I saw Dr. Hugh Ross give a lecture a few years ago in Everett, Washington. As part of is presentation, he provided several philosophical arguments for the existence of God. For each argument, he also provided a criticism of that argument and his response to that criticism. The problem I noticed, was that the criticisms that he provided were not matched with the correct argument. Whatever Dr. Ross's qualifications may be as an astronomer, he isn't a very good philosopher.
Wandering through the Reasons to Believe website, I found a list of 118 parameters in the universe that "...must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist."
One problem I find with this list, is that most of the ranges listed are extremely large. For example, #105: distance from nearest black hole. There is evidence that our galaxy has a black hole at its center. Our solar system is about 2/3 of the way out from the center of our galaxy. That leaves a lot of space that is as good or better than our location. There is also no reason to believe that the range of acceptable exposure doesn't extend a great deal further in.
Some are not nearly as important as Dr. Ross would have us believe. For example, #93: size of galactic central bulge. This variable determines the number of stars that will be outside the bulge, not the ability of those stars outside the bulge to support life.
Still others could have the opposite effect. For example, #1: galaxy cluster type. Contrary to what Dr. Ross seems to think, collisions between galaxies can actually increase the rate of star formation as gas and dust clouds collide. Also, galaxies are mostly empty space - as far as stars are concerned - so it's unlikely that any particular solar system will be disrupted.
When Dr. Ross gave his presentation, he said that his purpose was to search the science literature to find evidence that supports the divine creation of the Universe. I do not believe that this is a good way to do science. All theories in science, even the bad ones, have some support from the evidence. But good theories should explain all of the applicable evidence. Dr. Ross seems to be looking at just the evidence that supports his theory, though even the evidence he has collected does not seem to be particularly good.
I was waiting for the crystal example. Sure nature produces order. But isn't it the overall "order" that does not increase?
Again, you seem to be making a reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But, as I pointed out in my post, order is not a scientifically defined term, at least not in thermodynamics. So how would you know if the order increased? How do you measure it? What equation do you use to calculate it? What are its units?
Entropy IS a scientifically defined term. When you use the correct definitions, evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
About the genetic algorithms: the reason I don't see that as being a valid test of evoution is because there is already some logic to begin with. Someone had to create the algorithm. The system may perfect or expand the alogrithm, but it didn't create itself. What we need is a computer sitting idly that evolves over time, with no initial logic to do such. The only logic the universe can have are physical and chemical laws. Even then, where did they come from?
Your question was, "Can we create a digital world and see what happens over time?" Are you proposing that we create a digital world without a computer?
A computer is not a biosphere. A computer does not replicate itself. There are no chemical reactions going on inside that could produce a self-replicating system. So a computer sitting idly on a desk is not a valid test of evolution. It doesn't exhibit the most basic requirement for evolution: replication.
But, using evolutionary algorithms that make use of random mutations and a selection criteria, a computer can be programmed to simulate evolution. Obviously, a program that simulates an entire planet down to the individual atoms would be prohibitive both in cost and duration. Simpler programs though, have demonstrated that evolutionary algorithms can produce systems that are both complex and diverse.
A planet is not a computer. Though a computer may need to be programmed to simulate evolution, planets and stars form all by themselves using the basic laws of physics. Given the right conditions - and there may be more than one set of "right" conditions - life can come about using the basic laws of chemistry. Once life arises, evolution takes over. All of this occurs using the basic laws of nature. No need for it to be set up.
So far earth is the only planet we know of that can foster life as we define it. So far, this is the only place in the universe that has "things" which are self-aware. We make decisions based on things other than reaction to physical laws. We have things like "pleasure", "ambition" and "love". We send some people to explore the moon. Why doesn't any other planet send something to explore its moon? Why is intelligence confined to this planet? Humans (life) do not behave randomly or only in reaction to physical events around them. Everywhere else does. So even if we want to accept that life can be found on worlds that don't have the atmosphere, liquid water, and solar radiation that we do, why don;t we see intelligence anywhere else?
How many places have you looked? How would you know if the inhabitants of another world had explored its moon? How would you know they hadn't done it before you started looking? Do they have a moon?
We can't even detect Earth-sized planets around other stars, so we haven't exactly been able to examine them to see if any of them have life on them or what that life has been up to. We only have one example of a planet with intelligent life. It's difficult to judge, based upon one sample, how common intelligent life may be in the universe. Are we surrounded by planets with life on them, but have no way to detect it because they haven't developed "intelligent" life? We have been producing the kind of signals that would be detected by the SETI program for less than a hundred years. That's only a very tiny fraction of the four billion years that life has existed on the Earth. How does that compare to the rest of the universe? Are we early? Are we late?
There are about a hundred billion galaxies out there. If there were one intelligent species for each galaxy, there would be about a hundred billion intelligent species out there. But it's unlikely that we would be able to detect them.
Within our own galaxy, there are about a hundred billion stars. I suspect that intelligence could be quite common and we would still be unaware of it. Our inability to detect life or intelligence on other planets is hardly a compelling argument against evolution on this one. Or on others for that matter.
However, the fossil record fails to show the progressive transformation of any living organism into a distinctly different kind of organism. The fossil record is "punctuated" by new fully formed organism. Is it not this observation that is the prime mover behind the concept of the "hopeful monster" or punctuated equilibrum.
There are many transitional fossils and some good sequences. Visit The Talk.Origins Archive at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h tml (For some reason, I am getting a space inserted in "html" when I preview this).
In particular, take a look at the evolution of mammals from reptiles. It includes thirty fossil species of mammal-like reptiles, including at least nine that use both the reptilian and the mammalian articulation of the jaw.
Eldredge and Gould may have proposed Punctuated Equilibria to explain the sudden transitions in the fossil record, but the theory behind it was produced decades earlier by Dr. Ernst Mayr and was based largely upon population genetics.
According to the theory, evolution occurs quickest in small populations, while large populations in a stable environment can remain relatively unchanged for long periods of time. If a small population becomes physically isolated from its main population, it can evolve quickly while the main population remains relatively unchanged. If the two populations then come into contact, the new species can quickly replace the old species, and the fossil record in the area of the old population will record what appears to be the sudden appearance of the new species.
Although Eldredge and Gould did express Punctuated Equilibria as a coherent theory, their most significant contribution was in providing examples of Punctuated Equilibria in action: Eldredge with trilobites, and Gould with fossil snails. Whatever their motivation may have been, Punctuated Equilibria has a sound basis in theory, evidence to support it, and we have well documented examples of species to species transitions in the fossil record.
I think they are the same thing. Gravity is the description of an observed phenomenon. You can't prove gravity exists. It is "unproven". You can prove that two objects are attracted to each other, but you can't explain why. You also can't very well have a control and a test group.
Evolutionism vs Creationism is facinating to me. Both are hampered by the fact that neither has been proven. Evolutionists have demonstrated that there seems to be a correlation in physiological features of organisms over time, but they can't prove the cause-effect relationship (where's the control and test groups?). Correlation does not prove causation.
A quick review of the scientific method might be in order here. The scientific method is a repeating four step process:
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step two is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data. A theory can be well supported by the data, poorly supported by the data, or even flatly contradicted by the data, and it is still a theory.
Step three is a hypothesis. In science, a hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon a theory, and should include all of the information used to make the prediction.
Step four is an experiment. The experiment tests the hypothesis.
Theories are formed using inductive reasoning (arguing from the specific to the general), while hypotheses are formed using deductive reasoning (arguing from the general to the specific).
A theory cannot be proven in the same way that a theorem can be proven in mathematics. There is no way to know that the next observation or the next experiment won't contradict a theory. Evolution is a valid scientific theory because it explains the evidence and produces hypotheses that can be tested.
The entropy argument I think is valid. Why would order increase in organisms? If evolution is real, then every single attribute about every single origanism is the result of an increase in order (for one reason or another) over time, and multiple times. If any one attribute could be proven to not be the result of evolution over time, then there would be a problem.
Are you suggesting that nature cannot produce order? Consider the formation of a salt crystal. Sodium and chlorine ions that are distributed randomly in solution can collect to form a very ordered crystal of sodium and chlorine atoms alternating in three dimensions. Clearly, this is an example of nature producing order from disorder.
I suspect you are trying to present the argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The error that most creationists make with this argument is in not correctly defining entropy. Terms like order and complexity are used to give new students or the general public a feel for entropy, but they are not scientifically defined terms (at least not in thermodynamics).
Entropy is correctly defined by any of three equations: one for classical entropy, one for statistical entropy, and one for information in information theory. The equation for classical entropy tells us that work is required to reduce the entropy of a system. Life and evolution get the energy to do this work primarily from the Sun. The equation for statistical entropy tells us that, in general, evolution is not a process of decreasing entropy. (I can explain either of these statements, if requested.)
The creationists can only go on faith. They acknowledge the mountain of evidence for evolution but cannot accept the proposed explanation to be valid. This is not unusual. Do we only accept facts because we observe them? Do we accept all facts even if our direct observations show otherwise? Some creationists try to find some middle ground by trying to accept evolution but not deny the hand of God, which can result in either redefining creation, or redefining evolution. Creationists will never be able to prove creationism (well, unless...), so they are always on the definsive in the scientific community.
I'd like to see some tests. Can we create a digital world and see what happens over time?
I believe this has already been done. They are called evolutionary algorithms. They use random changes and a selection criteria to produce novel and unexpected results. They can be applied to many practical applications.
I think the best logical argument against evolution is Microsoft (no, really!). I mean, given all the copies of Windows running around the world, how many of them have improved themselves or had their entropy decreased, excluding direct human input? Would there need to a minimum level of intelligence for the computers to start improving themselves? What is the reason for evolution?
Life is very tolerant of mutations. There are many, many, many, many errors that can occur in a species DNA that will have little or no effect on the organism.
This is not true of computer software. Unless a program has been specifically designed to accept errors and apply some selection criteria, any error will disable part or all of the program.
Slashdot Mirror
Wandering through the Reasons to Believe website, I found a list of 118 parameters in the universe that "...must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist."
One problem I find with this list, is that most of the ranges listed are extremely large. For example, #105: distance from nearest black hole. There is evidence that our galaxy has a black hole at its center. Our solar system is about 2/3 of the way out from the center of our galaxy. That leaves a lot of space that is as good or better than our location. There is also no reason to believe that the range of acceptable exposure doesn't extend a great deal further in.
Some are not nearly as important as Dr. Ross would have us believe. For example, #93: size of galactic central bulge. This variable determines the number of stars that will be outside the bulge, not the ability of those stars outside the bulge to support life.
Still others could have the opposite effect. For example, #1: galaxy cluster type. Contrary to what Dr. Ross seems to think, collisions between galaxies can actually increase the rate of star formation as gas and dust clouds collide. Also, galaxies are mostly empty space - as far as stars are concerned - so it's unlikely that any particular solar system will be disrupted.
When Dr. Ross gave his presentation, he said that his purpose was to search the science literature to find evidence that supports the divine creation of the Universe. I do not believe that this is a good way to do science. All theories in science, even the bad ones, have some support from the evidence. But good theories should explain all of the applicable evidence. Dr. Ross seems to be looking at just the evidence that supports his theory, though even the evidence he has collected does not seem to be particularly good.
Again, you seem to be making a reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But, as I pointed out in my post, order is not a scientifically defined term, at least not in thermodynamics. So how would you know if the order increased? How do you measure it? What equation do you use to calculate it? What are its units?
Entropy IS a scientifically defined term. When you use the correct definitions, evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
About the genetic algorithms: the reason I don't see that as being a valid test of evoution is because there is already some logic to begin with. Someone had to create the algorithm. The system may perfect or expand the alogrithm, but it didn't create itself. What we need is a computer sitting idly that evolves over time, with no initial logic to do such. The only logic the universe can have are physical and chemical laws. Even then, where did they come from?
Your question was, "Can we create a digital world and see what happens over time?" Are you proposing that we create a digital world without a computer?
A computer is not a biosphere. A computer does not replicate itself. There are no chemical reactions going on inside that could produce a self-replicating system. So a computer sitting idly on a desk is not a valid test of evolution. It doesn't exhibit the most basic requirement for evolution: replication.
But, using evolutionary algorithms that make use of random mutations and a selection criteria, a computer can be programmed to simulate evolution. Obviously, a program that simulates an entire planet down to the individual atoms would be prohibitive both in cost and duration. Simpler programs though, have demonstrated that evolutionary algorithms can produce systems that are both complex and diverse.
A planet is not a computer. Though a computer may need to be programmed to simulate evolution, planets and stars form all by themselves using the basic laws of physics. Given the right conditions - and there may be more than one set of "right" conditions - life can come about using the basic laws of chemistry. Once life arises, evolution takes over. All of this occurs using the basic laws of nature. No need for it to be set up.
So far earth is the only planet we know of that can foster life as we define it. So far, this is the only place in the universe that has "things" which are self-aware. We make decisions based on things other than reaction to physical laws. We have things like "pleasure", "ambition" and "love". We send some people to explore the moon. Why doesn't any other planet send something to explore its moon? Why is intelligence confined to this planet? Humans (life) do not behave randomly or only in reaction to physical events around them. Everywhere else does. So even if we want to accept that life can be found on worlds that don't have the atmosphere, liquid water, and solar radiation that we do, why don;t we see intelligence anywhere else?
How many places have you looked? How would you know if the inhabitants of another world had explored its moon? How would you know they hadn't done it before you started looking? Do they have a moon?
We can't even detect Earth-sized planets around other stars, so we haven't exactly been able to examine them to see if any of them have life on them or what that life has been up to. We only have one example of a planet with intelligent life. It's difficult to judge, based upon one sample, how common intelligent life may be in the universe. Are we surrounded by planets with life on them, but have no way to detect it because they haven't developed "intelligent" life? We have been producing the kind of signals that would be detected by the SETI program for less than a hundred years. That's only a very tiny fraction of the four billion years that life has existed on the Earth. How does that compare to the rest of the universe? Are we early? Are we late?
There are about a hundred billion galaxies out there. If there were one intelligent species for each galaxy, there would be about a hundred billion intelligent species out there. But it's unlikely that we would be able to detect them.
Within our own galaxy, there are about a hundred billion stars. I suspect that intelligence could be quite common and we would still be unaware of it. Our inability to detect life or intelligence on other planets is hardly a compelling argument against evolution on this one. Or on others for that matter.
There are many transitional fossils and some good sequences. Visit The Talk.Origins Archive at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h tml (For some reason, I am getting a space inserted in "html" when I preview this).
In particular, take a look at the evolution of mammals from reptiles. It includes thirty fossil species of mammal-like reptiles, including at least nine that use both the reptilian and the mammalian articulation of the jaw.
Eldredge and Gould may have proposed Punctuated Equilibria to explain the sudden transitions in the fossil record, but the theory behind it was produced decades earlier by Dr. Ernst Mayr and was based largely upon population genetics.
According to the theory, evolution occurs quickest in small populations, while large populations in a stable environment can remain relatively unchanged for long periods of time. If a small population becomes physically isolated from its main population, it can evolve quickly while the main population remains relatively unchanged. If the two populations then come into contact, the new species can quickly replace the old species, and the fossil record in the area of the old population will record what appears to be the sudden appearance of the new species.
Although Eldredge and Gould did express Punctuated Equilibria as a coherent theory, their most significant contribution was in providing examples of Punctuated Equilibria in action: Eldredge with trilobites, and Gould with fossil snails. Whatever their motivation may have been, Punctuated Equilibria has a sound basis in theory, evidence to support it, and we have well documented examples of species to species transitions in the fossil record.
Evolutionism vs Creationism is facinating to me. Both are hampered by the fact that neither has been proven. Evolutionists have demonstrated that there seems to be a correlation in physiological features of organisms over time, but they can't prove the cause-effect relationship (where's the control and test groups?). Correlation does not prove causation.
A quick review of the scientific method might be in order here. The scientific method is a repeating four step process:
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step two is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data. A theory can be well supported by the data, poorly supported by the data, or even flatly contradicted by the data, and it is still a theory.
Step three is a hypothesis. In science, a hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon a theory, and should include all of the information used to make the prediction.
Step four is an experiment. The experiment tests the hypothesis.
Theories are formed using inductive reasoning (arguing from the specific to the general), while hypotheses are formed using deductive reasoning (arguing from the general to the specific).
A theory cannot be proven in the same way that a theorem can be proven in mathematics. There is no way to know that the next observation or the next experiment won't contradict a theory. Evolution is a valid scientific theory because it explains the evidence and produces hypotheses that can be tested.
The entropy argument I think is valid. Why would order increase in organisms? If evolution is real, then every single attribute about every single origanism is the result of an increase in order (for one reason or another) over time, and multiple times. If any one attribute could be proven to not be the result of evolution over time, then there would be a problem.
Are you suggesting that nature cannot produce order? Consider the formation of a salt crystal. Sodium and chlorine ions that are distributed randomly in solution can collect to form a very ordered crystal of sodium and chlorine atoms alternating in three dimensions. Clearly, this is an example of nature producing order from disorder.
I suspect you are trying to present the argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The error that most creationists make with this argument is in not correctly defining entropy. Terms like order and complexity are used to give new students or the general public a feel for entropy, but they are not scientifically defined terms (at least not in thermodynamics).
Entropy is correctly defined by any of three equations: one for classical entropy, one for statistical entropy, and one for information in information theory. The equation for classical entropy tells us that work is required to reduce the entropy of a system. Life and evolution get the energy to do this work primarily from the Sun. The equation for statistical entropy tells us that, in general, evolution is not a process of decreasing entropy. (I can explain either of these statements, if requested.)
The creationists can only go on faith. They acknowledge the mountain of evidence for evolution but cannot accept the proposed explanation to be valid. This is not unusual. Do we only accept facts because we observe them? Do we accept all facts even if our direct observations show otherwise? Some creationists try to find some middle ground by trying to accept evolution but not deny the hand of God, which can result in either redefining creation, or redefining evolution. Creationists will never be able to prove creationism (well, unless...), so they are always on the definsive in the scientific community.
I'd like to see some tests. Can we create a digital world and see what happens over time?
I believe this has already been done. They are called evolutionary algorithms. They use random changes and a selection criteria to produce novel and unexpected results. They can be applied to many practical applications.
I think the best logical argument against evolution is Microsoft (no, really!). I mean, given all the copies of Windows running around the world, how many of them have improved themselves or had their entropy decreased, excluding direct human input? Would there need to a minimum level of intelligence for the computers to start improving themselves? What is the reason for evolution?
Life is very tolerant of mutations. There are many, many, many, many errors that can occur in a species DNA that will have little or no effect on the organism.
This is not true of computer software. Unless a program has been specifically designed to accept errors and apply some selection criteria, any error will disable part or all of the program.