Over at Evolution News, mathematician Granville Sewell has written an article titled, From Barren Planet to Civilization — Four Simple Steps (July 27, 2017). My intention in writing this post is not to critique Dr. Sewell’s latest argument, but to clarify its premises. Sewell’s own comments reveal that it is ultimately a philosophical argument, rather than a scientific one. Although I agree with Dr. Sewell’s key intuition, I contend that his argument hinges on two assumptions: that unguided processes have a snowball’s chance in hell of giving rise to factories, and that mental states do not supervene upon physical states.
The bulk of this post will be devoted to what Dr. Sewell has written in his latest Evolution News article. At the end of my post, I will briefly comment on the thermodynamic arguments in his accompanying video, which I see as peripheral to Sewell’s main point.
I’d like to begin by quoting from the first, second and last paragraphs of Sewell’s article:
In the video “Why Evolution is Different,” above, I make the simple point that to not believe in intelligent design, you have to believe that the four fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone (the gravitational, electromagnetic, and strong and weak nuclear forces) could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into encyclopedias and science texts and computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. I show that this belief runs contrary to the more general statements of the second law of thermodynamics, even if the Earth is an open system.
Whether or not it has anything to do with the second law, I can’t imagine anything in all of science that is more clear and more obvious than that unintelligent forces alone cannot produce such things as Apple iPhones.…
Mathematicians are trained to value simplicity. When we have a clear, simple, proof of a theorem, and a long, complicated counterargument, involving controversial and unproven assertions, we accept the clear, simple, proof, and we know there must be errors in the counterargument even before we find them. The argument here for intelligent design could not be simpler or clearer: unintelligent forces of physics alone cannot rearrange atoms into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones.…
By his own admission, Dr. Sewell’s argument rests on a simple intuition, that unintelligent forces of physics alone cannot rearrange fundamental particles into science texts and computers. Although Sewell maintains that the second law of thermodynamics prevents the four fundamental forces of physics from rearranging fundamental particles into science texts and computers all by themselves, he insists that his intuition is clear and obvious, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the second law. Since Sewell’s intuition does not appeal to any mathematical reasoning to justify it, and the intuition is couched in non-mathematical language, it is evident that we are not dealing with a mathematical claim here. Nor can it be called a scientific claim, as key terms are left undefined: what is it, exactly, that the four fundamental forces of physics are incapable of rearranging fundamental particles into? Machines, texts or both? Additionally, the only scientific law which Sewell appeals to, in order to support his claim, is one which he says intuition does not require, anyway, in order to grasp its truth.
What does Dr. Sewell mean?
I take it, then, that Sewell’s fundamental intuition is a philosophical one. As a philosopher, I find it somewhat ambiguously worded, in that it fails to distinguish between proximate and ultimate causation. Sewell’s claim could mean either:
1. Science texts and computers can never have, as their proximate cause, the four fundamental forces of physics, acting on elementary particles without any intelligent assistance
or:
2. Science texts and computers can never have, as their ultimate cause, the four fundamental forces of physics, acting on elementary particles without any intelligent assistance.
But we are not finished yet. Although Dr. Sewell claims in his article that “unintelligent forces of physics alone cannot rearrange atoms into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones” (my emphasis), he does not literally mean this. As he explains in an earlier post from 2012, what he actually means is that such an outcome would be “astronomically improbable.” So what Sewell really means to say is either
1(a) It is astronomically improbable that science texts and computers would have, as their proximate cause, the four fundamental forces of physics, acting on elementary particles without any intelligent assistance
or
2(a) It is astronomically improbable that science texts and computers would have, as their ultimate cause, the four fundamental forces of physics, acting on elementary particles without any intelligent assistance.
Now, even opponents of Intelligent Design would readily agree with Sewell that claim 1(a) is true. In the real world, science books are always written by scientists, and computers are always built by computer engineers. In both cases, the proximate cause is an intelligent agent. (A robot can build a computer, but it still has to be designed by an intelligent agent.) We never see science texts and computers being put together by the four fundamental forces of physics, acting on elementary particles. While it’s theoretically possible for the four forces of nature to assemble particles into texts and computers, the odds are so low that we would never expect to witness such an event. So I can only assume that Dr. Sewell means to assert claim 2(a). Sewell confirms this interpretation in his latest article, where he states that materialists attempt to explain the origin of advanced civilizations from inanimate matter, in four steps:
1. Three or four billion years ago a collection of atoms formed by pure chance that was able to duplicate itself. [Life]
2. These complex collections of atoms were able to preserve their complex structures and pass them on to their descendants, generation after generation. [Reproduction and heredity]
3. Over a long period of time, the accumulation of duplication errors resulted in more and more elaborate collections of atoms. [“Higher” animals]
4. Eventually something called “intelligence” [i.e. human beings] allowed some of these collections of atoms to design buildings and computers and airplanes, and write encyclopedias and science texts.
In step 4, Sewell acknowledges that even materialists posit something called “intelligence” as the proximate cause of computers and science texts. What distinguishes materialists from Intelligent Design theorists, according to Sewell, is that the latter would deny that the four fundamental forces of physics, acting on elementary particles without any intelligent assistance, are the ultimate cause of these remarkable artifacts.
Sewell contends that each of these steps is very difficult to explain scientifically. The origin of life (step 1) is “a very difficult problem which has not yet been solved by science.” Reproduction (step 2) is “difficult to explain without design,” especially when the new entity being constructed is one which has to contain a factory for building yet another entity like itself. The bodies of higher animals (step 3) contain major new features, whose sudden appearance and subsequent refinement “actually looks more like the way human technology, such as software or automobiles, ‘evolves,’ through testing and improvements.” And while the process whereby humans design science texts and computers (step 4) might seem very familiar to us all, “science cannot yet explain human consciousness or intelligence in terms of unintelligent forces alone.”
Some readers might wish to question whether Sewell has an adequate grasp of evolutionary biology. However, as this post is intended to assess his philosophical reasoning, I shall overlook any scientific objections to Sewell’s argument, in his article. Instead, I’d like to focus on his key intuition. Sewell thinks it is clear and obvious that the probability of science texts and computers ultimately arising from the four fundamental forces of physics, acting on elementary particles without any intelligent assistance, is astronomically low. That is his central claim.
What is interesting here is that Sewell does not assert that it is intuitively obvious that the probability of life ultimately arising from the four fundamental forces of physics, acting on elementary particles without any intelligent assistance, is astronomically low. He regards the origin of life as “a very difficult problem,” but that’s a much weaker assertion than his central claim. Sewell also acknowledges that the origin of “higher” animals, and even “intelligent humans,” appears at least “superficially plausible (until we look at it in more detail).”
Getting to the roots of Sewell’s key intuition
As far as I can tell from reading his article, there are two classes of phenomena which Sewell regards as truly mysterious: reproduction and creativity – the former, because it involves not only copying something, but building a factory that can continue the chain of copying down through the generations; and the latter, because Sewell does not believe that human consciousness or intelligence can be explained in terms of blind forces.
I am curious to know which Sewell regards as more mysterious: reproduction or human creativity. Although he devotes two entire paragraphs of his article to the marvel of reproduction, I find it very strange that Sewell nowhere claims that it is obvious that the probability of, say, a lineage of bacteria ultimately arising from the four fundamental forces of physics, acting on elementary particles without any intelligent assistance, is astronomically low. And yet, if he regarded reproduction as the main hurdle rendering the unguided origin of science texts and computers from inanimate matter astronomically unlikely, that is precisely the sort of claim which one would expect him to make.
That leaves us with the mystery of human creativity. And indeed, there is something profoundly odd about the appearance of an animal whose mind enables it to explore the farthest recesses of time and space, and to solve any technological problem that the cosmos throws at it. How did a such a magnificent mind arise, in the first place?
A Darwinist might contend that if we examine the hominin fossil record and the tools made by our ancestors, we can discern no breaks that correspond to any sudden appearance of the human mind. As far as we can tell, the mind arose gradually, over a period of hundreds of thousands of years. Sewell might object that “science cannot yet explain human consciousness or intelligence in terms of unintelligent forces alone,” but Darwinists would call that an argument from ignorance. Or is it? Are there any good reasons to believe that blind forces cannot generate minds like ours?
A Thought Experiment
Instead of putting forward an argument for the immateriality of the mind which is based on Aristotelian metaphysics (as many Thomistic philosophers do), I’d like to cut to the chase with a thought experiment.
Imagine that you’re an astronaut, traveling in interstellar space in the 25th century, and that your spaceship has a super-duper computer. One day, you land on a planet and encounter a race of technologically advanced beings whose science is roughly on a par with your own. One of these beings kindly lets you scan its brain and body, allowing your on-board computer to construct a detailed model in its databank. You also observe the alien being very carefully, monitoring its verbal utterances and its brain waves whenever it communicates with other members of its race.
Now here’s my question for the materialists: do you think you would be able to reconstruct the alien’s thoughts and its language, simply by analyzing its brain waves and bodily behavior? After all, if the mind “supervenes upon” the body, as materialists love to claim, so that two intelligent entities having the same physical states will always have the same mental states, then it should be possible, in theory at least, to infer the latter from the former, given a powerful enough computer. If intelligent beings’ brain processes possess intentionality in their own right, then there is no reason in principle why we cannot “read off” the meaning of these brain processes at time T from their structure and/or the changes they are undergoing, at time T.
What’s more, it shouldn’t be necessary for us to know anything about the alien’s life-history, or the history of its species, in order to determine what it is thinking. For if the content of its thoughts supervenes upon what’s going on in its brain and body right now, as materialists suppose, then a complete knowledge of the alien’s current physical state (and its present surroundings) should be enough to tell us what’s going on in its mind. Otherwise, one might imagine a race of aliens on another planet, having identical brain processes, bodily states and immediate surroundings, but whose thoughts have a different content from those of the first race of aliens, because of different choices they made in the past – for instance, about the rules of their language. This would contradict the physicalist thesis of supervenience, that there can be no mental differences between two individuals without some underlying physical difference.
When my thought experiment is couched in this form, it becomes evident that the materialist’s claim that mental states (including our language and our most creative ideas) supervene upon physical states is highly implausible, and stands in need of justification. One would want to see very good evidence, before accepting such a sweeping claim. Of course, rejection of materialism doesn’t tell us what the mind is. Nor does it establish the truth of any particular version of dualism. One could still adopt some form of neutral monism, where mental and physical properties are regarded as existing side by side, in human beings and other intelligent organisms. But on such an account, the origin and existence of the mind would still remain a profound mystery.
If there is any truth to Sewell’s core intuition, then, it must rest on the materialist claim that mental states supervene upon physical states. The emergence of life, of reproduction and heredity, and of complex animals, are all very puzzling facts, in a world where unguided forces hold sway, but it is not obvious that these outcomes are astronomically improbable. But the origin of a mind which can ask and answer questions about where it – and everything else – came from, and that can solve any technological problem it sets itself, is something truly astonishing. The laws of physics simply express functional relationships between various physical properties; they say nothing about syntax, let alone the semantics of our language. Language is a wholly unexpected phenomenon in a world governed by blind forces. And so are those human creations, such as science texts and computers, which presuppose the existence of language. That, I would suggest, is what lies at the core of Sewell’s big claim.
What do readers think?
APPENDIX: Some remarks on Grant Sewell’s video
Sewell’s 22-minute video, titled, “Why Evolution Is Different,” is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpEXXNxjWYE&feature=youtu.be
This video is more scientific and technical than Dr. Sewell’s article; consequently, my assessment of it will be quite different from my overall favorable assessment of the central claim of Sewell’s article.
I’ll keep my comments as brief as possible.
(1) At the beginning of the video, Sewell discusses Le Conte’s axiom: the four forces account for everything else in nature, so why should evolution be any different? For my part, I think Le Conte’s axiom is scientifically plausible, when one is discussing the physical properties of objects. But as we have seen, it is wildly implausible to suppose that the four forces can account for the appearance of human language. Syntax and semantics can’t be explained in terms of functional physical relationships, such as Hooke’s law. That’s why I think Sewell’s central claim is a valid one.
(2) At 5:09, we are told that in his published paper, On “compensating” entropy decreases (Physics Essays 30, 1 (2017), pp. 70-74), Dr. Sewell defined “X-entropy” as the entropy associated with any diffusing component (e.g. heat). And since entropy is a measure of disorder, he defined X-order as the negative of X-entropy. However, it’s a mistake to regard entropy as a measure of disorder (admittedly, it’s a common one in physics textbooks, which originally goes back to Ludwig Boltzmann). Steve Donaldson’s paper, Entropy is not Disorder, is well worth reading in this regard. I shall quote a few of the highlights:
So what is entropy? Probably the most common answer you hear is that entropy is a kind of measure of disorder. This is misleading. Equating entropy with disorder creates unnecessary confusion in evaluating the entropy of different systems. Consider the following comparisons. Which has more entropy?
– stack of cards in perfect order or a stack of cards in random order?
– a Swiss watch with intricate internal workings or a sundial?
– ten jars of water stacked neatly in a pyramid or the equivalent mass of water in the form of 10 blocks of ice flying randomly through space?
– a living, breathing human being or a dried up corpse turning to dust?
– the universe at the moment of the Big Bang or the universe in its present state?
If you think of entropy as disorder, then the answers to these questions may trouble you….A better word that captures the essence of entropy on the molecular level is diversity. Entropy represents the diversity of internal movement of a system. The greater the diversity of movement on the molecular level, the greater the entropy of the system. Order, on the other hand, may be simple or complex. A living system is complex. A living system has a high degree of order AND an high degree of entropy. A raccoon has more entropy than a rock. A living, breathing human being, more than a dried up corpse…
With this clearer understanding of entropy, let’s take a look at those troubling entropy questions posed earlier. Those stacks of cards? They both have the same entropy. On the molecular level, the molecules are not behaving any differently in one stack than in the other. Even on the card level, there is no difference. None of the cards are moving. There is no kinetic energy present on the card level in either stack. There is no difference between the stacks except our subjective sense of order.
As for the watch and the sundial, it depends. If they are both made of similar metals and they are at the same temperature and pressure, then on a molecular level they would have about the same entropy. The molecules in the watch would have about the same diversity of movement in the solid metal parts as the molecules in the metal of the sundial. Ounce for ounce, the heat content would be about the same for both.
On the higher system level, you could say the watch has more entropy than the sundial because it has a greater diversity of internal movement. The watch has more internal kinetic energy than the sundial. What significance you could give this “higher level” entropy is not clear to me.
The water in the stacked jars has more entropy than the flying ice cubes because liquid water molecules have more modes of movement than ice molecules. Again, the heat trapped in the liquid water per degree is greater than the heat trapped in the ice per degree…
…The 2nd law says entropy is always increasing in the universe, so the entropy of the universe at the time of the Big Bang must have been much less that the entropy of the universe now.
This does not mean there was more structure or order back then. It does mean there was less diversity and less space to move around. The evolution of the universe has been characterized by an on-going transformation from a simple, restricted, highly condensed, homogeneous state to an increasingly complex, widely dispersed, dynamic, multipotent, granular diversity. In other words, the universe is not winding down, like a giant soulless machine slowly running out of steam. On the contrary, she is just waking up. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
(3) Later, Dr. Sewell discusses the astronomical unlikelihood of a tornado turning all the houses and cars in an area into rubble, being followed by a second tornado which turns the rubble back into houses and cars. Sewell’s point is that unguided evolution is equally ridiculous. But the origin of life is completely different from a tornado turning a heap of rubble back into a house. In a living organism (e.g. a tiny bacterium), the constituent molecules show at least some tendency to bond together (although we still have no idea how the first organism was formed), and (usually) a very robust tendency to hold together, once assembled. The pieces of rubble from a house destroyed by a tornado show absolutely no tendency to come together again; nor would they show any tendency to hold together, even if they somehow managed to coalesce in some freak event. Also, a bacterium is very small, and a house is very big. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, assembling a house is a lot harder than assembling a bacterium. As for the subsequent evolution of more complex life-forms, Darwinian evolution (supplemented by the neutral theory) provide at least a mechanism whereby complex traits could evolve. No such mechanism exists for houses.
(4) Dr. Sewell contends that major transitions occur suddenly in the fossil record. Evidently he hasn’t read much about the evolution of mammals from mammal-like reptiles, or the origin of birds from dinosaurs, recently. Back in the 1980s, these transitions were still deeply puzzling (especially the latter). Not any longer.
(5) In his video, Sewell explains why the evolution of the automobile engine couldn’t have been natural. I’m sure it couldn’t: cars don’t have babies.
(6) Finally, Dr. Sewell argues that the evolution of life shows the same pattern of careful planning and gradual improvement as we observe in technological design. Convergence, he suggests, explains the similar structures which are sometimes found in different lineages of living things: Ford automobiles and Boeing jets may simultaneously evolve new GPS systems. OK, so here’s a question: why do we never see exactly the same complex structure appearing in different lineages of living things? (The vertebrate eye is not the same as that of the octopus.) This is odd, because human designers typically reuse their designs. And why do novel designs appearing in one branch of living things never appear at exactly the same time, in another branch, as occurred with GPS systems? That does not sound like technological design to me.
(7) Professsor Joe Felsenstein and Mark Perakh have responded to Dr. Sewell’s argument based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics here and here, respectively. I’ll leave it to readers to form their own judgement. Elsewhere, Felsenstein highlights what he sees as two key errors made by Dr. Sewell (emphases mine):
1. His X-entropies, even if the equations for them are correct, isolate the concentration of one quantity from all others, not allowing chemical or nuclear reactions to create or destroy the substance. For example, we could make an X-entropy for carbon dioxide. We could have equations for the changes in concentration of CO2, but these would not have terms for the creation of CO2 by respiration or by some geochemical processes, and they would not have terms for the destruction of CO2 by photosynthesis. So the equations can be correct but their application to the real world wrong.
2. Leaving aside the issue of X-entropies and just looking at the energy flows, Sewell wants to argue that his math shows that evolution cannot make organisms more complex and energy-rich. Here he gets very handwavy and vague, and that is telling. In fact he is ignoring the role of solar radiation in powering the processes in the biosphere. He just says that “all we see entering [the biosphere] is radiation” and expects his readers to dismiss the idea that this radiation could be important. In short, even if his equations are all correct, he has msiapplied them by ignoring a major fact explained in science classes.
Please note that I’m just passing on these comments; I’ll leave it to readers to elaborate on them.
(8) Dr. Sewell’s claim that you can calculate the entropy of a poker hand should be read in the light of Steve Donaldson’s explanation of why an ordered stack of cards has the same entropy as a randomly ordered stack (see above). Likewise, Sewell’s assertion that the Boltzmann formula can be used to calculate “the change in thermal entropy associated with any change in probability: not just the probability of an ideal gas state, but the probability of anything,” has been criticized as a sweeping generalization, which reflects a misunderstanding of Boltzmann’s work.
(9) Sal Cordova points out that not all creationists believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes the evolution of life.
I shall stop here, and invite readers to weigh in with their comments, both philosophical and scientific.
Pedant,
Buddha, Mung and Donald Trump 🙂
If one wants to use logic to prove that God exists then proving it is impossible seems necessary. Since the Universe exists that which has not been proven impossible seems by default possible. It may be impossible for existence without a deity you just can’t prove it with logic. Which was sort of my point.
I am not trying to do anything, you are trying to prove God’s exists through logic. As far as I am concerned the existence of some sort of something that could fit the broad category of a deity is a possibility.
So far all we have is the assertion that something exists therefore God.
Are you conceding that if the Universe was lifeless then it could exist without the existence of a deity? That existence of life is logically impossible without a deity? That seems to run into the same problem. I am not trying to prove God does not exist or is not required for life. You are trying to prove He must logically exist. That something is unknown is not a very persuasive argument that the unknown must be God.
We as in you, amigo. “Points to “does not really sound like logical proof . Not sure why God would be required to make unlike materials.
Same argument. It is true many configurations of matter exist. If different material were required to build different things would that be evidence against the existence of God?
.
Humans certainly are not the models of elegant simplicity as my aching knees remind me, evidence against the existence of God?
newton,
I don’t think you can logically prove the existence of God. I do think that you can make an argument that creation is the best explanation for what we are observing. Everything we say we are proving always carries the baggage of assumptions so the conclusion is tentative.
It would be less spectacular then what we are observing but again I think the existence on any material is evidence for creation.
Humans have lots of capability. Can you think of a simpler design for the ability to move any direction, work, make decisions, have emotions, love, reproduce, eat, enjoy music, play sports, design complex machines etc. despite sore knees you are a pretty special elegant arrangement of atoms.
BTW have you ever tried stationary cycling. I have had bad knees but stationary cycling has allowed me to continue to play competitive volleyball at age 62. All pain and stiffness is now gone.
Sadly, most of the “skeptics” here wouldn’t recognize a contradiction if it was uttered from their own lips.
Yes, you can make such an argument.
It will be an appallingly bad argument.
Neil Rickert,
So can you make an argument that we are the result of a random accident. If not then are you claiming there is no valid argument for our existence.
Which was my original point
Sure, the unknown is God. Which one you going to pick and why? That would effect the how the creation occurred, wouldn’t it? A deistic deity and yec deity for instance.
Some versions of God do not take kindly to tentative devotion.
Obviously
Sure , I do wonder if we are designed why people are created with different capacities.
A porpoise seems a simpler more elegant design, they don’t build machines but then they don’t seem to need them
Yes, with the combination of an elliptical. I spent many years laying and finishing hardwood floors, they took a beating. I still play slightly competitive softball with heavy dosages of beer and ibuprofen.
No matter how probable or improbable, the more appropriate philosophical question is if computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones are existents of such nature that it’s relevant to question their probability in this way.
Everybody knows that people make computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. So they exist. Does this give any points to ID as some sort of explanatory theory how biosphere works? Not at all. Biosphere is not man-made, so points about man-made things have no relevance.
So let’s see…you have Lee Strobel, who isn’t a scholar, offering a poor and inaccurate opinion for the contradictions in the gospel accounts, thus supporting my point that your references (who aren’t scholars) are not meeting the minimum standards of scholarship? And this is what you want to provide as your rebuttal to my point?
I think my work is done on this subject…
LOL! Right Mung!
Mark: 3 women at the tomb
Matthew: 2 women at the tomb
Luke: 3 named women, and describes more
John: 1 woman
*Snort* – Yeah, you really demonstrated who doesn’t get the concept of contradiction there Mung! LOL!
Hi davemullenix,
You write:
Of course a cat makes choices. But what I am concerned with in this post is choices for which reasons can be given by the agent. Can the cat tell us why it wants to hunt a mouse instead of a potato, or why it takes a circuitous route to the mouse hole? No, it can’t. It appears, then, that while its thoughts have objects, these thoughts lack a propositional content.
My thought experiment about agents was about whether an identically constituted being (atom for atom) would entertain the same propositions as the original agent, and make the same choices. I may be wrong, but I think a cat-duplicate would think and act the same as the cat you describe. I am, however, open to arguments that attempt to show otherwise. Cats may have a primitive concept of self and of other agents. Who knows?
Robin,
Lee Stobel is an investigative journalist. He has a law degree from Yale and spent 22 months investigating the validity of the new testament, He interviewed 13 scholars who were specialists in specific areas of the NT. The expert he interviewed for the empty tomb was William Lane Craig. Here is a debate on the resurrection between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman.https://youtu.be/FhT4IENSwac
I think we can stop right there.
Robin,
Mung is right here. Your claim is contradiction and you failed to show it. What you did show is inconsistency in the detail of the story. An example of contradiction would be an account of Christ body being found in the tomb.
I think there is a reasonable argument that inconsistency shows that the information from the original NT authors was not changed to remove the challenge of inconsistency you raised.
I’m well aware of Strobel’s background and credentials. None of that makes him a biblical scholar. Your quote from him is simply an Argument from False Authority.
I’m also well aware of WLC’s arguments and find them unbelievably weak and silly (which I already noted in the previous exchange.) While I don’t dispute that he qualifies as a scholar, his scholarship does not somehow transfer to Strobel. His scholarship is questionable for the issues I noted: he does not adhere to the minimum standards of scholarship. Thus, WLC claims are easily dismissed.
Good grief… 3 women, 2 women, multiple women, and one woman is BY DEFINITION a contradiction. It’s compounded by the fact that earlier writers (like Paul) don’t even mention any women.
Your bias is so bad you can’t even rationally grasp even simple issues with your sources.
LOL! Except that there are multiple versions of the NT text that show changes over time. Your self-defeating claims are a riot, Bill!
Robin,
Again you are making unsupported assertions. How does WLC not adhere the minimum standards of scholarship?
The fact that you and John are attacking the people (ad hominem) and not the arguments shows you need to invoke a logical fallacy to make your case.
The one argument you made about the empty tomb failed to support your claim of contradiction.
Robin,
No, actually I provided support for this assertion not only in our previous exchange, but right here in this one as well.
Well, let’s just go with the one I provided up thread a bit. Here’s WLC on the women at the tomb:
So, not only does WLC dismiss that known syntax of the actual passage (a dismissal of standard of source criticism and principles of determining reliability), he outright fails to address the contradiction of the accounts of the number and identity of the women, an overt rejection of the standard of eyewitness testimony evaluation (along with another example of his dismissal of the standard of source criticism.) Further, he merely hand waves the inconsistent endings on who reported what to whom by saying, “But the reaction of fear and awe in the presence of the divine is a typical Markan characteristic. The silence of the women was surely meant just to be temporary, otherwise the account itself could not be part of the pre-Markan passion story.” An utterly ridiculous and contradictory claim in view of the other accounts.
To take this further, he even goes so far as to try and argue that Paul actually supports this account by insisting that his phrase, “on the third day” implies not only an empty tomb, but the presence of the women, when such is so beyond the realm of reasonable scholarship that he was criticized by the church for such. Why? Because there’s good evidence that Paul didn’t even believe in Jesus’ bodily resurrection and wrote such! So his statements can hardly be rationally used to support something he didn’t believe.
So, my claim is supported: WLC does not adhere to the minimum standards of scholarship, but rather engages in question begging and special pleading to try to support a dubious opinion regarding an empty tomb.
I will try to keep this simple, so that perhaps you can follow it.
If there were three women at the tomb, then it is also the case that there was one woman at the tomb (you can’t have three without having at least one), and it is also the case that there were two women at the tomb (you can’t have three without having at least two).
Did you follow that? Do you think you could explain it to someone else?
I think all ID arguments are very much like Cicero and Hume’s characterization (though Hume rejected design, he at least framed the ID argument well). I wouldn’t repeat exactly Hume’s characterization, but it’s pretty close to ID today, or at least the way it should be, imho.
I think Sewell’s arguments follows Hume characterization, but the complaint against Sewell one of RIGOR, and in Dembski’s case tractable application.
I’ve suggested the principle of mathematical expectation as illustrated by the law of large numbers, or chemical expectation like that of changes in Gibbs free energy, or any number of principles of expected behavior is the benchmark for demarcation of ordinary/natural vs. extraordinary/miraculous/designed.
I provided one example in the Double Stranded Break repair system unique to Eukaryotes as an example of design that seems inconsistent with ordinary events. Even if I weren’t a Christian, that example would certainly be one that would incline me to believe in some Designer.
I also don’t think there is some general approach for defining expectation of outcomes. It is on a case by case basis. Hence, that is one of the reasons I reject the notion of Specified Complexity — it’s so general as to be next to useless, imho. Whereas the principle of expectation of outcomes is well established in many disciplines including perhaps the most fundamental principle of physics: Quantum Mechanics.
From Wiki:
It amazes me to no end the number of (mostly theistic) folk who really do not understand what an Ad Hominem actually is. So as a public service, here’s a breakdown.
An ad hominem is an attack against a person’s character, affiliation, or motivation in order to imply that because of such a weakness, said person’s argument is invalid or weak as well.
It is not simply an insult. There are plenty of insults that do not qualify as ad hominems. Case in point:
While saying his arguments are weak and silly may well be considered an insult, they do not constitute an ad hominem. Nor do any of my other statements about Craig for that matter.
You’ve yet to support this assertion.
Mark: Three women were at the tomb.
John: There was a woman at the tomb.
Mark: Well yeah, duh! Of course if there were three there was one.
It is NOT NECESSARILY a logical contradiction to say both statements are true.
Are you daft, Mung? The accounts mention different women.
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother of James), and Salome
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother of James), Joanna, and other women
John: Mary Magdalene
Nevermind the fact that your logic fails when you even begin to consider the order the testaments were written in, the simple fact is the stories contradict who was there unless you can somehow show that this “Joanna” is actually “Salome”.
This is laughably absurd!
So no more talk of “500 heads” or precisely arranged dominoes?
Why do you assume three is accurate? Maybe it was two
So? They all agree on Mary Magdalene. Of the three sources that mention another Mary two of them agree that it was the mother of James. Luke’s account of “other women” fails to exclude Salome.
As I said, “critics” such as yourself couldn’t spot a contradiction if it fell from their own lips.
Given how late John was supposedly written, do you honestly believe he was unaware of the other accounts? Get real.
Your Honor, I realize the four claims appear to have discrepancies, what with John insisting that only Mary was in the car, Mark insisting that Mary and some Mary he didn’t know were in the car, Matt insisting that Mary, Mary his friend’s mom, and his girlfriend Salome were in the car, and Luke insisting that Mary, Mary his friend’s mother, his girlfriend Joanne, and some other ladies from the party were all in the car… But look, technically they really are all telling the same story when you consider that they all agree that at least one woman was in the car…
ROTFL!!
I mean really…you folks just don’t get (or just don’t care about) the concept of scholarship, do you?
Does your faith and belief really hinge on such truly weak, silly, and even demeaning rationalizations? C’mon…
It’s a bit more subtle than you may characterize it. The very fact that the gospels seem to have a different witness perspective is why nationally renowned murder detective J. Warner Wallace became a Christian.
He noticed when interviewing witnesses to events how very different the re-telling of the events were. The gospels have that quality.
Wallace was experienced in recognizing well-crafted stories form eye-witness testimony. The gospels have the structure of testimony he found truthful. Rosaria Butterfield had also noticed the gospels had a certain literary construct that is not consistent with story telling. Phony testimony is a little too consistent in its details between various witnesses. Wallace explains what my paraphrase of his points in his book Cold Case Christianity.
But, there are a few bottom lines. What if life is young as attested by the genealogy of Christ? What if it was true that a blind girl was healed after the prayer by Astronaut Charles Duke in the name of Jesus?
Your skepticism is valued, but when I nearly left the Christian faith 16 years ago, I was so happy to be around atheists who actually valued skepticism. But then, well, I realized even if they were right it didn’t do much to improve the human condition. I decided I’d rather cast my lot with Christians. It had better Expectation Value (EV) payoff.
You’re right to complain about having less facts than you’d like to have to convince yourself. But who has as many facts as they’d like? We are all left to making the best guess we can with what little knowledge that is available to us.
What you’re describing is precisely my point to Bill; it’s an example of completely dismissing even the minimum standards of historical scholarship. The fact that the accounts don’t match is a pretty good indicator that at least three of them are not relying on the same eyewitness testimony.
Once again, you seem to be the one having trouble with the concept of “contradiction.”
Absolutely not! Which is my whole point!
Why oh why would the independent accounts be so different if they were actually based on a single actual event? One can hardly consider all of them credible witnesses if their stories vary so much on such specific details.
Already answered by others on the thread, but this smells like a Texas Sharpshooter. No matter how many or how few components constitute the building blocks of matter, your preconceived notion of miraculousness will be confirmed.
Unless you are accepting the materialist narrative of Origin of Life (which I strongly doubt based on other comments from you), then you are trying to keep your cake and eat it too. Either the atoms are doing the organizing, or the deity is organizing them. If you do not believe that atoms have the ability to organize life by themselves, then you have already assumed the interference of a deity in your logical argument for said deity. If you believe that atoms can self-organize to create life, then you have left nothing for the deity to do.
Interviews of witnesses do not claim to be divinely inspired by God, the very Word of God.
Sal, this is utterly erroneous. If Wallace was worth his salt as a detective, he would have noted right off the bat that none of the New Testament accounts of the woman at the tomb could have been eyewitness testimony because they all note quite specifically that there was no one there to “witness” the women who were supposedly there. And clearly, none of the supposed women at the supposed tomb wrote any testimony (they all note that too.) So Wallace is being disingenuous at best on that point.
And Sal, just to be clear, I’m not complaining (at all) that I have less facts than I’d like to convince me about any of this. There are NO facts from my perspective to support Christianity in its current religious form. But that is beside the point here. My criticism here is the lack of scholarship standards employed to support the insistence of the validity and accuracy of the biblical claims. If people like you, Bill, Mung, Phoodoo, FMM, Erik, and whomever else want to believe in the validity of the bible and try to lead a life based on its teachings, have at it. But insisting you do so because of the claims therein have been thoroughly supported as historically valid and accurate is just plain ridiculous.
RoyLT,
The notion is not preconceived. It is based on observation of matter life and my ability to observe it. The observation of any type of matter eliminates the random chance hypothesis imo, the observed elegance of matter and life is additional confirmation.
I don’t think the observations support that atoms can self organize from chemicals. I also don’t think that atoms with all their capability are the result of a random accident. I think both can be evaluated on their own merits without one forcing a pre supposition of the other.
If atoms could self organize to create life then the capability and existence of matter would be the role of the deity. This would be quite spectacular but the evidence does not support that matter can create the information required for the origin and evolution of life on its own.
Robin,
This is clearly a strawman account of the real situation. Why do you continue to invoke logical fallacies if you believe that you have a strong claim?
This was a historical account no one was insisting on anything. The basic story of the accounts are the same i.e. witnesses claiming an empty tomb. Yes, the details are different but you have failed to support why that puts the historical account into doubt other then your unsupported incredulity.
I’d love to hear the story on how you came to know what a Texas sharpshooter smells like. I lived there for years and never got close enough to one to find out.
You’re shifting the goalposts now? Are you still asserting that the accounts have to be logically contradictory because they differ in some details?
Do you understand that two women present does not contradict the statement that a woman was present, and vice versa?
They all even agree on Mary Magdalene. If we follow Robin’s logic, they were all wrong about her being present. Some difference in detail doesn’t make the account contradictory, much less establish that the entire events were made up.
And the writer I have come across are very careful and open in their historical method, in spite of what Robin thinks. He would have us believe that no one takes these Christian scholars seriously and that’s just poppycock.
Don’t think anyone proposes atoms are the result of chemical interactions, perhaps you mean molecules.
Try going to Red’s Indoor Range in Pflugerville
So observing matter leads you reasonably to the conclusion that an unperceived being made it all? I’d certainly like to see how that proceeds from sound premises and valid logic, if I thought in the least that it did.
Well of course it does, as no one is proposing that “random chance did it.” Your strawman has been slain, you need no longer fear it.
In your blissful world of confirmation bias, I’m sure it does.
Glen Davidson
That’s hilarious, coming from Glen.
You just have to love a materialist who doesn’t know what he stands for.
Which is it? They are mutually exclusive.
My pleasure. They smell like beef jerky, gun powder, armpit sweat, and Milwaukee’s Best Beer.
It was a Men’s Room in a Longhorn Steakhouse in Abilene. His aim was every bit as bad as advertised;-)
That would be Lone Star not some Yankee beer.
It is cute in the non-materialist too.
The cook?