god only knows

[mr. piper]

I heard on R4 that it takes 10 specific proteins to clot blood. and that the chance of evolution putting these things together by chance over eons is still highly unlikely apparently, without devine intervention, are we going to end up poo pooing Darwinian theory?

[WaldoMcFroog]

The blood clot idea is based on an arguement by pro-creationism author Michael Bene called 'irreducable complexity'.

Essentially this says "an irreducibly complex biochemical system cannot (with any reasonable degree of probability) have evolved by natural evolution." i.e. if one removes any componant from the system, the system no longer works, therefore it must be a single system ergo, there is an intelligent designer behind it.

The argument presented by Bene has been extensively debunked. Far from being irreducable, in fact the blood clotting process can be reduced quite considerably.

There's loads of info on it here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

[MargeB]

Bazwillrun: what you point out cuts to the very heart of the question. The very definition of God centres on the fact that He, out of all beings, did not in fact have a designer or creator. Supposedly unlike anything else. This seems to me to be completely notional, but this fact is lost on creationists, who do in fact have a different starting point (most/all 'believe' in God, then try to flesh that out).

Stevie21, my post was in reply to Hamish, although I did not flesh out my answer. The implicit 'question' in Hamish's post seemed to be that the driving force behind evolution was random genetic mutation and that this did not seem powerful enough to produce the changes necessary to give rise to complex life as we see it today. In fact, that's correct, it is not on its own powerful enough to create life as we see it today, except in Universe X, where the 1 in 1,0000000000000000000000000 chance of that series of mutations having just 'worked' was enough.

The (random) genetic mutation is in fact only the base on which (non-random) natural selection operates. This natural selection (selecting for those fittest in a reproductive sense) is really very efficient: competition is high, for scarce resources, and it is nearly winner takes all: the genetic mutation which was good but not good enough for a particular niche just dies out...it is as if that collection of genes with that further mutation never in fact existed. Thus, in even a relatively short period of time, quite large advantages can be selected for. And then you add 'special' factors to the mix: sex, group behaviour, intelligence, and awareness....and even culture....and things start moving very fast indeed.

[Hamish]

Hi Jake the peg - I havent provided an alternative explanation, just pointed out the problems with the theory. With any theory it needs to fit all observed data. Overall the process must be truly random, otherwise energy from outside the universe would have to be put into the system. If there is some complex system of control then it sould also be taken into account, however I think no one has identifide one yet.

Evolution (macro) is not science, it is philosphy. Within science an experiment should be repeatable to prove that the theory is correct. As we will never be able to observe the processes involved in life comming into existance, the theory of the evolution of the species must remain a philosophy and not a science.

[Hamish]

Just another point re Marge B's comment on natrual selection. Even with a selection process occouring there is still the requirement that the mutations occour, we are only considering this aspect and are ignoring the fact that some of the offspring carrying the required mutations may not make it for other reasons. Taking the selection process into account we would need to actually add multiplyers for survival rates, successful reproduction rates, probability of the gene being passed on and probability that the gene is dominant so that the off spring have an advantage and therefore will be 'selected' to pass the gene on. The selection process must in itself be random, otherwise you need to put energy into the system (ie have a form of exterior control). The fact is that in natural selection there is a reasonable probability that offspring with a required mutation will drown in a flood or be killed by a forrest fire. As to an advantage in reproduction, on this argument we should certianly no be here - we reproduce infrequently compared to most, and at great personal cost. If there is an advantage it must be broader than just in reproduction.

[badams]

While natural selection itself may not be random, it depends on having mutations for it to be possible, and mutations are random.

The notion of evolution requires that given enough random events and enough time, anything can happen.  Suppose you dropped all the parts of a watch on a beach (an old pocket watch - not one of these modern single chip things!).  In theory, if you kicked around in the sand for long enough, eventually all the parts would come together in the correct places to reform the watch.  The scale of probabilities for the formation of proteins, DNA and so on, are similar to those for the watch being formed.  And once it is formed, it needs to be kicked a few more times so that it gets wound up (without wrecking it!), and all this needs to happen inside a timeframe which ensures it happens before the environment destroys the parts through erosion etc. 

An intelligent person finding a watch on a beach may know that in theory it could have been randomly formed, but based on the evidence and likelyhood of this happening, will presume that it had a creator.

Science looks at facts, and evidence, and tries to deduce what does, or did, happen.  Believing in something for which there is little evidence, and is highly improbable, is not science, it is faith.  Creationists in fact, are more scientific than evolutionists - they observe the facts and the probabilities, and scientically deduce that the building blocks of life could not naturally occur, and this logically leads to the conclusion that an intelligent force must have been involved.

[Hamish]

An interesting piece badams, however I would have to dissagree with you on the final part. The evidence against evolution - stats etc, does not support another theory or philosophy it simply casts doubt on the theory of evolution. As there is no way to do an experiment to prove that God or a god created the universe it remains as much a matter of faith and philosophy as the theory of evolution.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I take it you've not read Dawkin's 'The Blind Watchmaker', badams?

[badams]

Hamish - thanks for your comments.  Do we need to be able to do an experiment to prove that something exists?  We cannot for example, do an experiment to prove that the moon causes tides, but we know that it does, because of our observations and measurements.

I do agree however that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.  Since God by definition exists outside of natural laws, we cannot test for his existence, or make scientific observations which prove his existence, since all our observations and tests are constrained by scientific laws.  Belief in God will therefore, as you correctly put it, remain a matter of faith.

In determining then whether we will place our faith in God, or in an alternative unproven theory (evolution seems to be the only alternative as far as I am aware) all we can therefore do is look at the evidence and ask ourselves "does the evidence suggest that the universe as we know it came into being naturally and without outside intervention, or does it suggest that an outside intelligence was involved".

Dawkins theory as put forward in "The Blind Watchmaker" is that random mutation followed by non-random selection leads to increased complexity.  This flies in the face of all scientific observation - there is no system, be it mechanical, biological, chemical or whatever, where complexity (or "order") increases without outside interference.  In fact, the opposite is the case - all systems left to their own devices, tend towards disorder.  His theory also ignores the simple fact that based on simple probability, the Earth is too young to allow time for the number of "improvement" mutations which would be required, many of which would need to occur simultaneously to be of any benefit.

[Hamish]

Any theory should be verifiable by experimentation. Redoing the experiment or reobserving the event. In the case of the moon I can repeat you measurements and possibly draw the same conclusion - However if I did them really carefully I would fined that there was a correlation with the moon....but something else was going on too.....and perhaps I would find that the sun was also involved.

Analysis of the data for the evolution/creation of the world is a single event with respect to the critical information - ie direct measurment of the event rather than subsiqent work which seems to agree with the theory. This would be like taking data from a single tidal measurement, but not knowing anything about the other events which may have occoured. We could draw the same conclusions about tide and say that the tides on the Florida cost are very high and result in extreem flooding. What we wouldn't have known is that there was a storm at the time and the massive drop in local air pressure affected the tide that day.

We have our Blind Watchmaker perhaps, but by calling this science we are acting like blind scientists.

[badams]

Hamish - I notice that you say "in the case of the moon I could repeat your measurements" and that is exactly my point - we would be taking measurements and making observations - not performing an experiment.  In spite of this, we could still produce a good scientific theory about tides - without performing a single experiment.  This being the case then, it is not right to say that "any theory should be verifiable by experimentation".  Theories which are verified by experiment are "laws" - not theories.  (E.g. Newtons Laws of Motions, because his theories have been tested and the experiments are repeatable).

Neither the theory of eveolution, nor the theory of creation can ever be anything other than theories, because neither can be repeated, nor even modelled at a scale which comes anywhere close to representing reality.

Creation is a valid scientific theory.  Just because it involves an outside force which cannot be fully understood does not mean it is bad science, or that those who hold to this theory are "blind"!  We cannot for example, understand gravity - there is no particle, wave, or other theory which explains how two bodies seperated by space, can have an attraction towards each other which depends on their mass.  Nevertheless, we accept that this force is real, and include it in explanations of many scientific phenomena.  Including an unexplainable force does not necessarily imply that an explanation itself is unscientific.

[Hamish]

Actually any experiment is simply observing and measuring, it is exactlu what an experiment is. You cannot have an experiment without this.

Any 'law' is still just a theory. Newtons laws of motion don't explain everything, they fall appart at high velocities, hence relativity. Newtons work is a good approximation for most cases that's why they are still used.

Creation is not unscientific because in invokes a God or external force, but it also must remain a part of philosophy for the same reasons as evolution. You cannot redo the experiment.

[Hamish]

Oh, we can understand gravity, just none of the theories explaines very senario. However the fact that the theories can be tested and retested makes them scientific under the parameters of the measurements.

[badams]

hamish - "Actually any experiment is simply observing and measuring, it is exactlu what an experiment is. You cannot have an experiment without this."

We'll have to agree to differ here. From www.dictionary.com - experiment:-

"A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried". 

A "test" implies that actions are carried out in order to be able to make observations or measurements.  An experiment is not the same as observing and measuring.

"Any 'law' is still just a theory. Newtons laws of motion don't explain everything, they fall appart at high velocities, hence relativity. Newtons work is a good approximation for most cases that's why they are still used."

A "law" is a theory which has been confirmed by experimentation.  All laws work within a limited set of parameters, and generally do not state the effect of negligible factors which may influence them.  They are nevertheless, not the same as theories.

"Oh, we can understand gravity, just none of the theories explaines very senario. However the fact that the theories can be tested and retested makes them scientific under the parameters of the measurements."

If none of the theories explain it in every scenario, then how can you say we "understand" gravity?  If we understood it, we could devise a theory which explained it.  The fact that there are multiple theories, all of which are flawed, demonstrates the fact that we do not understand it!

[Hamish]

1. you cannot examine the valitity of something without observation and measurement.

2. As you say- a law is a theory, your additions to the definition just state that the 'law' or theory has been tested and found true in many cases, wich is essencially what I said.

3. No, their are a number of theories wich can expain gravity in various situations. Like Newtons laws of motion they fall appart in certain cercunstanses. You cannot have both your last statment and the second they are mutually exclusive.

At the rate we are going on this we will have to define 'understand'.

I'm interested by you motivation to keep posting on this thread. I'm here because I feel there it a lot of wool thinking under the lable of science these days, even within the accademic community. and you?

[badams]

Hamish - "you cannot examine the valitity of something without observation and measurement." I agree entireley. But observation and measurement do not equal "experimentation"
You said earlier, "Any theory should be verifiable by experimentation."  But this is not the case - the ability to make observations and measurements by way of experimentation is what sets a law apart from a theory.  This is not my "additions to the definition" - this is the generally held dictionary definition, and that accepted by the scientific community.

My impression of theories about gravity and magnetism is that unlike Newtons laws which hold good under "normal" conditions (is there any such thing as normal!), and are well understood in terms of why they are true, gravitation and magnetism explanations tend to be more like mathematical models which enable us to predict how these forces  will behave under particular circumstances.  However I admit to not having studied them in depth, and would appreciate any links you have to useful sites on the subjects.

contd

[badams]

continued

"I'm interested by you motivation to keep posting on this thread. I'm here because I feel there it a lot of wool thinking under the lable of science these days, even within the accademic community. and you?"

I agree with you completely on this!  And the woolyness is not helped by the press and media who misinterpret scientific statements and make exagerated claims, usually out of ignorance.  I think "science correspondents" have a lot to answer for!

"As there is no way to do an experiment to prove that God or a god created the universe it remains as much a matter of faith and philosophy as the theory of evolution." This is true - I'm with you all the way on the "faith" bit, though I'm not sure about the philosophy part - I always got the impression that philosophy and scientific evidence didn't necessarily go together! 

Would you accept, that any evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution, must to some degree support the theory of a creator, (and vice versa) since there is no viable "third option"? (To put it simply, if you toss a coin, and someone tells you it did not land "heads" up, you can deduce that it must be "tails").

[Hamish]

I would agree to a degree. However, the fact that there are problems with evolution do not nessicarily support creation. It is possible that there is some other explanation which, with all probability is also not verifiable, which also precludes the nessecity of invoking a God or god, ie the coin could have landed on its edge, or never have come down.

With respect to Laws and thories, I can see we are not going to get any further here. I have spent several years in chemistry research, a disapline, which has by some, been described as the science of exceptions - ie looking for the stuff that doesn't fit the 'laws' - theres an awful lot of it. I think this has given me a keen desire not to nessiceraly accept anything without good reason.

You should remember however that Newtons 'Laws' like most of physics, can be expressed as a simple statement, or as a mathamatical equation. Usually it is the first that people remember. Much of physics, the first of modern science in my opinion, came about from a desire to describe how the universe behaved and later how it worked.

My point on observation and measurement was that whist makeing such is not in itself an experiment, without them there is no experiment. The degree of control or knowledge of other factors determines how good an experiment is, in some cases this can be very difficult, in others more simple. At the end of the day you still need to make the obs. or collect the measurement though.

In a simple manner every obs. or measurement is and experiment, we learn from everything we see and measure. Usually control is poor and conclusions inaccurate, (the whole basis of magic tricks!), but they are an experiment. So when you see someone in a pointy hat with stars on come up to you an pull a coin out of you ear you are not as supprised as when you were 3 or 4. However, when you were 1-2, there would have been little supprise beacuse you had never learned that this wasn't normal.

[mimififi]

er, where's Clanad????

questioning Darwinian theory jeopardises the justification of non-belief; Darwinian theory never compromised true belief.

Interesting.

[mr. piper]

I personally believe that to be a christian as CD was, was a hypocracy. There is no fence to sit on, it is one or t'other. There may be room for intelligent design but in a way that says the evolutionary process is factual but on a plan devised by some greater "being". I know it is easy to poke holes in that argument, yet it would seem to satisfy both camps, perhaps it, as have many other scientific facts, is born of an amalgam of more than one premise such as Klienism.

[mibn2cweus]

The unstated premise underpinning �Intelligent Design� is invalid.  Intelligence presupposes a being, (a living entity with a brain), which possesses a means of gathering information (a living entity with sensory organs), from a world (a life support system), which makes their existence possible.
The world is here, (self evident); it is where real things, (things that exist), come from.  Think about it!