David R. Liu - Harvard chemistry professor
"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention".
In August 2005 Harvard University announced a million-dollar-a-year multidisciplinary project to discover the origin of life. If you go to Dr. Liu's website, you notice something interesting. At the top of the home page is the phrase, "Directed Evolution". Apparently, in Dr. Liu's worldview, it is possible and permissible for mankind to direct evolution, but not a divine agent. Dr. Liu is, apparently, an atheist who believes in intelligent design, as long as it is he, and not God, who is doing the design.
Instead of Origin of Life studies, perhaps the research grant should be entitled worldview affirmation studies.
Do scientists, even secular scientists, approach science with bias and an agenda?
Of course they do. And here's the million dollar proof.
Still, I wish Dr. Liu every success with his scientific pursuits. Good science is good science, regardless of who is doing it and what their beliefs are.
The vast heavens declare the glory of God. And so do microscopic realities like DNA.
Of this I am confident.
13 comments:
This is inaccurate. Science doesn't claim it is impossible for a divine agent to exist. That's not a scientific statement. Science deals in evidence and probabilities. Supernatural explanations are by definition the least likely explanation because if it were likely we'd view it as a natural occurrence. Science, by definition, can't comment on an unfalsifiable god's existence or non-existence. There's simply a lack of evidence for such a god and an abundance of evidence in favor of a naturalistic origin to life. Further, supposing there suddenly were real evidence for a creator god that defied natural laws of the universe; that wouldn't be the end of the story but rather only the beginning of a brand new field of research to explore the origin of the creator.
"Science doesn't claim it is impossible for a divine agent to exist."
Tim - you're right; I spoke imprecisely. Many scientists believe that a divine agent does not exist, and seek to do and interpret science in a way that is consistent with this worldview.
When it comes to origins-of-life, they have their fingers crossed and are hoping for the best, but there are huge, perhaps insurmountable problems coming up with a viable naturalistic explanation.
"Science deals in evidence and probabilities."
The probability that the fine-tuning of the universe "just happened" as a one-shot lucky chance is infinitesimally small -- and yet materialistic scientists resist the most likely explanation -- a powerful, intelligent Agent acting of his/its own volition.
"Supernatural explanations are by definition the least likely explanation because if it were likely we'd view it as a natural occurrence."
Bad logic or imprecise wording. Perhaps you mean a common occurrence. If that's the case, the Big Bang is "unlikely" in that it's a one-shot deal. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
"Science, by definition, can't comment on an unfalsifiable god's existence or non-existence."
Materialistic scientists do -- regularly.
"There's simply a lack of evidence for such a god and an abundance of evidence in favor of a naturalistic origin to life."
Please provide a scientifically viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.
"Further, supposing there suddenly were real evidence for a creator god that defied natural laws of the universe; that wouldn't be the end of the story but rather only the beginning of a brand new field of research to explore the origin of the creator."
What do you mean by the origin of the creator?
* * *
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
"Many scientists believe that a divine agent does not exist, and seek to do and interpret science in a way that is consistent with this worldview."
This too is not accurate. Some individual scientists, maybe. I can't speak for every scientist on Earth. But the scientific process is designed to be self-correcting to avoid just this sort of bias. I recommend reaidng Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" for a better understanding of how science rigorously and systematically tests every claim to ensure the eventual overturning of any claim that doesn't fit the evidence. And science has a consistent history of welcoming paradigm shifts when the evidence is there. Examples of this are the overturning of Ptolemy's view of the universe, Galileo, Charles Darwin, Einstein, and every scientist since whose overturned particular Einsteinian principles. Religion has no such self-correcting mechanism. Further, scientific theories and laws are established precisely because they make accurate and reliable predictions about our world. Those predictions are very specific and typically have about a 95%accuracy, far exceeding that of any alleged prophet of any religion. Science also accounts for the 5% inaccuracy with error bars, which appear at the end of every peer-reviewed study. Is there any serious doubt that science can make a fairly accurate prediction of what time the sun will rise and set on a particular day in the year 2108? No self-described prophet of the divine has achieved such predictive success.
"When it comes to origins-of-life, they have their fingers crossed and are hoping for the best, but there are huge, perhaps insurmountable problems coming up with a viable naturalistic explanation."
I don't know what you mean by having "their fingers crossed and are hoping for the best" but this seems to be an argument from ignorance. Science doesn't need to have absolute certainty of something and know every piece of information about that thing in order to justify seeking better explanations than the evidence-free magical claims of a particular religion any more than you're expected to latch onto every other religion's origin story. Spending time, energy, and money on such "alternative hypotheses" has no benefit as it tells us very little. What form of experiment can be devised to prove the accuracy and reliability of one religion's particular diety? It doesn't sound like a research study I'd want to spend money on. Even pro-Creationist organizations like The Discovery Institute have promised to devise some sort of research to justify their organization's existence. So far, they've come up empty. And considering creationism requires faith in the supernatural, so-called precisely because it cannot be proven by evidence, creationism at the very least suffers from far greater "insurmountable problems" than, quite frankly, any naturalistic explanation, even a bad one. But fortunately we've got a very good natural explanation. In order to overturn a supernatural explanation justified merely because it's thought by some to be the only explanation possible, all that is required by science is to prove that it could have beeb done by natural means. Then it is totally unnecessary to prove that it absolutely was achieved through natural means. And we have indeed proven entirely natural explanations possible, no designer required. As for what you think constitutes "insurmountable problems" in the leading natural explanations I can only guess. I surmise this is the standard creationist denial of genetic, biological, and physical evidences that is remarkably far more impressive to those who do not, as you say, "interpret science in a way that is consistent with [their] worldview," namely the worldview of their particular tribal religion.
The so-called Fine-Tuning Argument is just the lottery fallacy. If enough people play the lottery, it suddenly becomes statistically likely that somebody will indeed win. This can be easily applied to the seeming implausibility of our universe existing. Further, this whole argument boils down to "We exist, therefore god exists." That we exist only proves one thing, that we exist. Similarly, that a tree exists only proves that the tree exists." And so on and so forth. It in no way provides the "why" or "how" that creationists seem to think it does.
Moreover, the introduction of a complex intelligent agent at the beginning of the universe is itself implausible and answers nothing. No one, not scientist nor religionist, can logically get around the infinite regress of the law of cause and effect. But if you're to posit a complex top-down designer at the beginning to explain perceived complexity, then you've conjured something that must logically be of greater or equal complexity as the very thing you hoped to explain, thus solving nothing. This is one such "insurmountable problem" for creationism. Although still legitimately difficult to prove, at least the gradual and incremental bottom-up explanation of science successfully gets around this particular hurdle as well as not requiring a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
The Big Bang might very well have been implausible. We can't yet answer that. Nevertheless, it happened. We know this with as much certainly as we know about gravity and that germs cause disease. It's also testible. Our knowledge of The Big Bang allows us to make accurate and reliable predictions about the cosmos. Whereas again, there's no observable evidence for the religious explanations. Every "holy book" is remarkably incapable of giving us clear and precise coordinates for where particular celestial bodies will be in the sky at a particular time. In fact any modern science book can give us a far clearer understanding of our world than all the books said to have divine origins put together.
Individual scientists are perfectly within their rights to have opinions about religion but most scientists will happily admit that this is not a scientific claim. At best, atheistic scientists like Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, PZ Myers, or Richard Dawkins can point to the scientific precepts of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", and Ochams Razor to defend their positions. Further, if religions make scientific claims such as an infinitely powerful being (a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics), scientists can and have every right to criticize that scientific claim.
Viable scientific, naturalistic claims for origin of life: The Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, Evolution--the trifecta. Oh, and quantum physics can probably be included, though that's not my forte.
Lastly, I believe the origin of the creator question stands on its own without any further elaboration necessary.
Thanks. It's been fun.
The probability that the fine-tuning of the universe "just happened" as a one-shot lucky chance is infinitesimally small -- and yet materialistic scientists resist the most likely explanation -- a powerful, intelligent Agent acting of his/its own volition.
You can't be serious - or either that you are badly mangling the principle of Occam's Razor.
The simplest of all possible explanations is purely probabilistic as it does not require inventing anything to support it.
Occam's Razor also states that a cause must be sufficient to explain an effect. "Nothing" is not a sufficient cause to explain the effect of the origin of the universe.
If there was just one cosmic factor required to permit a stable, life-permitting universe, you could, perhaps, attribute it to sheer luck. But when you have 15 or 30 of these, all improbably tuned, and many if not most or all independent of each other, then there really is no other reasonable answer than there must be an intelligent cause behind the universe.
Occam's Razor suggests there is one Powerful Cause to the universe, and not many.
But don't forget -- Occam's Razor is a heuristic, it is not a scientific fact nor is it scientifically verifiably true in all cases. It's just a useful construct.
Yes, Occam's razor is a heuristic.
What I am saying is that you have grossly abused it in drawing your conclusions.
Occam's razor, as applied in scientific inquiry, doesn't allow for the invocation of that which has no tangible evidence.
Generally speaking, proofs which depend on "and then a miracle occurs" do not qualify as any kind of reasonable proof in mathematics or science.
Your claim depends upon the validity of the same kind of reasoning that at one time allowed evidence in trials about what someone did based on what a priest thought up while they were praying.
"Occam's razor, as applied in scientific inquiry, doesn't allow for the invocation of that which has no tangible evidence."
I am arguing that the universe itself is concrete, tangible evidence for an intelligence behind it. It is an argument from inference to the most likely cause, not a scientific demonstration.
"Generally speaking, proofs which depend on "and then a miracle occurs" do not qualify as any kind of reasonable proof in mathematics or science."
It is not intended to be a scientific proof. It is intended to be an inferential argument.
If scientists detected radio waves from outer space that contained all the characteristics of language and information, there would be no way of scientifically proving that the source of these radio waves was intelligence -- but I can guarantee you that scientists would leap upon this and assert that it was. It's an inference to most likely cause, not a scientifically demonstrable fact.
What would make it more interesting would be if the radio wave communication just happened to match the information embedded in DNA. Materialistic scientists would say that the radio waves offer conclusive proof of intelligence in the universe, while the DNA encoding offers none.
Interesting...
"Your claim depends upon the validity of the same kind of reasoning that at one time allowed evidence in trials about what someone did based on what a priest thought up while they were praying."
You've lost me here, bud.
It is not intended to be a scientific proof. It is intended to be an inferential argument.
Inference without evidence is called an assertion.
I stand by my claim that you have abused Occam's Razor by invoking the supernatural an explanation when there is a simpler explanation that can be inferred from evidence
BTW - as for the "I've lost you" comment at the end: Consider being on trial, and the court accepting as valid evidence testimony from a priest whom you've never met or heard of before who says that the divine told them in a prayer that you did the deed.
That is, in essence, what you keep on attempting to do to evidence-based science. Convict it on a statement of faith rather than on knowable evidence.
Your "simpler" explanation does not provide a sufficient cause and thus violates the whole premise of the Razor.
"Consider being on trial, and the court accepting as valid evidence testimony from a priest whom you've never met or heard of before who says that the divine told them in a prayer that you did the deed."
I've never heard of this happening.
I've never heard of this happening.
What do you think the "witch trials" of the inquisition were largely based on?
...does not provide a sufficient cause and thus violates the whole premise of the Razor.
A series of interacting natural systems is not "sufficient cause"? Why not?
"What do you think the "witch trials" of the inquisition were largely based on?"
I've never studied them in sufficient detail -- I was unaware of this.
"A series of interacting natural systems is not "sufficient cause"? Why not?"
Because never in the known experience of human beings has information or communication ever taken place apart from will and intelligence. DNA is both information and communication.
Plus, you have to explain the enigma of the existence of functional "interacting natural systems".
Plus, you have to explain the elegance of the Big Bang and how it could have been so precisely tuned to cause the results it has caused, instead of dead space.
Plus, you have to explain why there is something rather than nothing.
Plus, you have to explain, if interacting natural systems is all there is, the apparent reality of consciousness, of an "I" apart from the body, of free will, and of mind.
Not to mention morality, abstract concepts and entities such as justice, honor, numbers, logic, human aspirations to love and be loved, etc. (I realize we've gone over some of this ground already.)
I really believe that "you" exist, and that you are more than just a complex arrangement of mindless molecules.
But you can try to talk me out of it, and I hope you will!
Plus, you have to explain the enigma of the existence of functional "interacting natural systems".
Ummm...no, I do not have to do any such thing.
You keep on bringing up "but why" questions, and inferring from the existence of those questions that there must be some kind of supernatural intervention.
My point is that science itself says nothing one way or the other - the absence of compelling evidence does not imply any necessity for a supernatural being in the picture.
The questions you postulate are of interest in their own right, but I would argue that invoking the unprovable to answer those questions is only emotionally satisfying, but does not constitute anything that is in any way testable or refutable - key tenets of modern scientific inquiry.
Good morning, MgS.
"You keep on bringing up "but why" questions, and inferring from the existence of those questions that there must be some kind of supernatural intervention."
Well, the Big Bang requires an explanation, unless you accept as a brute fact that there is nothing behind it and the universe just popped into being. Since the Big Bang instantiated matter, the cause seems to have to be outside of time and space. It doesn't have to be supernatural, I suppose, just extra-material, extra-natural. Super-natural is a reasonable inference.
And, intervention isn't quite the right word, because, prior to the Big Bang, there was nothing to intervene in. Intervention is a pretty good term for the initiation and development of life from dead matter, and the creation of human beings.
"My point is that science itself says nothing one way or the other - the absence of compelling evidence does not imply any necessity for a supernatural being in the picture."
Fair enough. However, I'm addressing the many who say that science does say, and that it's all one way, that the universe, by scientific evidence, is the product of purely mindless, natural processes. I say that the evidence does not necessitate this conclusion, and, indeed, doesn't even support it very well. I would argue that the evidence points in a different direction.
"The questions you postulate are of interest in their own right, but I would argue that invoking the unprovable to answer those questions is only emotionally satisfying, but does not constitute anything that is in any way testable or refutable - key tenets of modern scientific inquiry."
I'm not limiting myself to strictly scientific inquiry or arguing strictly from science.
And don't discount an emotionally satisfying argument. It doesn't constitute scientific proof, but the idea that I was created and therefore that the things that make me truly human - not the molecules or arms and legs, but the emotions -- the longings of the heart, the sense of worth, the knowledge of eternity and the wondering about where I fit into it - are affirmed by the existence of a Creator, and fit into the category of sheer absurdity in the absence of the Same.
Maybe, just maybe humans are endowed with all of these things because there really is a Creator who put them within us, and set us up in a way that we should seek, if happily we might find, him.
And that's what I did. And although I cannot prove his existence to you scientifically, I can testify to you that He does exist and that I know this to be true to a moral certainty.
Post a Comment