would be dualistic idealism, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Oct. 15 Scott: “I am a Christian theist” means that I am a Christian theist. Labels such as “monistic idealist” and “dualistic idealist” only serve to muddy the waters.
Oct. 15 Non: No, refusing to define your position and instead using a vague term that can apply different ways is muddying the waters.
I understand, it can be terrifying to have to actually stake out a position with no quotes to hide behind.
Oct. 16 Scott: Your asking me to adopt a label other than “Christian theist” (which is what I am) is another textbook example of a red herring fallacy. Again, a red herring fallacy occurs when a person tries to mislead or distract from the important or relevant issue. The form of idealism that I endorse is called Christian theism. Period.
You are very transparently trying to evade a question which cannot be coherently answered from within the framework of your atheist belief system.
READERS, PLEASE AGAIN TAKE NOTE SINCE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE!! ATHEISTS MUST USE EVERY TOOL IN THEIR ARSENAL TO AVOID THE QUESTION OF WHAT MIND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE FROM NON-LIVING MATTER!! Non credenti is trying to distract attention from this crucial question by starting a debate about my position on various forms of idealism.
Information science (not to mention everyday common sense) tells us that symbolic representation is BY NECESSITY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind. DNA uses symbols know as “codons” (in the language of biology) to provide a set of codified instructions. Therefore, we know that life was BY NECESSITY produced by a conscious and intelligent mind.
Non Credenti, THE COUNTER IS NOW ON FOUR (4) for the number of times that I have asked you the question of what mind was responsible for DNA and the origin of life from non-living matter. Was it the space aliens, as the ultra-elite atheist biologist Francis Crick proposed in his book Life Itself, or as the ultra-elite atheist biologist Richard Dawkins speculated in the video to which I linked you?? Some other mind? Or are you going to deny that symbolic representation is NECESSARILY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind?
SPIT IT OUT!!
Oct. 16 Non: Scott, I said I was very busy and it would take some time to answer, but in the meantime had a few clarifying questions, which caused another tantrum by you.
You’re just going to have to be patient. And since I jotted off this quick response without answering the dozens of questions you’ve asked, feel free to bump your silly little counter up to 5 or 7 or whatever you think it is now. In fact, add one more tick for every day I don’t respond. Heck, add a tick every hour I don’t respond if it makes you feel good.
Oct. 22 Scott: Take all the time you need. Do you really think that you are going to come up with something more coherent than the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life cited by ultra-elite atheist scientists such as Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins?
You are cornered. Your atheist worldview leaves you with the following options for explaining the very extremely sophisticated symbolic representation present in DNA:
1) Engage in speculation about a mind other than God creating life (such as the space aliens cited by numerous ultra-elite atheist scientists). Please note that such speculations do not explain the origin of life because they leave us with the question of how alien life emerged from non-living matter.
2) You can try to deny that symbolic representation requires a conscious and intelligent mind. This option is even worse for you because information science and everyday common sense both tell us that symbolic representation is necessarily the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.
The point of the counter is to call you out for ignoring questions which cannot be coherently answered from the framework of your atheist worldview. Rational arguments do not utilize rhetorical language such as “silly little counter.” The use of such rhetorical language amounts to a withdrawal from rational discourse, and therefore a tacit acknowledgement that your stance cannot withstand logical scrutiny.
Oct. 30 Non: I apologize for how long this is taking. I am in the middle of starting a new business and things moved more quickly than I anticipated. I was going to respond to everything at the same time, but the response would be way more than anybody wants to read at once. Then I decided to break it up into sections but post all responses together so you didn’t bother responding to something that might be addressed later, but I didn’t count on how busy I would be and if I wait until I’ve responded satisfactorily to all your points I might never finish. Unfortunately, your big question (about the “symbolic representation” in DNA) is the one I haven’t answered as anything more than a rough outline.
.I plan on responding to the various issues as I see them with the following posts:
.
Quote-mining
Realism vs Idealism (2 parts)
“Symbolic Representation” (possibly 2 parts)
Things Scott Youngren Doesn’t Understand (multiple parts), including:
-Second Law of Thermodynamics
-Scientific Laws
-Miscellaneous
.
I’ll say it now in case I forget later; some of these issues I think you have a fair enough grasp of, but I think you misrepresent them.
Next I post a long response, outlining the many times he's been dishonest in his characterization of Dawkins' quote. I'll break that--and the resulting responses--out into a separate post here, as this one is long enough.
Quote-mining II
I also made claims that he didn't understand a number of topics, and I'll make new entries for those. I doubt I'll continue the conversation much longer, so the new entries shouldn't be too long. First up:
Part 2: Idealism vs Materialism & QM
I also made claims that he didn't understand a number of topics, and I'll make new entries for those. I doubt I'll continue the conversation much longer, so the new entries shouldn't be too long. First up:
Part 2: Idealism vs Materialism & QM
No comments:
Post a Comment