Biologos and the Invisible Hand of God

Credit where credit is due, since coming under the direction of Deborah Haarsma, the Biologos.org website has managed tone down the rhetoric against its opponents, even if little has changed in the views presented there. Steven Meyer was recently given space to respond to his critics, and all in all I think the exchange was healthy.

Meyer’s main point in his response was that the folks at Biologos are committed to methodological naturalism and that is the primary thing that separates them from other theistic viewpoints. Evidence of both Biologos more conciliatory tone and commitment to naturalism are apparent in the statement quoted below. (More)

First, there is a general statement of belief in God as Creator, but coupled with a statement of belief in evolutionary science.

Immaterial Reality Times Two

Not too long ago, I posted about the notion that information is the immaterial reality that cannot be explained by reference to material causes.

Now this.  

Not only is the genetic code a language, it is two languages with two different purposes stacked onto the same chemical sequence. 

From the original article:  "The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other"

David Klinghoffer responds:  "But think about how implausible this is. Let's say I write an article in English about Subject A. But ingeniously I choose my words in such a way that the article can also be read in a different language, providing information about a related but separate Subject B. Meditate for a moment on the ingenuity this would take -- not only that, but the forethought, with imagining a complex, distant goal being the first step in the process."

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.KHQsXchU.dpuf

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.KHQsXchU.dpuf

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.KHQsXchU.dpuf

Science Deniers - the 70s

A bit late for Earth Day, but given that conservatives are incessantly labeled "science deniers" this article caught my eye.   Jon Gabriel at Freedomworks has compiled a list of the the 13 worst Earth Day predictions.  (He quotes Ronald Baily from Reason.com, "Earth Day, Then and Now")

Being a 1977 high school  graduate, I disagree that the 1970s were a lousy decade.  We did have Star Wars, The Doobie Brothers and plenty of denim and some of the best muscle cars ever.  But I do remember the fear-mongering about the coming ice age.  It is precisely why the global warming alarmism of today gets taken with a grain of salt by conservatives from the get-go.

A few of the highlights - or rather lowlights.(More)

The Hidden Censorship of Scientism

I do read Uncommon Descent daily. Interesting article last week regarding Professor James Tour is listed as Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University.

Tour has stated his opinion that no scientist alive really understands macroevolution.  His primary concern is with the mechanism of chemical evolution.  He "makes molecules" he says, and he knows how hard it is to get all the pieces to fit together, so the question of how it all happened in nature a long, long time ago leaves him with questions.  But the ugly secret is that behind the scenes he is not alone.  Here is his claim:

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."  More

C.S. Lewis on Scientism

I recently finished reading The Magician's Twin subtitled "C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism and Society".   The book is edited by John G West.  It is a good read and it was fun to reengage with Professor Lewis' ideas once again. 

A few internet articles have made a bit of a point about Lewis' views of Darwin or Intelligent Design, but the central theme of The Magician's Twin is really not Lewis' view of Darwinism.  At the heart of the book is Lewis' view of scientism, his distrust of an overconfidence in the value of natural science to lead us to ultimate truth about the universe.  And more to the point, Lewis feared the manipulation of science by those in power.  (More)

A Concise Statement of a Familiar Point

Cornelius Hunter at Darwin's God presents a new twist on an old objection to Darwinist views of origins.  Hunter's point is that there is an a priori assumption inherent to the mindset of most Darwinists that can logically prevent them from seeking truth.  Key paragraph is near the top.

Though evolutionists think of themselves as realists—ruthlessly objective investigators interested only in truth—their naturalistic constraint ultimately leaves them with only anti realism. This is because any a priori restriction of the answer might exclude the true answer.

The last line is worth repeating.  ANY a priori restriction of the answer logically may exclude the true answer.   (Read More)

Information - The Immaterial Reality

In much of the debate between ID and Evolution advocates, the focus is on the mathematical complexity of the genetic code.  ID advocates point out that the sequences of chemicals arranged to carry the information that makes life possible are so detailed and vast that no amount of time could account for the unguided arrangement of even the most basic chemical structures of proteins.  Steven Meyer's recent tome suggests that the random combination of chemicals necessary for even the basic building blocks of the genetic code are so unlikely to have arisen by random processes as to be equivalent to finding a single marked atom blindfolded in an area equivalent to size of the known universe.  ID does not then merely resort to a "God of the gaps" argument where "design" wins by default, as his critics charge, nor is it merely an argument about "chance".  Rather, the suggestion is that the order of the genetic code is analogous to virtually everything else that we know to have been designed, therefore design is the best explanation.  (More)

The Lie

It is said by Evolutionary Creation advocates that if Young Earth Creationism is true, then God “lied” by making the universe appear old. In fact the “appearance of age” is one explanation some YEC use to explain the apparent age of the universe. The argument YEC makes is that if God were to create a tree, instantaneously, and someone came along moments later, the someone may have no idea the tree was only seconds old, for a “created” tree would appear to be mature. The same logic would apply for the land masses, earth and the universe itself.

But to evolutionists, Theistic Evolutionists and evolutionary creationists, this explanation imputes to God a “lie”, that he would have left clues in the universe that make it appear to be old when it is not, deceiving…well, scientists primarily… who want to assume the age of something very old can be determined by examining its properties.

It is not my purpose here to defend a particular age for the cosmos. As a conservative Christian, I am not committed to a particular age of the most distant star, or of the necessity of a precise 24 hour day in the creation of planets or land masses, but I am committed to the historicity of Adam and his fall into sin as recorded in the Genesis account. What concerns me here is logic, for this is a curious and horribly inconsistent charge made by EC advocates against YEC.

If find it stunning that EC advocates suggest that

A) God “LIED” if the universe is young when it appears to be old,

B) But there is apparently nothing deceitful about an “inspired” text that indicates absolutely nothing about the alleged irrefutable truth of common descent!

The utter absurdity of that inconsistency ought to be enough to cause any serious reader of scripture to doubt whether EC is the least bit honest with the text of scripture.

What is the greater lie?

Is it the lie latent in a subtle set of clues allegedly buried in inferences made by a few highly specialized technicians; conclusions measured in the long slow decay of radio-isotopes or measurements of the speed of light, each revealed only through sophisticated scientific methods based on philosophical assumptions about the nature of the physical universe?

Or is the greater lie laid out in common human language in story form which explicitly and repeatedly claims that human beings are descended from a single pair whose rebellion is the cause of all death and suffering?

It is often asserted by these sophisticated academics that God revealed the Genesis story to earlier pre-scientific peoples because they would not have been sophisticated enough to comprehend common descent. Really?

Were the men who lived in the age that built the pyramids really so incapable of higher level thinking that a story of creation which simply suggested all living beings came from earlier creatures would have been incomprehensible to them? Is it more credible that instead God reveals to them a story that all humans descended from a single pair?

Science Deniers

A label often attached to those who doubt either Darwinism or man-made global warming is “science-denier”. If one questions either the assumptions or the conclusions of either of those narratives, one is assumed to be anti-science, as if disagreeing with a conclusion was the same as losing all contact with reality. But I have to say in the dispute about a number of issues, I have a strong suspicion it is not really about the science. Why?

Because I have a pretty direct example of agendas driving conclusions in spite of evidence coming from the other side of the political and religious spectrum.

While Shoveling the Driveway

Just a thought. This last weekend we were warned that a major winter storm was about to hit our area. This took me as a surprise because I had checked an online weather site less than 48 hours prior and nothing of the sort was predicted. My wife informed me of the forecast on Sunday - that it was supposed to start snowing Sunday evening and continue through the following day, leaving 10 or more inches of snow. I watched and waited until I retired Sunday night, wondering if schools would close and how long it would take to clear my driveway.

I woke up to find a modest 2-3 inches of snow - a minor inconvenience, not quite what was predicted.

I've seen this pattern repeated over and over, as has anyone who has tried to plan a spring camping trip. Listen to the weather reports on one TV station and you may or may not hear the same thing on another. Online weather services often show different forecasts. If you are looking at the next day forecast, the accuracy is usually pretty good. If the forecast is for three days out, not so much. If the forecast is for five days out - well, you'd better check back in a couple of days.