Lee Strobel had a Near Death Experience -- and went to hell!

I was flipping through the stations while driving the other day and I stopped at the local conservative religious talk radio station when I heard Lee Strobel's name. Strobel is the author of The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator, and I think a few others. He was promoting his newest book, The Case for Grace, which claims to lay out an evidence-based argument which supports belief in Jesus/God based on people's personal experiences. Strobel says these personal experiences are "necessary but not sufficient" to believe in God, mainly so he can deny that they mean anything when a non-Christian has an almost identical experience.

What I found interesting was a health scare he had recently in which he claims he had visions of hell. According to Strobel, he was having a number of medical issues which caused his blood-sodium levels to drop to levels that are often fatal.

In the interview, Strobel explains that hyponatremia can cause "mental confusion and hallucinations." He then says he hallucinated going to hell. Afterward he seems to take extra care to explain that this was just a hallucination.

What struck me was that it was no different than a typical Near Death Experience (NDE) where the person sees visions of heaven, and yet the evangelical community never dismisses these as symptoms of a brain chemistry that's gotten out of whack--even when their medical charts show that's the obvious and most likely explanation for their visions. When the vision is of heaven, conservative theists will swear with their last breath that it was a genuine Capital-V Vision from God, which of course is a promise of things to come for them. But when they see hell, it's just a hallucination brought on by trauma to the brain.

How convenient.

Here is a link to the podcast page for the show. Strobel's visit to hell is from the 2015-03-11 5PM Hour 2 show, about 30-35 minutes in.

Youngren quote mining 2 - updated 11/2/14

This is the continuation of a pissing match between Scott Youngren, of godevidence.com, and I over his blatant quote-mining of Richard Dawkins.  Part I is here.

Oct. 30 Non:

QUOTE-MINING RICHARD DAWKINS – DIRECTED PANSPERMIA (DP)

(I know this is long. If it’s any consolation, it used to be twice this length.)

After being called out on your quote-mine of Dawkins you say “I never suggested that he endorsed it as anything other than a wild hypothetical possibility.”(Let’s keep those words in mind.) This is easily demonstrated to be false. In fact, it appears the only time you offer the tiniest acknowledgment that this was a hypothetical is when you are directly called out for quote-mining. Since you have smeared this misrepresentation all over your site, it doesn’t take long for people to see how you’re really portraying the situation. Below are just a few examples.

In your “Special Pleading” essay, you say Dawkins (and others) endorse DP because they “VERY CLEARLY DO `UNDERSTAND that life emerged from non-living matter as the result of intelligence.” (emphasis yours.) That is far from acknowledging that his statements were a “wild hypothetical possibility.” How dishonest to take a statement in which he assumed an intelligence for the sake of argument, and use it to claim that he ‘understands’ that intelligence was necessary.

In your “Evidence” article you go so far as to say DP is an example of an “effective and prestigious neurotic defense mechanism.” How can a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question be a defense mechanism? Clearly you’re not acknowledging the “wildly hypothetical” nature of the question Dawkins was answering. Later, in the comments, you say Dawkins endorses DP as “a way for atheists to avoid the question of how life emerged from non-living chemicals….” So which is it, do you admit that Dawkins was only answering a hypothetical in which he assumed certain things for the sake of argument, or is he saying it to avoid a question? Besides, he doesn’t avoid that question. In the clip you reference, he says the alien race would develop by some natural means (surely you comprehend that he can’t be more specific than that unless he starts positing specific characteristics of the alien race, like their physical characteristics, planetary environment, etc.).

In the same article you say Dawkins’ endorsing of DP has “done more than embarrass [himself],” he has “laid bare for all to see the perceptual filter steering [his] atheistic beliefs, which is religious in nature.” The truth is the “filter” he was applying was the hypothetical filter put upon him by the interviewer. As he understood it, he was not asked to answer the question through any filter he might have. He was assuming the interviewer’s filter, and then positing how life on earth could have been designed. This was a prime opportunity for you to tell the truth, but you chose not to.

In the comments of that article you say, “Regarding the Dawkins video: I have always used the term “hypothesis” with regards to his endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth suggestion. It should not be understood to mean that he has firmly concluded that it is the case. But it certainly does mean that he (and other prominent atheists such as Francis Crick) really do take the idea seriously.” It is trivial to see that you have not always used or even implied the term “hypothesis.” This is something you’ve retreated to a couple of times, then you blink and go right back to your very direct statements about Dawkins’ motivations for his statement, which paints it in a completely different light.

In a comment on Sep 3, 2011 you ask, “Would you agree with prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins… that we don’t need a higher intelligence such as God to explain the origin of life because aliens from outer space brought life here?” You present this as a very specific and strident position on Dawkins’ part, not a hypothetical, or a vague endorsement.

You also say, “[DP] is the best that the atheist cream-of-the-crop (such as Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick) can come up with to explain the origin of life.” Once again, you present a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question as “the best” explanation Dawkins can come up with. That is dishonest.

In the comments to your “Luck” article you say: “So there you go…Richard Dawkins has endorsed the plausibility of the hypothesis that aliens created life in their laboratory and brought it to earth (“seeded” it) in some sort of spaceship. Open-and-shut. End of story. Period. This is also very strong evidence that he realizes “higher intelligence” must have been involved in the creation of life …he just thinks this “higher intelligence” might be space aliens.” (Emphasis mine) Heassumes for the sake of discussion that intelligence must have been involved in the creation of life on earth, and offers aliens as a possible explanation, then immediately says those aliens would have a natural explanation. What honest person could hear his words and conclude that he ‘realizes the necessity’ of higher intelligence when he specifically says the ultimate cause would not need to be a higher intelligence? When he assumes a higher intelligence, and you twist that to say he realizes a higher intelligence, this is quote mining and it is highly dishonest.

I found these just by searching your essays for “panspermia.” You manage to squeeze this dishonest quotation into four different essays, and into probably a dozen replies to comments. Had I searched for “brought to earth by aliens” I would have found many more.

Finally, you say that even if life on earth had an ET explanation, the aliens themselves now need an explanation. Dawkins knew this and addressed it in the interview. He said it would be some naturalistic means, similar to the Darwinian evolution that we’re already familiar with, or “some equivalent crane.” When he says, “some equivalent crane” he is obviously saying there could be some means other than what we’re familiar with on earth, and he is clearly denying there needs to be an intelligence behind it.

But in case it’s not obvious to you, I linked to his blog (http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394-lying-for-jesus) where he discusses this interview. There he recounts Stein’s dishonest interview with Michael Ruse (where Stein plays the same abiogenesis game) and says quite clearly, “… the origin of life (nothing to do with the Darwinian theory itself but the necessary precursor of Darwinian evolution) is an interesting and unsolved mystery, one that scientists are actively working on.” (Emphasis mine) But you blithely ignore this and press on, claiming, “This is part of the absurdity that I am trying to call [Dawkins] out on!! He is citing a mechanism that only applies to things which are already alive to explain how the space aliens… evolved from non-living matter!”

The context of the video makes clear that he is answering a question where he was hypothetically assuming design, and in the follow-up he says very clearly that it was “highly unlikely,” and “a science fiction scenario.” Yet when someone says they’re proposing a highly unlikely science fiction scenario, you claim they’re endorsing it, even after being shown your error. That’s quote-mining. 


Nov. 1 Scott:  By trying to start a heated debate about my citation of Dawkins, you are VERY TRANSPARENTLY trying to create a distraction from your inability to respond to the question of what mind is responsible for the origin of language in DNA (a “red herring” argument).

Whether Dawkins “endorses” DP or merely cites it as a “wildly hypothetical” possibility is an irrelevant semantic issue.

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!! 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 FIVE (5) 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.

SPIT IT OUT!!!

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.

3) You can try to desperately distract attention from your inability to coherently answer this question by trying to start a heated debate about my citation of Dawkins. This is known as a “red herring” and is basically a quibbling about semantic issues (“endorsed” vs. “wildly hypothetical”). This is the option that you have currently selected.

Dawkins cited space aliens as a potential cause for the origin of life from non-living matter. Whether he “endorses” this view or merely cites it as a “wild hypothetical” possibility is a semantic issue.

Dawkins said: “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

He devotes entire books trying to debunk the designer hypothesis, and then cites space aliens as the possible DESIGNER of life. And then he admits in one of his books (The Blind Watchmaker) that the impression of design is “overwhelming.”

These facts lead us to the inexorable conclusion that Dawkins’ opposition to the designer hypothesis is ideological/psychological rather than logical. HE IS ONLY OPPOSED TO ONE SPECIFIC DESIGNER: GOD. He VERY CLEARLY DOES understand that life is the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.

Non Credenti, you write: “In the clip you reference, he says the alien race would develop by some natural means (surely you comprehend that he can’t be more specific than that unless he starts positing specific characteristics of the alien race, like their physical characteristics, planetary environment, etc.).”

PLEASE CITE FOR ME WHAT THE NATURAL MEANS THAT CREATED THE SPACE ALIENS WOULD BE!!

Nancy Pearcey explains in her book Total Truth why law-like natural processes (which atheism relies on as an alternative to God) cannot be cited as an explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter:

“…in principle, laws of nature do not give rise to information. Why not? Because laws describe events that are regular, repeatable, and predictable. If you drop a pencil, it will fall. If you put paper into a flame, it will burn. If you mix salt in water, it will dissolve. That’s why the scientific method insists that experiments must be repeatable: Whenever you reproduce the same conditions, you should get the same results, or something is wrong with your experiment. The goal of science is to reduce those regular patterns to mathematical formulas. By contrast, the sequence of letters in a message is irregular and non repeating, which means it cannot be the result of any law-like process.”

“To illustrate the point, let’s invoke our imaginary Scrabble game… but this time when you organize the letters, you decide to follow a certain formula or rule (an analogy to laws of nature). For example, the formula might require that every time you have a D, it is followed by an E. And every time you have an E, it’s followed by a S, then an I, then a G, and an N. The result would be that every time you started with D, you would get DESIGN, DESIGN, DESIGN, over and over again. Obviously, if the letters in a real alphabet followed rules like that, you would be limited to spelling only a few words—and you could not convey very much information. The reason a real alphabet works so well is precisely that the letters do not follow rules or formulas or laws. If you know that a word begins with a T, you cannot predict what the next letter will be. With some minor exceptions (in English, q is always fol-lowed by u), the letters can be combined and recombined in a vast number of different arrangements to form words and sentences.” (Both of these long quotes were bolded in full. I removed the formatting.)

So who or what is the author of the codified information contained in DNA? It is not merely the case that science has failed so far to answer this question. Rather it is that materialistic science can never, even in principle, answer this question.

Nov. 2 Non:  “THE COUNTER IS NOW ON FIVE (5) 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. SPIT IT OUT!!!” (Emphasis and overwrought histrionics yours)

I gave you a partial list of the topics I was going to address. Among them was your question. You said, “Take your time,” but then when I started to address this list of topics, you threw another one of your tantrums.

By my count, I’ve made five additional posts to you since you set your silly little counter to four, and none answered your oh-so-important question, so bump it up to nine. Then again, I also responded to “John,” so make it ten. Oh, and I’m not answering it with this post, so let’s call it 11. Your histrionics aren’t going to move things along any quicker, but I understand if you just can’t help yourself.

Nov. 2 Scott:  I really don’t like having to use “the counter” with atheists. Rather, I strongly prefer to use polite language when possible.

However, I have found it necessary to use the counter in order to call atheists out on repeatedly ignoring questions which cannot be coherently answered from within the framework of their belief system.

And the reason that atheists cannot coherently answer these questions is that atheism is WRONG. Period.

When I said “take your time,” I meant it. But this should not be interpreted as a license to go off on a diversionary quibbling about irrelevant semantic issues such as weather Richard Dawkins “endorses” directed panspermia or merely mentions it as a “wild hypothetical” possibility.

Again, my point in calling attention to Dawkins’ mentioning of the space aliens as a potential source for the origin of life was to show that this is the most coherent explanation that the atheist belief system can come up with. You have also REPEATEDLY ignored the fact that several other ultra-elite atheist scientists endorse (there’s that word again) directed panspermia. Francis Crick was a Nobel Prize-winning biologist who is famous as the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix. Crick endorses DP in his book titled Life Itself.

The Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle says:

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (Excessive bolding of the entire quote removed by me)

However, the “superintellect” that Hoyle is referring to is not God, since he is an atheist. Rather, it is an alien mind! How an “alien mind” manipulates chemistry and physics (and nature itself), I am not sure.

The astronomer Chandra Wickramsinghe and the British chemist Leslie Orgel are two other elite atheist scientists who endorse DP.

In which I accuse Scott Youngren of not understanding evolution or panspermia - updated 11/7/14

Part seven where I try to break down the general areas of Scott Youngren's ignorance. 

Part 1: Quote-mining
Part 2: Idealism/Materialism & QM
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA (information theory)
Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic

Sorry for the late entry. I’ve tried to post this a few times, but there were problems with your site. This is my final installment in the “Things Scott Youngren Doesn’t Understand” series (though it’s used tongue-in-cheek, as I’m confident you understand the following topics well enough.)

Evolution:

You say in many places, “Random mutation and natural selection cannot apply to something that does not have any genes to mutate nor any reproductive offspring to be naturally selected.” You reach the same conclusion in response to me: “This is part of the absurdity that I am trying to call [Dawkins] out on!! He is citing a mechanism that only applies to things which are already alive to explain how the space aliens… evolved from non-living matter!” (Emphasis yours) But Dawkins didn’t cite a mechanism that included genes. He claim any specific mechanism, and the general evolutionary description doesn’t require genes or natural selection.

Why do you think the aliens would have to develop by the exact same method we see on earth, when that’s neither what Dawkins said, nor is it a reasonable conclusion from his words? Dawkins is clearly saying the explanation for the aliens would probably follow a general form of evolution, but not any specific one. No modern theory of abiogenesis on earth includes genes as the first step. Why would you try to handcuff Dawkins’ explanation into that narrow framework, when he clearly says these aliens would result from “some” natural process, “some” Darwinian means, or “some other crane”? You erected a straw man then–somewhat hysterically–bashed away at it as if you were accomplishing something. On your site you even say, “Darwinian theory does not even attempt to explain the origin of life,” so why try to pigeonhole Dawkins’ hypothetical into a specific interpretation that you know is inapplicable?

In general, evolution is a result of variation, inheritable variation, differential survival and reproduction, and finite resources. Mutation of “genes” and “natural selection” are specific expressions of evolution. You keep trying to apply the specific to the general, when it isn’t justified. What Dawkins posited is that a general evolutionary theory requires some method of replication, and some method of variation, and some method of passing on the variation, and some method of filtering for beneficial variations. Genes are not specifically required.


Panspermia:

You say, “And regarding panspermia, even though I have no reason to object to it, I still think the theory has virtually no merit. Below is a copy and paste from an article at another website: ’Even if life could originate naturally, there are many difficulties faced by a theory which states that life entered earth from outer-space. The trip through the upper atmosphere would be extremely harsh upon any life-form, and it is difficult to imagine how life could survive such high temperatures and extreme pressures upon entry to the earth, and then upon impact with the surface.’”

There is a crucial piece of information that the authors of this ‘other website’ didn’t share with you: Panspermia doesn’t require that life came from space, and the people who actually investigate the plausibility of panspermia say that it is (non-living) organic compounds or chemical precursors that could have come from space. You’re presenting a narrow and distorted view to make it seem more unlikely than it needs to be. Also, computer modeling and physical experiments show two things you’ll never hear from apologetics sources: Metorites containing intact organic compounds, including simple sugars and amino acids have been documented to have struck the earth, and computer modeling indicates that during the late bombardment period there were pockets of water on earth. It doesn’t matter how difficult your source thinks it would be for “life” to survive in a meteorite, we know for a fact that organic compounds can and do remain intact.

Nov. 7 Scott:

THE COUNTER IS NOW ON TWO (2) for the question of what is the source of the “high degree of ordering of the objective world” that Einstein marveled at. READERS PLEASE TAKE NOTE BECAUSE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE!!:

Atheists will use every tool in their arsenal to avoid this question because it cannot be coherently answered from within the explanatory framework of their worldview.

Non-Credenti, regarding evolution, if you or Dawkins did (some bright and shining day in the future) come up with “some other crane” or “some other natural process” to explain how life emerged from non-living matter, what would this achieve? Please recall that, as I pointed out to another reader (Skl), the following two statements commit the same category error because they confuse different levels of causation:

“Life was not created by God, but rather by natural processes.”

“Cars are not created by people, but rather by manufacturing processes.”

As the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle pointed out, there are different levels of causation. God and human agency are proposed efficient causes, whereas evolution and manufacturing processes are proposed formal causes (using the Aristotelean model).

You can use the natural-mechanisms-of-the-gaps approach by suggesting that natural mechanisms which have yet to be discovered will someday explain the origin of life. However, what does this achieve as long as you have not cited some ultimate cause for the “high degree of ordering of the objective world” (that Einstein marveled at)?

You have backed yourself into a corner because you have already said that natural laws are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Therefore, you cannot cite natural laws as the source of the “high degree of ordering of the objective world.” What does this leave you with? Nothing really.

Further, you have failed to respond to what I pointed out about the COMPLETE INABILITY of natural laws to explain the information contained in the language of life (DNA). Please recall my following citation of Nancy Pearcey from her book Total Truth:

…in principle, laws of nature do not give rise to information. Why not? Because laws describe events that are regular, repeatable, and predictable. If you drop a pencil, it will fall. If you put paper into a flame, it will burn. If you mix salt in water, it will dissolve. That’s why the scientific method insists that experiments must be repeatable: Whenever you reproduce the same conditions, you should get the same results, or something is wrong with your experiment. The goal of science is to reduce those regular patterns to mathematical formulas. By contrast, the sequence of letters in a message is irregular and non repeating, which means it cannot be the result of any law-like process.
To illustrate the point, let’s invoke our imaginary Scrabble game… but this time when you organize the letters, you decide to follow a certain formula or rule (an analogy to laws of nature). For example, the formula might require that every time you have a D, it is followed by an E. And every time you have an E, it’s followed by a S, then an I, then a G, and an N. The result would be that every time you started with D, you would get DESIGN, DESIGN, DESIGN, over and over again. Obviously, if the letters in a real alphabet followed rules like that, you would be limited to spelling only a few words—and you could not convey very much information. The reason a real alphabet works so well is precisely that the letters do not follow rules or formulas or laws. If you know that a word begins with a T, you cannot predict what the next letter will be. With some minor exceptions (in English, q is always fol-lowed by u ), the letters can be combined and recombined in a vast number of different arrangements to form words and sentences.

Non-Credenti, I am really not interested in panspermia because it does NOTHING to explain the origin of life from non-living matter. Rather, it just discusses the hypothesis that life came from space. Of what relevance is it whether life came from space or not? What we are looking for is an explanation for the origin of life.

Therefore, panspermia is a tangential issue.

Nov. 7 Non:

“THE COUNTER IS NOW ON TWO (2) for the question of what is the source of the “high degree of ordering of the objective world” that Einstein marveled at. READERS PLEASE TAKE NOTE BECAUSE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE!!” (All caps and multiple punctuation marks yours)

Yes, is it instructive. I posted something that I wrote a number of days ago, beforeyou started your most recent silly little counter, and told you that it was older material that I couldn’t post because of problems with your web site. .
Your reaction is to throw another temper tantrum, and increment your silly little counter.
.
Well, I’m not answering it this time, either, so now your silly little counter is up to THREE (3)!!!!11!!!!!wtfbbq!!!!!

Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic

In which I accuse Scott Youngren of not understanding logical fallacies - updated 11/6/14

Part six (though the order doesn't matter) where I try to break down the general areas of Scott Youngren's ignorance. At first I thought he was only truly ignorant of Information Theory, 2LOT, and QM, but it appears I was wrong.

Part 1: Quote-mining
Part 2: Idealism/Materialism & QM
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA (information theory)
Part 7: Evolution and panspermia

Logical fallacies:
You think, “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 are wrong. The ad hominem fallacy is rejecting a claim or argument based on irrelevant issues with the claimant. Declining to even discuss an issue with someone because they don’t understand the topic well enough is not an ad hominem fallacy. I did not (at that time) attempt to refute your arguments involving QM or IT, I simply expressed why I was very hesitant to even engage, given your obvious lack of knowledge in the relevant areas. If I had said, “You’re wrong because you only copy arguments from professional apologists (without offering any reason to think the professional apologists’ arguments are wrong) that would be an ad hom fallacy. But to say I don’t even want to discuss it is not.

Perhaps this will help you understand. Let’s say I make the following argument:
1. (2+2)=5.
2. 5*2=10.
Therefore,
3. (2+2)*2=10

If you say, “You’re wrong because you’re ugly,” or, “You’re wrong because you’re an atheist, and atheists cannot be trusted,” that would be an ad hominem fallacy because you’re reject my argument by citing irrelevant personal issues.

On the other hand, if you say, “Number 1 is wrong because 2+2=4, you no-good, ugly lying atheist,” this is not an ad hominem fallacy. You provided a logical and valid reason for rejecting my argument. Granted, it was accompanied by a personal attack, but that only makes your refutation of my argument valid and rude; it does not make it fallacious.

I didn’t make a personal attack, I made an assessment of your knowledge in a couple of areas. It was blunt, and I knew it would not be well-received, and I apologized ahead of time, but I didn’t see any other way to tell you why it would be pointless to discuss QM and IT with you other than to say you didn’t know enough about the subjects to be able to have a meaningful discussion.

In my math proof, above, if you didn’t try to rebut my proof, but just said, “You think 2+2=5? Obviously discussing this with you would be a waste of my time,” it would not be an ad hominem fallacy. You would simply (and bluntly) be declining to discuss it further with me based on an assessment of my mathematical knowledge. That’s all I did with you.

You also do not understand what a Category Error is. More accurately, you seem to understand it, but you’re hypocritical in not applying it to yourself. In a comment made a few days ago to someone else, you quote John Lennox to expose what you consider a category error, when you yourself commit a much more egregious category error by quoting Lennox, elsewhere. In your evolution article you quote Lennox as saying:

The strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity have no eyes to see with, either physical or mental. And most mechanisms are blind — think of a watch, a car, a CD player, a computer hard-disc. Moreover, they are not only blind but also unconscious… But those mechanisms, though blind in themselves, are all the products of minds that are far from being blind; such mechanisms are intelligently designed.

Here Lennox draws a faulty comparison between physical mechanical inventions and the non-physical relations between observations we call the laws of the Universe. One category is physical objects, the other is non-physical relationships. You quote such a blatant category error from Lennox, then turn around and quote him to accuse someone else of a category error.

General Logic: 
You think that to reject Statement A requires a definite belief in an alternative, Statement B. In multiple places (e.g., the comments to your “strong evidence” article on Jan 30, 2012) you quote Timothy Keller as espousing this position. You say, through him, “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B… The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B… Every doubt, therefore is based on a leap of faith.” This is false. Propositional statements can be rejected without regard to the truth or falsity of any other statements, including any opposite statements.

Sometimes one might reject Belief A because they hold conflicting Belief B, but that doesn’t have to be the case. If you say you have a 50-carat diamond in your pocket and I say, “I don’t believe that,” based on a lack of evidence (and the rarity of such an event), I am not saying I believe (or Keller’s even more erroneous claim, “I have faith”) that you do not have a 50-carat diamond in your pocket. I’m only saying that I do not accept your propositional statement.

Consider a much more mundane statement you could make, like, “I have a penny in my pocket.” I would not reject it (because of the commonness of such occurrences), but I also would not accept it because I haven’t seen the penny. I would withhold judgment and take no position.

This is logic 101, and apologists like Keller count on people to spread this misinformation without actually understanding it. Incidentally, this shows the danger of argumentation by quotation. I agree with your conclusion in that comment, and your explanation was fine, but your method of arriving at that conclusion was based on Keller’s faulty logic. You would have done much better responding as you did without the quote.


Nov 6. Scott:

NC: The ad hominem fallacy is rejecting a claim or argument based on irrelevant issues with the claimant. Declining to even discuss an issue with someone because they don’t understand the topic well enough is not an ad hominem fallacy. I did not (at that time) attempt to refute your arguments involving QM or IT, I simply expressed why I was very hesitant to even engage, given your obvious lack of knowledge in the relevant areas…..I didn’t make a personal attack, I made an assessment of your knowledge in a couple of areas.

.

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FOOLING?! You refuse to engage in a discussion of QM because you cannot coherently respond to my arguments. In addition to my own arguments, I cited Bruce Gordon, who HOLDS A PhD IN THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS. Gordon’s argument for why materialism is completely incompatible with modern physics is NOT DIFFICULT to grasp.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT YOU ARE FOOLING ANY INTELLIGENT THIRD PARTY VIEWERS OF THIS DISCUSSION BY SUGGESTING THAT YOU RUFUSE TO RESPOND TO MY ARGUMENT (OR GORDON’S ARGUMENTS) BECAUSE “I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC WELL ENOUGH?”

Why don’t you point out what Gordon and I do not understand? It is clearly because you cannot coherently respond. Please note that rational discourse would be impossible if any party were permitted to argue that they refuse to engage in discussion because the other party does not understand.

FURTHER, YOU HAVE FAILED TO RESPOND TO MY POINT ABOUT THE “DELAYED CHOICE QUANTUM ERASER EXPERIMENT” DEBUNKING THE NOTION THAT A PARTICLE CAN CAUSE A WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE.

A large part of your argumentation consists of trying to assume a posture of intellectual superiority. I seriously do not think you are fooling any intelligent third party viewers with this. You must furnish a rationally constructed, fact-based rebuttal to my arguments. You cannot escape from this necessity with posing and posturing.

NC: You also do not understand what a Category Error is. More accurately, you seem to understand it, but you’re hypocritical in not applying it to yourself. In a comment made a few days ago to someone else, you quote John Lennox to expose what you consider a category error….One category is physical objects, the other is non-physical relationships.

No, there is no category error in Lenox’s argument. Both are mechanisms. One is a physical mechanism, another is a non-physical mechanism. Do you not consider Darwin’s random mutation and natural selection to be a mechanism? You can suggest that the proposed “natural mechanism” of Darwinian evolution is not a non-physical mechanism, but rather, describes a “non-physical relationship.” But if you did so, you would again be quibbling about semantics. Much of your argumentation seems to be based upon diverting attention to a quibbling about semantic issues. Why do scientists so regularly discuss natural mechanisms (such as Darwin’s)?

NC: General Logic: You think that to reject Statement A requires a definite belief in an alternative, Statement B. In multiple places (e.g., the comments to your “strong evidence” article on Jan 30, 2012) you quote Timothy Keller as espousing this position. You say, through him, “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B… The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B… Every doubt, therefore is based on a leap of faith.” This is false. Propositional statements can be rejected without regard to the truth or falsity of any other statements, including any opposite statements.

…and yet, you are very clearly arguing from the alternate belief of a belief in materialism, which is completely incompatible with modern physics…as I have demonstrated, and which the famous physicist Eugene Wigner pointed out.

Further, we are not discussing “propositional statements” here. Materialism and theism are worldviews, not propositional statements.

Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA                                      Part 7: Evolution and panspermia

In which I finally reveal to Scott Youngren who is behind the "symbolic representation" in DNA - updated 11/6/14

Part five exposing the fundamental lack of understanding of various topics. Initially I thought he actually understood most topics (and was only being dishonest) but now it looks closer to 50/50
Part 1: Quote-mining
Part 2: Idealism/Materialism & QM
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic
Part 8: Evolution and panspermia

YOUR SUPERDUPER IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT THE MIND BEHIND THE “SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION” IN DNA:

You say: “DNA utilizes symbolic representation, and symbolic representation is NECESSARILY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.” This is wrong. DNA is simply a molecule that reacts. DNA does not “utilize symbolic representation.” Humansuse “Adinine,” “Guanine,” “Thymine,” and “Cytosine” as symbolic representations of the nucleotides in DNA. Humans use A, G, T and C as symbolic representations of the words Adinine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine. Finally, and this is specifically your reference to “symbolic representation,” humans use three-letter combinations like AGT, CAG, etc., to represent the series of three nucleotides (which humans symbolically represent with the word “codon”) to which the letters refer. DNA does not use these “symbolic representations,” humans do.

Similarly, humans can assign symbols to rings and groups of rings in trees, but this doesn’t mean trees are communicating to us (or anyone else) in code—it simply means that humans, on the back end, will assign symbols to pretty much anything if it helps us keep data straight in our heads, or allow us to communicate it to other humans more efficiently.

As an example of “symbolic representation,” that humans use, consider:

C6H12O6 + 6(O2)  6(CO2) + 6(H2O)

Glucose (C6H12O6) and Oxygen (O2) molecules do not understand any type of symbolic representation, they simply react chemically with each other, and the reaction produces carbon dioxide, water, and energy (not shown in the “symbolic representation”). They simply react the way they do because of how the outer shells of atoms react with each other. Surely you’re not claiming that a simple sugar molecule and Oxygen both contain instructions within their molecules that they refer to when deciding how to react together, are you? Surely you realize that when we write out the formula C6H12O6 + 6(O2) -> 6(CO2) + 6(H2O) it is we who are applying the code—we who are ‘assigning symbols to symbols’ (which is basically what a code is) to more easily characterize the natural chemical reactions we observe.

If we’re going to use “code” in this general and vague way, it means nothing more than “information about specific causal relationships,” and applies to every chemical reaction in the Universe. This, when it comes into contact with that, will do such-and-such.

There are key differences in the way “code” is used in different circumstances and, as usual, the apologetic argument depends on switching meanings mid-sentence without notice. A key facet of human-made codes is that they are arbitrary. We can use any symbol we like to represent something, as long as everyone involved agrees what the symbol means. For example, in Morse Code, A = dot-dash, and N = dash-dot. if you and I were communicating via Morse Code we could agree to switch those two letters (so that A = dash-dot and N = dot-dash) and our code would still work. The key is that both parties involved in the communication must agree on the code being used, but other than that, any symbol can refer to any other symbol. The DNA code is not arbitrary, it does not rely on agreement of sentient beings. It’s a chemical process; there is no choice in the matter.

You also say, “Since information is always the product of a conscious and intelligent mind, mindless material processes cannot even in principle explain the origin of life.” Information is all around us in the natural world. Sand dunes provide information of wind patterns. Tree rings yield information about the age of a tree and atmospheric conditions over time. Light from distant stars informs us of their chemical composition, mass, and velocity. Surely you’re not saying sand dunes, trees, and stars are trying to convey information to us, so it is not correct to say information is the “product” of intelligent minds. Rather, a “conscious and intelligent mind” is necessary to identify information, not tocreate it.

It’s clear from the way you often use the terms “code,” “language,” and “information” interchangeably (including another quote-mine of Dawkins in which he talks about code and you apply it to language) that you think they’re the same, but they aren’t. By the way, symbols in DNA are known as codons in the language of English, not the “language of biology.”

So at long last I can answer your question: “WHAT CONSCIOUS AND INTELLIGENT MIND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION PRESENT IN DNA?!?!” (all caps and mixed punctuation yours). The answer: Humans. Human minds have arbitrarily assigned the words “Adinine,” “Guanine,” “Thymine,” and “Cytosine” to represent the nucleotides that make up DNA. Further, Humans have (somewhat arbitrarily) assigned the letters, A, G, T, and C to represent those base nucleotides. They could have just as easily used the third letter of each word and come up with I, A, Y, and T to represent them, and DNA would be none the wiser.


Nov 6. Scott: 

NC: You say: “DNA utilizes symbolic representation, and symbolic representation is NECESSARILY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.” This is wrong. DNA is simply a molecule that reacts. DNA does not “utilize symbolic representation.”

Non Credenti, you are completely at odds with modern science on this one. I am SHOCKED at much of the stuff that winds up on atheist forums.

Please recall my above citation of the Oxford University scientist Franklin M. Harold from The Way of the Cell. The simplest living thing includes, “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval…”

The world’s most famous atheist, Dawkins concedes this point in his book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life:

“…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.”

NC: Glucose (C6H12O6) and Oxygen (O2) molecules do not understand any type of symbolic representation, they simply react chemically with each other, and the reaction produces carbon dioxide, water, and energy (not shown in the “symbolic representation”). They simply react the way they do because of how the outer shells of atoms react with each other.

.

No, this is completely wrong and completely at odds with modern science. Again, I am SHOCKED at the misinformation that gets onto atheist forums.

Renowned physicist Paul Davies makes clear the distinction between the medium (the physical aspect of the organism) and the message (the informational aspect of the organism), with regard to the origin of life, in The Fifth Miracle:

“The laws of physics, which determine what atoms react with what, and how, are algorithmically very simple; they themselves contain relatively little information. Consequently they cannot on their own be responsible for creating informational macromolecules [such as even the most simple organism]. Contrary to the oft-repeated claim, then, life cannot be ‘written into’ the laws of physics…Once this essential point is grasped, the real problem of biogenesis [or life emerging through unintelligent processes] is clear. Since the heady success of molecular biology, most investigators have sought the secret of life in the physics and chemistry of molecules. But they will look in vain for conventional physics and chemistry to explain life, for that is the classic case of confusing the medium with the message.”

Elsewhere, Davies writes:

“Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.”

Non Credenti, when you suggest that “glucose and oxygen do not understand any type of symbolic representation,” you are confusing the medium with the message(in the above words of the physicist Paul Davies). Glucose and oxygen are physical aspects of the organism (the medium) and the code or language in DNA is the message.

As Davies alludes to above, chemical structures (which are subject to the “algorithmically very simple” laws of physics) do not have enough information content to produce a DNA sequence. The former Manhattan Project physicist, and leading information scientist, Hubert Yockey, writes in the primary text on the application of algorithmic information theory to the origin of life, titled Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life:

“The laws of physics and chemistry are much like the rules of a game such as football. The referees see to it that these laws are obeyed but that does not predict the winner of the Super Bowl. There is not enough information in the rules of the game to make that prediction. That is why we play the game. [Mathematician Gregory] Chaitin (1985, 1987a) has examined the laws of physics by actually programming them. He finds the information content amazingly small.”

Further, there are chemical bonds between the sugars and the phosphates, between the sugars and the bases. BUT, there are NO chemical bonds between the individual nucleotide bases. This means that you cannot invoke chemistry to explain DNA sequencing!! Michael Polanyi, a former Chairman of Physical Chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK), who was famous for his important theoretical contributions to physical chemistry, said:

“As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of occurrence of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have meaning–a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content.”

Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws                                                Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic