I have wanted to write the 3rd, 4th, and 5th posts in this series for some time, but it has been hard to find the time for it...

As a temporary filler for point 3 (evolution can't explain the origin of functional genetic information, for example in the Cambrian Explosion (the section of the fossil record showing a sudden increase to all the animal types we see today)), please consider reading Stephen Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt".

I am about 2/3 of the way through it, and it is an EXCELLENT book.

(Continuation of the "discussion with a scientist friend series", see  http://tim223.xanga.com/770288549/dialog-with-a-scientist-friend-part-1/  )

 

Sue: Last week you said that you had several reasons why you believe in an invisible God.  You mentioned one of them: the fact that there is matter/energy and order in the universe.  What are some of your other reasons?

Tim: Sure.  Another reason that I believe in God stems from the question of how life began.  The Bible says that God created all the plants and animals in various "kinds", or families.  These then gradually experienced genetic variation over the years.  For example, Rottweilers and Chihuahuas would both come from a single "dog" kind created by God in the beginning. On the other hand, the naturalistic explanation for how life began is... well... there actually is no accepted explanation.  There are four or five theories, but scientists are divided about them, and there are major problems with each of them.

Sue: So you're saying that you believe in God because scientists have not yet figured out how life began?

Tim: Well, there are these two main explanations for how life began: either God created life, or somehow a living cell formed by chance (called "abiogenesis") and then evolved into all life we see around us today.  After more than a hundred years of investigating different scenarios for how a living cell could have formed by chance, scientists still have no plausible theory.  So I conclude that the Bible's account is more scientifically viable.

Sue: What are the different scientific theories of abiogenesis that you find hard to believe?

Tim: It seems to me that there are two basic ways in which naturalists have tried to answer the abiogenesis question.  One is to say that "the origin of life was a very lucky accident", the other is to say "the origin of life was very easy and straightforward and bound to happen sooner or later".  This latter idea is called self-organizing complexity, and suggests that there might be simple scientific principles such that life would be 'guaranteed' to eventually arise.  For example, hurricane cloud formations spontaneously form a complicated-looking spiral shape, but this shape is not designed... it is simply due to Coriolis forces.  The problem is that such spontaneous self-organization has never been seen to happen for cells and cellular components in the lab.  This is because cellular parts are truly complicated and need a complex sequence of precisely arranged proteins and nucleotides to work properly. In contrast, hurricane spirals or rock crystals or other self-organizing patterns have a very simple pattern.  So very few scientists believe that life self-organized anymore.

Sue: Didn't the Miller-Urey experiment prove that the basic building blocks for cells can arise spontaneously given some lightning in a prebiotic soup?

Tim: The Miller-Urey experiment showed that very small amounts of amino acids would form, in very carefully controlled conditions where the compounds were continuously removed from the apparatus to prevent them from being broken down.  Actually, only 7 of the 20 amino acids necessary for life were ever found, and of those 7, it was always a racemic mixture, whereas cellular proteins require purely homochiral amino acids. http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem   So really their experiment showed how improbable it is that even the building blocks for proteins could form by chance chemical conditions (much less the proteins themselves). http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Sue: Ok, what about the 'RNA-world' hypothesis?  I've heard that it is a popular explanation for abiogenesis.  Also there are 'DNA-first', 'protein-first', and 'metabolism-first' hypotheses.

Tim: Right. The 'RNA-world' hypothesis is that somehow an RNA molecule formed which had the ability to catalyze the formation of copies of itself.  Once this "self-replication" process began, eventually mutations began to occur and the "fitter" molecules (more resistant to degradation) survived, and over time it turned into a living cell.  Unfortunately, the lab experiments for this have only shown RNA molecules which can catalyze already-existing pieces of itself (e.g. it can catalyze the polymerization of a 15-base-pair fragment of itself and a 17-base-pair fragment of itself into the full 32-base-pair molecule, as long as the fragments are purely homochiral)... such molecules are not able to build themselves up gradually. Likewise the DNA-first hypothesis has seen even less laboratory evidence for successful self-polymerization (no more than 4 or 5 base-pairs have ever been seen to spontaneously self-polymerize) or self-replication, or spontaneously generating a working DNA/RNA system.  Both DNA and RNA need special chaperone and handler proteins when they are in solution together, otherwise they will stick to each other and prevent creation of a working translation system.  http://crev.info/2011/08/110802-cell_chaperones/  A single DNA gene would be unlikely to have been formed by chance, but even an assumed "simplest-possible cell" would need at least 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes. http://creation.com/how-simple-can-life-be The protein-first hypothesis is equally unlikely, for at least three reasons.  First, the peptide bonds are thermodynamically unfavorable, and thus do not spontaneously occur.  Second, even if a protein was to spontaneously polymerize, only a very small percentage of random amino acid sequences produce stable folded proteins (for example, a short 150-aa protein has only a 10^-75 chance of folding stably).  Third, even if a protein happens to form and stably fold, it is even less likely that the sequence happens to form the correct shape for the appropriate biological function needed (probability on the order of 10^-164, according to Stephen Meyer, "Signature in the Cell", page 217). http://tim223.xanga.com/753422666/god---imaginary-friend/?nextdate=1522396684&direction=n#1522396684 http://creation.com/loopholes-in-the-evolutionary-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-summary The metabolism-first hypothesis suggests that a steady system of chemical reactions developed first, and gradually over time this system began to become more complicated, until eventually DNA and RNA arose in the process (since the energy gradient was already there).  While chemical reaction systems can certainly arise, any gradual change in the reactions is not able to accurately preserve the 'information' of the reaction chain... it is unable to pass-along the information accurately to future metabolic reaction systems.  So this approach doesn't work either.  Some kind of information-carrying molecules are needed. http://crev.info/2010/01/metabolismfirst_origin_of_life_won146t_work/

Sue: Why does the first cell have to arise fully formed, by "random chance"?  Couldn't it have first formed in a simplified version, and then gradually evolved to become more complex, like the cells we see today?

Tim: Well, for 'evolution' to occur, there is a lot that is necessary inside this first 'proto-cell'.  It would need to have a way of accurately passing along its genetic information to its progeny, and methods of acquiring nutrients, inter-cellular communication, and especially mechanisms for replicating itself.  Although many scientists hope that someday a 'proto-cell' like you're describing will be shown in the lab, the scientific knowledge we currently have suggests that it will never happen.  Constructs are either too simple to live and reproduce, or too complicated to have been formed by chance... there doesn't seem to be anything in between.

Sue: But given enough time, just about anything could happen!   I mean, even if it took a billion years, and a billion galaxies, there is so much time and so many opportunities for life to have arisen, that it's just bound to have happened.  Actually, the very fact that we're here talking about it proves that it did happen!

Tim: Actually, no, that would be circular reasoning, to say that the first life "must have arisen by chance, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it."  I could say just the same thing about God creating life.

Sue: Alright, but given enough time, surely it could have happened somewhere in the universe.

Tim: Let's do a thought-experiment for a moment.  If you found a note on the lab bench saying "Hi Sue", and I told you that I thought it had been produced by random natural processes, how would you respond?  Let's say I proposed that the air-conditioning fan happening to blow a pencil off the shelf onto a nearby piece of paper, and then blew the paper onto your bench.

Sue: I would say that's a silly hypothesis.  Of course it must have been written by a human.

Tim: Why?

Sue: Well, whenever I've found written notes in the past, they've always been written by humans.

Tim: But what if I told you that this note was really from a random non-intelligent source, and I said to you "even though it sounds improbable, consider how much time has elapsed in the universe, and how many galaxies there are... so surely it is possible that in at least one location and time, exactly this random event has occurred..."?

Sue: Ha ha.  So you're saying that my objection about the first cell falls into the same category?

Tim: Yes... You're correct that we need to consider not only the "unlikelihood" of an unlikely event happening, but also the "probablilistic resources" available.  If there were a billion fans blowing a billion pencils onto a billion pieces of paper, in a huge building right next door, it might be more plausible.  But with just one fan, it is not plausible.  In this case, the probabilistic resources are still smaller than the unlikelihood.  Along the same lines, various mathematicians have suggested "upper bounds" to rule out impossibly improbable events.  For example, Dembski suggested that if the number of elementary particles in the universe (~10^80) could interact with each other continuously as fast as possible (the Planck time, 10^-43 seconds) for the amount of time since the (alleged) Big Bang (10^16 seconds ago), this would give a limit of 10^139 maximum possible interactions.  Thus, any event or chance molecule formation which was less probable than 10^-139 should be considered impossible.  The formation of even one functional protein by chance is less likely than that.  So we ought not to believe that it formed by chance.

Sue: So that leads you to believe that God created life?

Tim: Yes, it is another piece of evidence...  Scientifically-speaking, there is no plausible theory for how the first cell could have arisen.  On the other hand, the Bible explains that God created all kinds of life, in the beginning.  Just like you should legitimately conclude that a person wrote a note on your bench, we should conclude that our origins are not random... we are from God.  As the Bible says, "We are His people, the sheep of His pastures."

Sue: But I can't believe that, because it's not scientific.  It's not scientific to say that "God created life".  God is invisible.  He is not measureable or observable.

Tim: If you found a penciled note on your desk, would it be 'scientific' to conclude that it was written by an intelligent person rather than formed by blind random chance processes?

Sue: That's different, because humans are observable.

Tim: How would you define "scientific"?

Sue: The study of physical, observable objects through repeatable, empirically-verifiable experimentation.

Tim: So you're saying that you can't believe in God, because he is not scientific... by which you mean, not currently observable...?

Sue: Yes.

Tim: It turns out that God has made Himself observable, through certain historical interactions. But also, why should you assume that if you can't observe God, that means He doesn't exist?  That's like saying, "I didn't see anybody write that note on my bench; therefore I believe it must have had a chance origin."

Sue: No, it's different in principle.  The author of the hypothetical note on my bench would be visible, so I can believe in him or her.  But God is invisible.

Tim: I'm not following your logic.  I agree with you that we should not believe in things that we have no evidence for.  But what if there is evidence that an invisible, unobservable God does exist?  For example, the presence of life on earth, which all of our naturalistic scientific theories can't explain?  Not to mention the existence of matter/energy and order, that we discussed last time... and several other reasons to believe in God which I can share in the future.  Why should God's being "unscientific" (invisible) force us to conclude that He doesn't exist?  Isn't it possible that a Being could exist who might not be accessible to our scientific methods?

Sue: Well, I prefer to only believe in things that I can see and verify scientifically, repeatedly, in the lab.

Tim: Like abiogenesis?

Sue: Even though it hasn't yet been shown in the lab, in principle it could be, some day.  So I would rather believe in abiogenesis than in God, because I prefer to stick with the visible world.  Besides, I think that you are committing a "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy by believing that since we haven't yet figured out exactly how random physical processes could create the first cell, therefore God did it.

Tim: Have you considered that you might be committing a "chance-of-the-gaps" fallacy in the same way?  It sounds to me like you are saying, "No matter how improbable, I will continue to believe that somehow, time and chance produced the first living cell."  This is essentially assigning infinite powers to 'Chance', to do anything and everything.

Sue: Ha ha.  Well, ok, I'm committing the chance-of-the-gaps fallacy, and you're committing the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.  Is there any way to break out of our presuppositional lockdown?  Also, I am running out of time here, but maybe we can continue this discussion in the future.

Tim: Sure... there are three more main reasons why I believe in God, which I'd be glad to share more about in the future: (1) evolution can't explain the origin of genetic information, (2) Jesus' life, death, and resurrection from the dead, and (3) the existence of objective morality.  I think that the history surrounding Jesus in particular is able to break us out of our 'presuppositional lockdown'... because in Jesus, the invisible God made Himself known in tangible human flesh...   Until next time then!

 

To be continued...

Sue: I wish I could believe in God and all, but as a scientist I can't.   I see how your beliefs makes you Christians really happy and peaceful because you think that God is taking care of you, but as a scientist I have to be honest and follow only whatever I can measure and see.

Tim: So what parts of the Bible in particular do you think you can't believe, as a scientist?

Sue: Well, the whole idea of believing in an invisible God up there somewhere, that you can't see or hear or touch or measure... I can't do that.  And miracles... you know, the Bible talks about Jesus walking on water and raising people from the dead, and even raising himself from the dead... As a scientist, I can't believe that stuff.  It goes against everything we know from modern medicine and science.

Tim: Actually, I completely agree with you that we should follow wherever the evidence leads.  The Bible doesn't ask us to believe anything blindly without evidence.  I think the evidence is actually much stronger that the God of the Bible exists, than that He doesn't.

Sue: Well, that's fine for you, Tim.  Those beliefs just don't work for me.

Tim: Have you ever actually read the Bible?

Sue: Only little bits of it... I'd like to read the whole thing, one of these days... but I haven't yet gotten around to it... I'm so busy with all my lab experiments and writing of grants and papers, etc.

Tim: I think there are several areas in which it's actually MORE scientifically-reasonable to believe in the God of the Bible than to disbelieve in Him.

Sue: Like what?

Tim: First, let's ask about how we might "know" about different types of things.  If I want to know about an atom, or a rock, or a chunk of metal, I can take it into a lab and do all kinds of experiments on it.  I can heat it up, and cool it down, and react it with various types of chemicals, and find out all about its physical properties.  Right?

Sue: Sure.

Tim: A piece of metal generally always behaves the same way, every time I do an experiment on it.  It is inanimate... it does 'whatever I tell it to do'.  I have full control over finding out whatever information I want to know about it.  By contrast, a living cell is a little different. If I want to find out about how a particular type of cell works, I have to be more gentle... I have to give it just the right culture media, and temperature, and gasses, and then I can carefully probe around with a microscope and introduce various micro-concentrations of chemicals into its environment to try to get it to act a certain manner in repeatable ways.  But if the cell dies, I can no longer answer the question of how that living cell works... I could then only ask about its constituent molecules.  Right?

Sue: True.

Tim: How about another step up.  If I want to find out "all about a particular person", like yourself, laboratory methods are no longer the approach to take!  Instead, I must try to get to know you through observing how you act in different circumstances, or asking you questions and listening to how you answer.  If I want to find out your favorite foods, for example, the fastest and most accurate way would be to simply ask you.  But notice that it is now possible that you could withold information from me.  If you don't want to answer my question, you could keep silent, or you could give me a false answer.  In the case of the rock, it has no choice about whether to be known by me.  But in the case of a person, I must humbly ask, and the person may or may not reveal information about herself or himself, and it may or may not be accurate.  But I can also observe how the person acts, and get some information that way.

Sue: Sure.  But what does all this have to do with the existence of God?

Tim: The God of the Bible, if He exists, is much "higher" and more complicated than you or I, just like we are more complicated than rocks.  In the case of God, since He is a spirit and is generally invisible, there is no possible way for you or I to get to know Him, UNLESS He chooses to make Himself known to us.   We cannot put God into a test-tube and perform experiments on Him to see what He is like.  We can't sit him down in a chair across from us and ask him questions to find out what He is like.  We can't even see Him!  The only way we could get to know about God is if He somehow made Himself visible, or left some kind of message for us to read, or something like that.  It so happens that He has done exactly this... the Bible is the written message which He has caused men to write by His guidance, and Jesus Christ is the human being in whom the invisible God made Himself known in our world, so that we could get to know Him.

Sue: Interesting. But all of this is predicated on the assumption that God exists.  How do you know that God exists?

Tim: Sure.  Here's a question for you - Do you believe in perpetual motion machines?  Or let me ask it another way.  If some person came to you with a black box and said, "This box puts out twice as much energy as you put into it.  If you put in 100 watts of electrical power, it will put out 200 watts of electrical power.  This box will make you rich.  I will sell you this box for only $99."  Would you believe it?  Would you buy the box?

Sue: Probably not.

Tim: Why not?

Sue: It is well known scientifically that in the long termyou can't get out more power than you put into something, in an otherwise closed system.  It's related to the first law of thermodynamics.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics)

Tim: Ok, I would agree with you.  I wouldn't buy the box either.  So what does this principle mean about the universe?  If we say that energy/matter cannot spontaneously arise out of nothing, then how did the universe spontaneously arise out of nothing?   The Bible says that in the beginning, God created the universe.  But if there is no God, how did the matter/energy universe begin to exist?

Sue: What if the universe is eternal?  Why are you so sure the universe had a beginning?

Tim: Well, doesn't the second law of thermodynamics say that entropy is constantly increasing in any closed system, such as our universe?  That means that the usable energy is constantly decreasing.  Since there is still usable energy available (that's why we're still alive), that means the universe must have been "wound up" with energy and order, a finite time ago.

Sue: Ok, well, who knows, the laws of physics might have been different back then, before the Planck time and the Big Bang.  Dr. Hawking thinks that there are imaginary time dimensions, meaning that the universe is essentially repeating itself in an endless loop. Some scientists think there might be an infinite number of parallel universes in a 'multiverse', constantly appearing and disappearing with balancing energies and entropies, and we just happen to live in this particular one.  Anyway, it's impossible to know exactly what the laws of physics were back then.

Tim: Notice what you're saying... you're saying that if God doesn't exist, the physical laws and processes which we can observe today in the lab are unable to explain how our universe came into existence.  There are all sorts of hypothetical speculations about how it might have occurred without God as the Creator, but there are no ways to measure or verify any of these speculations in the lab.  They are, in fact, unscientific speculations.  That is why I think that it is more scientific to believe that God created the universe than to believe that it popped into existence out of nothing.

Sue: Let me get this straight.  You're saying that it is "more scientific" to believe in an invisible spirit-person, whom you can't see, or touch, or hear, or measure?

Tim: I'm saying that there are really only two explanations for how we came to be here.  Either it all arose spontaneously out of nothing, or God created it all as the Bible describes.  And I'm saying that the physical laws we can see and measure in the lab today are not consistent with the idea that it all popped into existence out of nothing.  So the only alternative is to conclude, scientifically, that Someone outside of this physical universe created us.

Sue: That's hard to believe.  It's a lot easier to believe that scientists will soon figure out how the universe came into existence without God.  You know, there are a lot of physicists who are working on this very question right now.

Tim: Yes, but I'd rather believe what I have evidence for right now, rather than saying "someone, someday, might discover something which would justify my current belief".  Don't you think this is more reasonable?

Sue: It depends.

Tim: Actually, this problem goes even further.  If the physical laws were fundamentally different back then, and the universe truly popped into existence out of nothing, that actually destroys the whole rationale for science!

Sue: How so?

Tim: If we assume that the fundamental laws of the universe could drastically change at any moment, and matter/energy could be arising out of nothing in our scientific experiements, we would have no good reason to do experiments.  The whole basis for experimentation and the scientific method assumes a stable, orderly universe, established by God, that we can asymptotically know.  Think about it, Sue.  If you were about to perform a scientific experiment, and the laws of physics do sometimes spontaneously fluctuate, why would you trust the results of your experiment?

Sue: Well, if it works the same way every time, then it is reliable.  If I've done the same experiment 50 times in a row and it gave me the same results, I can trust that it will give me the same result on the 51st time... and I can publish the results so that other scientists can try it too.

Tim: I think there are two problems with that logic.  First, you only THINK that your experiment gave you the same results 50 times in a row.  What if the physical laws happened to fluctuate such that actually the results of your experiment were all over the place, but your equipment just so happened to malfunction as the laws were fluctuating so that it gave you the same readings each time?  Second, even if the laws of the universe stayed the same for 50 experiments in a row, what's to stop them from suddenly fluctuating on the 51st time?  It turns out that if we say "the laws were different back then" in our explanation of how the universe arose, that completely destroys the foundational assumptions necessary to perform science today.

Sue: Well, I hear what you're saying, Tim.  I don't really agree, but I'll think about it.  Actually, to be honest, there are other reasons why I can't believe in God, not just scientific and philosophical reasons.

Tim: Do you mind if I ask you what those reasons are?

Sue: Well... all my colleagues and scientist friends would think I'm crazy if they were to find out that I'd started believing in God.  They would secretly laugh at me and think I've become kooky.  And I couldn't publish this stuff about God in journals like Science or Nature... they would turn down my papers, and the scientific community would hear that I've started believing crazy stuff like invisible spirits and gods, and I would stop getting my grants funded.  It would completely ruin my career, Tim.  Sorry, but it's just not an option.

Tim: I hear you.

Sue: And my family... my family would be ashamed of me... they've sacrificed so much to help me reach this point in my career, as a scientist... and now for me to turn my back on all of my training and start believing in an invisible God just because some book talks about Him... I can't disappoint my family like that, Tim.  I'm sorry.

Tim: I know it would be very hard.  All I'm saying is to be honest.  Follow where the evidence leads.  It may be painful, but in the long run it is always better to follow the truth.

Sue: I've got to go now.  Maybe we can talk again some other time about this.

Tim: Sounds good.

 

To Be Continued...

 

("Sue" is definitely a real person... actually there are about 30 friends with whom I've had similar conversations... this article series is for all of them... and everyone else... I hope others will benefit from this fictional dialog... and if you have points you'd like to see addressed, let me know in the comments section!  Also, I'm trying not to give the agnostic/atheist friend any "straw-man" arguments... but if you think I accidentally did, let me know.)

Here's a great post linking to other posts about a physics conference last week in which secular physicists were dismayed about the fact that they still can't figure out how the universe could have popped into existence from nothing.  Physicists are now admitting that "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."   And they don't know what started this beginning.

http://crev.info/2012/01/cosmologists-forced-to-in-the-beginning/

For those of us who have read the Bible and know the God of the Bible, the answer is quite simple.   God started it.

This is not a "God of the gaps" argument; rather, it is a testimonial inference (and/or "inference-to-the-best-explanation") which fits perfectly with all known scientific evidence.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  Genesis 1:1