Stephen Meyer's information argument...

[DRDS]

Greetings everyone, I was wanting to briefly talk about Stephen Meyer's information argument against darwinism and or naturalism. He lists the argument in his book Signature in the Cell. He talks about how current naturalistic explanations such as chance, natural selection, and chemical reactions are unable to account for the vast amount of information that is in dna. Now for some questions that I had, what do the atheists here think of this argument? Also what do theistic evolutionists think about it as well? I plan on looking to this more, from what I've seen thus far it appears to be a very powerful argument for God. In closing here is a link to a interview of Meyer done by Christian apologist John Ankerberg. Thanks everyone.

http://www.lightsource.com/ministry/ank ... /20110416/

[DannyM]

Hello, DRDS.

Since you've started a topic I'll bring my answer to your question from the other thread over to here if you don't mind. You ask what the evolutionists can come up with in response. They will come up with lots of 'answers' to the problem of information. The thing to remember at all times is that their answers, in spite of the arrogance and confidence with which they are given, are insufficient. You'll hear 'answers' like Natural Selection, Random chance, and Chemical Self-Ordering - all woefully insufficient answers to the problem facing them.

"The coding regions of DNA have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language... whenever you find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or functional requirement, this kind of information is always the product of intelligence. Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two properties. We know books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in DNA also implies an intelligent source."
Meyer, quoted in Strobel's Case For A creator, pg 237.

Imagine throwing the letters from thousands of scrabble games onto the floor. No matter how long you keep throwing letters onto the pile, you are not going to get Macbeth. It's never going to happen, no matter how many times you keep adding to the chaotic rubble of letters, no matter how many millions of years you keep trying.

I'd say that this all leaves theistic evolutionists in a pickle. I can't generalise, but to my knowledge most if not all theistic evolutionists hold to an orthodox Darwinian view of evolution. To me it seems like they have incorporated this model of evolution because they either thought it too compelling not to or they felt they had to to save their faith. Or a mixture of the two. I see them in the not-too-distant future having no choice but to unceremoniously dump this view of the world. I won't gloat about this, as we are all too fallible, but I never did understand why Darwinism was so readily accepted by Christians, even to the extent of discovering a whole new worldview because of it.

[Reactionary]

Now for some questions that I had, what do the atheists here think of this argument?

I don't know for sure what atheists think of that, or any other argument against Darwinian evolution - but I know how they "counter" it:
Just read the first sentence of Wikipedia's article about Dr Meyer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Meyer

<-- these pretty much sum up an average atheist-naturalist's reaction...

[DRDS]

Hmm, after reading through all that it looks like they respond by saying that natural selection is a chemical process as well as a biological process. So does this seem to be a good way to get around the problem of information for evolutionists? And do they have any direct evidence that shows that natural selection is indeed a chemical process?

[Reactionary]

Hmm, after reading through all that it looks like they respond by saying that natural selection is a chemical process as well as a biological process. So does this seem to be a good way to get around the problem of information for evolutionists? And do they have any direct evidence that shows that natural selection is indeed a chemical process?

Natural selection is not evolution. It simply means that living forms adapt themselves to their surroundings, however none of the changes that occur within natural selection lead to an increase of the amount of information in the genome, therefore those creatures don't evolve - they just adapt. I usually ask evolutionists: how come do we have an ability to reason if we came about by purely chemical, material processes? We obviously make correct observations about the world around us - chemical reactions can't do that, nor can they have conscious, free will. There is no free will in chemistry. In this situation, an atheist has no other option but to deny the existence of free will (which some of the prominent materialists do), and at that point, materialism defeats itself.

[DRDS]

True, natural selection by itself is not evolution especially in the biological sense. It is mutation and natural selection. Now in considering the first life forms and the first dna, I could easily see it adapting to a specific environment. But I'm unsure if the first proteins and dna would be able to mutate in the first place and if so where did they mutate from?

[Seraph]

We obviously make correct observations about the world around us - chemical reactions can't do that, nor can they have conscious, free will. There is no free will in chemistry. In this situation, an atheist has no other option but to deny the existence of free will (which some of the prominent materialists do), and at that point, materialism defeats itself.

We make observations, not always correct ones. In fact I would say just about none of our observations accurately comprehend the objective reality of what we're observing. For instance, we only see color because that's the way our receptors in our eyes pick up certain wavelengths of light. If our eye evolved differently, we would see color differently and it would be just as "true", since there is no objective color outside of what the mind sees. We can never know if our observations are totally correct for that very reason, our senses can't always be trusted because we're limited by what the structure of our brain allows us to know. In science, there is no 100% certainty but things are accepted if they are considered to have at least 95% reliablity.

Does coming to the conclusion that there is no free will mean the arguement as a whole is false? A lot of atheists (as well as Christians) don't believe that free will exists.

[jlay]

It simply means that living forms adapt themselves to their surroundings,

Actually that is not correct either. In other words a living human is not going to develop new genetic info to grow more hair when he moves to a colder climate. He has all the genetic info he will ever have. He can only pass along what he has. The flow of natural selection is always going to lead to a diluting of genetic info. Unfavorable traits that thwart survivability will be bred out of the line.

Natural selection is an unguided process from the pressures of nature that reveal what kind of genetic info is suited for survival. It is why we see the diversity of life. The phrase 'natural selection' is in itself misleading. Nature is not an intelligence that it can actually select anything. It is simply a process of how we describe things that already exist within nature reacting to its pressures.

Does coming to the conclusion that there is no free will mean the arguement as a whole is false? A lot of atheists (as well as Christians) don't believe that free will exists.

They are certainly FREE to think that.

If our eye evolved differently, we would see color differently and it would be just as "true", since there is no objective color outside of what the mind sees.

I disagree. The existence of the spectrum is objective. In otherwords, blue doesn't exist because we exist to perceive it. No more than sound exists because we are there to hear it. The old, "if a tree falls in the forrest........" The event, the sound waves, etc. are objectively true. Our perceptions of it, may have a limited if not subjective lens. And thus you are right when you say, our senses can't always be trusted.

there is no 100% certainty

How certain are you of that statement?
How can one 'do' science unless one presupposes that the laws of nature are 100% certain? If gravity could change at any minute, then the scientific process would be meaningless. If the laws of physics were even 99.9% then you would have no grounds for any form of measurement, amongst other things. So, i don't know that your own statement holds up under the most basic principals of the scientific method.

[Reactionary]

We make observations, not always correct ones. In fact I would say just about none of our observations accurately comprehend the objective reality of what we're observing. For instance, we only see color because that's the way our receptors in our eyes pick up certain wavelengths of light. If our eye evolved differently, we would see color differently and it would be just as "true", since there is no objective color outside of what the mind sees. We can never know if our observations are totally correct for that very reason, our senses can't always be trusted because we're limited by what the structure of our brain allows us to know. In science, there is no 100% certainty but things are accepted if they are considered to have at least 95% reliablity.

Our perception of colors is subjective, but we know the objective truth behind colors - their wavelengths.
Our (alleged) evolutionary paths don't affect them.

Does coming to the conclusion that there is no free will mean the arguement as a whole is false? A lot of atheists (as well as Christians) don't believe that free will exists.

Well, in the materialistic context, it does. It would mean that we didn't come to a certain conclusion because it's rational, but because chemicals in our brains made us do it. In that case I wouldn't find that conclusion very convincing. Since when do chemicals think anyway?

[Seraph]

They are certainly FREE to think that.

They would probably say that they were lead to believe it by factors and circimstances that exposed them to that knowledge.

I disagree. The existence of the spectrum is objective. In otherwords, blue doesn't exist because we exist to perceive it. No more than sound exists because we are there to hear it. The old, "if a tree falls in the forrest........" The event, the sound waves, etc. are objectively true. Our perceptions of it, may have a limited if not subjective lens. And thus you are right when you say, our senses can't always be trusted.

True, the spectrum itself is objective. But on its own it's just photons moving at different wavelengths. It's our own minds that turn them into "color". Other animals can see Infrared or Ultraviolet, and the "standard" colors probably look different to many of them. And to some alien creatures in deep space that have different anatomies, light might not be something that they can see, but rather hear or taste. Sound on it's own is vibrations in the air, but its our ear drum and brain that convert it into sound. Perhaps God and evolution could've wired us to interpret those vibrations as a completley different sense altogether that we can't even think of.

How can one 'do' science unless one presupposes that the laws of nature are 100% certain? If gravity could change at any minute, then the scientific process would be meaningless. If the laws of physics were even 99.9% then you would have no grounds for any form of measurement, amongst other things. So, i don't know that your own statement holds up under the most basic principals of the scientific method.

One of the philosophies of science is that nothing is 100% certain, there's only certain things that are more likely to be true than other things. We can't be 100% certain that we aren't a brain in a jar in some other reality and that we're only imagining everything we see in this reality. All we can really do when making sense of things is accept what appears more likely to be true given what we can see. Science works like that too, I think an honest scientist will say that they aren't 100% sure that the theory of gravity is true, but that it's passed every test it's been put under and works well in relation to other theories, so he can be fairly confident that it is true, to a point where it's reliable for use when testing other theories.

Ultimately, I don't think there is any way to know something with absolute 100% certainty unless God reveals it to you directly. But like we've argued before, I don't think that happens except in cases of prophets, since pretty much all of our knowledge comes from experience rather than receiving it spontaneously. For us non-prophets, I think science is the best method available for attempting to find truth about the observable world, while the Bible is the best for finding truth about the spiritual.

Well, in the materialistic context, it does. It would mean that we didn't come to a certain conclusion because it's rational, but because chemicals in our brains made us do it. In that case I wouldn't find that conclusion very convincing. Since when do chemicals think anyway?

A lot of those people say that rationality is deterministic and that we don't choose how we reason. It's a pretty nihilistic outlook, but that in itself doesn't mean it's false. The truth might not be pretty. Chemicals themselves don't think, but its complex arrangements of chemicals. The planet and nature are complex arrangements of atoms, so why can't the brain be complex arrangements of chemicals?

[jlay]

Other animals can see Infrared or Ultraviolet, and the "standard" colors probably look different to many of them.

Sure. I don't see how that disproves my point. In fact, did we not discover and use ultraviolet and infrared?

One of the philosophies of science is that nothing is 100% certain, there's only certain things that are more likely to be true than other things. We can't be 100% certain that we aren't a brain in a jar in some other reality and that we're only imagining everything we see in this reality.

Well, maybe you can't.

A philospophy that nothing is certain is self-defeating. It can't claim anything, because there is no certainty to claim. If everything is uncertain, then the claim, "everything is uncertain" can not be true. It 'certainly' can't be true or false at the same time. It is certain. And thus defeats itself and the whole proposition. The law of non-contradiction proves the nonsense of that idea. Unless they would like to show how two contradicting things can be true at the same time.

[Seraph]

Sure. I don't see how that disproves my point. In fact, did we not discover and use ultraviolet and infrared?

We found that they exist, but it still shows the subjectivity of color and how its an example of an observation that is based in our limited mind rather than an accurate representation of the objective nature of something. Perhaps the wavelengths of the photons aren't even objective, but just how our minds are programmed to percieve space and time.

A philospophy that nothing is certain is self-defeating. It can't claim anything, because there is no certainty to claim. If everything is uncertain, then the claim, "everything is uncertain" can not be true. It 'certainly' can't be true or false at the same time. It is certain. And thus defeats itself and the whole proposition. The law of non-contradiction proves the nonsense of that idea. Unless they would like to show how two contradicting things can be true at the same time.

I'm not 100% certain that there is no 100% certainty. In fact I think you can be 100% certain that your own mind exists, but thats about it. For everything else, I think there's a concievable way that the claim could possibly be wrong, so one can't be 100% certain. Though, do you need to be 100% certain of something to make a claim? I think you can believe that something is true, as well as make a claim about it while at the same time knowing that there is a small chance it isn't true. Just as long as it is almost certainly and mostly likely true. Even if you can't be absolutely certain about things, you have to believe in some things in order to function as a person.

[Canuckster1127]

It's ultimately a God of the Gaps argument.

When you argue that current explanations for scientific issues are incomplete that's one thing. When you make that the basis then to argue that the existence of God is a more logical conclusion then you in effect provide a platform for those arguing the contrary to claim the non-existence of God is "proven" when an explanation subsequently is brought forth.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. At best even in the context of a theistic world view, hard science provides an explanation as to the hows of things, not the whys. It's a valid observation to make that current science lacks an explanation to something. It's speculation to then make that the platform for the existence or non-existence of God.

The existence of God is indeed a logical conclusion in my opinion to draw from the Evidence we find in this world. I think it's wise to avoid falling into the fallacy of a God of the Gaps argument even if it is emotionally satisifying to do so. Over time, most of them, fairly or not, wind up moving to the next level as scientific knowlege advances. Better to base arguments upon what is known than to draw conclusions from what is not.

[jlay]

It's ultimately a God of the Gaps argument.

What is ultimately a God of the gaps argument? Meyer's information argument?
Meyer has several explanations defending that this is not a God of gaps argument. Maybe I can find them and link.

Surfing this site will likely answer some of those.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1159

[DannyM]

Bart, I don't see a God of the gaps argument going on here. I myself see a perfectly reasonable and logical argument from inference for a designer. This argument from inference IS based on what we do already know - i.e. that all known codes have an intelligent cause - not on what we don't know.