Defensive atheism, a role reversal

[peterLounsbury]

Don't score one for Peter, Jesse, it isn't why I mentioned it. But, I also didn't overstate it either. But it is worth looking at closer while we're at it.

The reason I remember it was because I thought the story itself was fascinating. As a Christian it didn't scare or even concern me. It was just as fascinating to me as it was to any atheist. What is worthy of note though was the of the media of the excited person who made the discovery... he made a very bold claim and NOBODY noticed. "A 100% chance" I thought? "Pretty bold and very cocky" I thought.

Telling is the reaction that society in large gave it... carte blanche approval until the more sensible scientists who heard the claim began to question the story. It was in fact largely discredited, and the redactions were few and far between. Certainly nothing like the front page coverage the original false claim got.

In regards to world views, it was a validation for naturalists, and a potential blow to theists. In fact it would be more than a small story if somehow it could proved to be true for fundamentalists who insist on a young earth and special creation. It was reported as such because as I claimed and will continue to claim, despite being the majority theists have been boxed out of the public square by academia. Back to the a priori bias I keep talking about. It favors science that refuses to accept any possibility of God in the equation, and mainstream science and even the mainstream media act as if it the only thing that could be considered news.

I'm quite certain I'll be jumped all over for this assessment, but it's true. Those that like the current arrangement like the deck stacked, and can't stand the thought of free thought. Look at the treatment that theists get in here and elsewhere on the internet. If you dare to say you believe in God in any manner, shape or form, you are attacked based upon their world view, and are asked to defend yours using their rules.

Do you think that is fair or even right to blind science to only one world view?

My little experiment here has shown me yet again that even when faced with a problem that requires a belief that atheists will deny that they have a faith based upon beliefs that are not in fact as factual as they project. I've found that the study of the reaction was indeed the story, not the story itself. What came first, DNA or protein? When the answer didn't matter, true colors came pouring out pretty much as I would have predicted.

Nothing personal Jesse, I actually enjoy conversing with you a lot. You are one of the good ones who is respectful and for that I am grateful.

[phaedrus]

I just thought I might point out that there is a $1000000 prize open to whomever can come up with a naturalistic solution to the origin of life problem. The Athiests here seem very sure of themselves, even to the point of mocking well established scientific Laws as 'creationist nonsense'. Fellas, the prize is still unclaimed.......

I thought it had already been pointed out that the 'Law of Biogenesis' is not a law in the same way the law of gravity is. The 'law' of biogenesis is a response to loony ideas that piles of rotting garbage made their own maggots. Like all laws it needs to be understood in its context and conditions. That is, at the current stage of earth's climate and conditions, and in non geological time scales, life proceeds from life. This law isn't even attempting to address abiogenesis. Honestly, it's of the same order as suggesting that evolution can't happen because it 'violates' the second law of thermodynamics.

[Howze]

I thought it had already been pointed out that the 'Law of Biogenesis' is not a law in the same way the law of gravity is. The 'law' of biogenesis is a response to loony ideas that piles of rotting garbage made their own maggots. Like all laws it needs to be understood in its context and conditions. That is, at the current stage of earth's climate and conditions, and in non geological time scales, life proceeds from life. This law isn't even attempting to address abiogenesis. Honestly, it's of the same order as suggesting that evolution can't happen because it 'violates' the second law of thermodynamics.

Sorry, but this is garbage, the Law of Biogenesis is excellent science:

1. It is experimentally based.
2. It has significant practical uses - in food preservation and in medicine - sterilisation.
3. It overturned a previous paradigm (Spontaneous Generation)
4. It has no known exceptions.

Before 'abiogenesis' becomes science it first needs to overturn this law.

Personally I don't see why it can't apply to all times and situations - in fact I think it should as a general principal until it is overturned experimentally. Feel free to create the most favorable conditions you can think of in a lab and generate naturally abiogenetic life - then claim the prize !

[lao tzu]

Don't score one for Peter, Jesse, it isn't why I mentioned it. But, I also didn't overstate it either. But it is worth looking at closer while we're at it.

With all due respect, Peter, you certainly did overstate it. You can't call one astronomer's "personal opinion" — that's his characterization, from your own source — a verdict. That's going too far. And turning him into a "they" ... he didn't suddenly fission like a bacterium. You added weight that wasn't contained in your sources, and you're neglecting the natural excitement of a discoverer. His colleague, in the very same article, quite sensibly refused to put odds on the question.

The reason I remember it was because I thought the story itself was fascinating. As a Christian it didn't scare or even concern me. It was just as fascinating to me as it was to any atheist. What is worthy of note though was the of the media of the excited person who made the discovery... he made a very bold claim and NOBODY noticed. "A 100% chance" I thought? "Pretty bold and very cocky" I thought.

I saw it in New Scientist online. I had to see your reference to understand you were talking about the same planet. I don't visit quasi-news sources like CNN, or faux-news sources like FOX for that matter. New Scientist makes some serious blunders from time to time, but it's a great horn to announce that there's a likely new paper that'd be interesting to check out on campus. I highly recommend sticking to print journalism, as that's the last bastion of actual journalism still available today.

Telling is the reaction that society in large gave it... carte blanche approval until the more sensible scientists who heard the claim began to question the story. It was in fact largely discredited, and the redactions were few and far between. Certainly nothing like the front page coverage the original false claim got.

I read a lot of newspapers. I didn't see that claim on the front page, anywhere. But who knows, I have no idea how it played on the newscasts since I don't own a television. Not that that means much, even if that's where it occurred. When was the last time you saw a nightly news anchor give a correction? (Bonus points if you've actually seen it happen the only place it does still occur, but you have to name it.) Again, if you want to see retractions handled properly, print journalism is your ticket. Most of them reserve space on the front page of the relevant section for just that purpose. (I did it myself when I was editing my college rag.)

In regards to world views, it was a validation for naturalists, and a potential blow to theists. In fact it would be more than a small story if somehow it could proved to be true for fundamentalists who insist on a young earth and special creation. It was reported as such because as I claimed and will continue to claim, despite being the majority theists have been boxed out of the public square by academia. Back to the a priori bias I keep talking about. It favors science that refuses to accept any possibility of God in the equation, and mainstream science and even the mainstream media act as if it the only thing that could be considered news.

As far as young earth and special creation afficionados go, well, that's not really part of the conversation anymore. They make a lot of noise amongst themselves, but no one else takes them seriously. It had all but died out already until the Seventh Day Adventists popularized it again via George McReady Price. I expect it'll fade away again soon enough.

Let's acknowledge at least this much, though. It's just this one minority segment of theism that's at all discomfited by natural discoveries of this kind. You've got this "naturalists" meme running about in your head that really doesn't deserve the mind share.

There are much larger segments of theism, especially within Christianity as a matter of fact, whose apologetics are invested in a universe that makes sense naturally. They need the universe to be arranged in an orderly fashion exactly because the order of the universe points to an orderly creator — a perfect physical lawgiver as the evidence for a perfect moral lawgiver. This apologetic answers the questions, "Why is the universe anything other than chaotic? Why are we able to make sense of the world?" In fact, they use this apologetic to take credit for science. These are the people atheists have problems answering. Their god is the god that's revealed as the gaps close.

Young earthers and creationists? Geocentrists? Fundamentalists? Biblical inerrantists? They're nothing to us, so obviously wrong we need only point at them and nod for the message to be understood.

I'm quite certain I'll be jumped all over for this assessment, but it's true. Those that like the current arrangement like the deck stacked, and can't stand the thought of free thought. Look at the treatment that theists get in here and elsewhere on the internet. If you dare to say you believe in God in any manner, shape or form, you are attacked based upon their world view, and are asked to defend yours using their rules.

You're verging way too close to conspiracy theories here, I think. And you're playing the offended privilege card far too close to your chest. This is what the rest of us see:

Attachment 88823

I've had members of half a dozen churches show up on my doorstep pushing at me to come to their religious services. I can't afford to tell these folks their impositions are unwelcome. That's the current arrangement. That's what real life looks like.

That said, yes, this is the internet, where people go to attack others under the protective screen of anonymity. There's nothing special about "believing in God" that offers an immunity from that convention. You can be just as viciously attacked for being a liberal as for being a conservative, for believing in one god, a multitude, or none at all. It's only the privilege you've grown accustomed to elsewhere that makes you think you're suffering any abuse beyond what's being accorded others.

Keep in mind that I saw you pass right over an attack on the education of a poster by MM in order to come to his defense when I gave him back a dose of his own treatment. You can't do that on a discussion board without people noticing the implied prejudice. At best, you failed to notice it, but that's just another aspect of assumed privilege.

My little experiment here has shown me yet again that even when faced with a problem that requires a belief that atheists will deny that they have a faith based upon beliefs that are not in fact as factual as they project. I've found that the study of the reaction was indeed the story, not the story itself. What came first, DNA or protein? When the answer didn't matter, true colors came pouring out pretty much as I would have predicted.

Nothing personal Jesse, I actually enjoy conversing with you a lot. You are one of the good ones who is respectful and for that I am grateful.

Stick around, Pete. Eventually, I suspect you'll see the bigger picture here. You've got a definition of atheism stuck in your head that doesn't make much sense, mostly because it's been constructed by theists, often enough directly over the vocal opposition of atheists. It will erode. I've got faith in you. Don't forget you've already misidentified a Christian following your chosen paradigm.

People have been trying to impress this on you since the beginning of the thread. As has been said, "Atheism is a belief like bald is a hair color." Or more bitingly, as a former member here used to put it, "I don't consider myself an atheist. I'm just between gods at the moment."

There are so many gods out there broad-brushed by ecumenism and harmonizations into what Christians have agreed to call just one. But when the wrench hits the bolt, we find it doesn't matter whether we tighten it or loosen it, we've denied one of those Christian gods to affirm another. Finding a detailed, reaction by reaction, molecule by molecule solution to the appearance of DNA would annoy a few fundamentalists, while simultaneously making the Thomists chortle in glee, with an oh-so-superior "I told you so" arch to their collective brows.

You don't have to look further than that to understand why your question seems irrelevant to us. Atheism isn't a conclusion, it's a best guess, based like everything else on incomplete information. In reductio, it's absurd to insist one must accept a god until every possibility for existence has been exhausted. It's pointless to set up a test that can only serve to disconfirm one god in favor of another, and even more so if the effort is to be expended to further marginalize what's already a minority view.

Before closing, I have to note the unintended irony or give up my "most amused by" title. We couldn't have asked about the origins of DNA without its discovery.

As ever, Jesse

[peterLounsbury]

Yes Jesse, the Christian majority is being by a left wing/atheist minority, But that's another discussion all together.

The articles I cites was what I found when I searched for the past articles. The day it came I read it in BBC, CNN, ABC, etc. I read about a dozen articles that day and all of them aped the "100%" line. The point isn't that the excited guy who made the discovery said it, it was that those non-oppressing minority types who are majorities in academia and the media didn't challenge it and took the extra step of just broadcasting it as is. No projection there, I'm sure.

The materialistic world view folk do something that is quite universal... they appeal to change the view of the majority (get consensus) to establish the truth. It is not how truth is made, but is in fact a very common practice in politics and science.

You can deny it, but it's true. It's true and the bottom line is that if one needs to change the truth by appealing to consensus to make ones case, then I'd say perhaps the "truth" you are trying to change probably needs a new look. That's just me though because I actually go to where the truth is and THEN I form opinions.

In regards to sticking around so that atheists can change me (if I read that right), sorry Jesse... not gonna happen. I had one of those experiences that changed my life, and the odds of what I experienced being true is 100%. I know you weren't there and I don't expect you or anyone to get it. However for me knowing the truth, whatever it is, only serves to allow me to paint a more accurate picture to go along with my Christian world view.

The reason this DNA is a good place to start IMPO is that one of the founding fathers of chemical evolution went from a guy wrote the book for chemical evolution to theist as a result of his findings. Another example of what the truth can do when a person seeks the truth with an open mind.

[element771]

The reason this DNA is a good place to start IMPO is that one of the founding fathers of chemical evolution went from a guy wrote the book for chemical evolution to theist as a result of his findings. Another example of what the truth can do when a person seeks the truth with an open mind.

What is his name?

Also do you think that if abiogenesis is ever explained, there is no room for God?

[The Pixie]

I just thought I might point out that there is a $1000000 prize open to whomever can come up with a naturalistic solution to the origin of life problem. The Athiests here seem very sure of themselves, even to the point of mocking well established scientific Laws as 'creationist nonsense'. Fellas, the prize is still unclaimed.......

We are not mocking well established scientific Laws as 'creationist nonsense'. We are mocking creationist abuse of well established scientific Laws as 'creationist nonsense'.

The law of biogensis was established under a specific set of conditions. It does not apply to the conditions of pre-biotic Earth. Creationists like to pretend it does apply because that supposes their religious beliefs.

[peterLounsbury]

Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University. Kenyon received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966, he started as an Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University and became Emeritus in 2001.

However, I think you'll find that those who disagree with his work will simply attack the person. I've seen it a thousand times.

Biochemical Predestination: "This theory was developed in the late 1960s by Dean Kenyon and Gary Steinman to explain the self assembly of biochemical molecular compounds such as proteins from non-living raw chemicals given the right environmental conditions1. The basic idea proposed by the theory was is that amino acids are structured in such a way, and have properties such that they are pre-disposed to assemble in a way highly conducive to the chance production of life molecules such as proteins. The theory was popular for more than twenty years as an explanatory theory of self assembly as the starting point for chemical evolution. The theory has more recently grown unpopular, being supplanted by other explanatory theories, and due to some of the critical shortcomings of biochemical predestination as an explanatory hypothesis2. New discoveries about the complexity and intricacy of the structural assembly requirements and patterns for amino acids in proteins have led Dr. Kenyon himself to seriously doubt the veracity of 'Biochemical Predestination'3.

It was the complex specific configurations exhibited in the folding of life molecules, along with the probabilistic challenges that they presented, that first caused Dr Kenyon to question the theory4. The theory of biochemical predestination fails to explain how complex amino acid based proteins self assembled themselves without, or prior to the existence of, DNA based sequencing or assembly codes, given the requirements of the complex spatial arrangement and correct sequencing of amino acids5. The improbability of chance alone producing complexly arranged proteins in such a setting is enormous. These difficulties led to an inferential circularity wherein the theory is forced to assume the existence of the very life molecules of which it seeks to explain the spontaneous origins6. Professor Kenyon, and many other brilliant biochemists and scientists, still struggle with the issues presented by the assembly and structure of life molecules, and still no naturalistic solution exists."

[doubtertom]

My sentiments EXACTLY:

Original here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/Answer1.html

Q. Do you think when this latest scientific revelation...will challenge a Christian's faith?"

A. Great question. If a person is forced to choose BETWEEN faith and currentg scientific thought, then the motives and belief system of that faith should be brought into question. As a believer in God, I think that a person's faith in God, should be just that, believe in God. Evolution, which is based upon scientific fact, doesn't challenge belief systems, it only reports what we observe. As we acquire more knowledge, faith in the unknown, can work around what we know to be true science. So, it presents no challenge to faith, only more evidence of our history on our planet. The challenge for people of faith, like myself, is to make our belief system fit with this new knowledge. Every time a new discovery like this is made, I marvel at this slow, gradual process of patience by which our Creator chose to create us--by the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics. Exciting and amazing!

Peter,

Thanks for the link, I've added it to my Bookmarks. I think I've said before that abiogenesis isn't a threat to some forms of theism. "Evolution, which is based upon scientific fact, doesn't challenge belief systems..." this statement is not true. Evolution specifically challenges the Genesis 1 statement "reproduce after their own kind."

I also find this quote from your link interesting, "...make our belief system fit with this new knowledge." Christianity is based on revelation, so it bothers me that the revelation itself doesn't comport with new scientific knowledge and so we have to change our beliefs. A worldwide Flood? Eh, not exactly. Adam and Eve 6000 years ago? Maybe 40,000 years ago.... No death before the Fall? A curse on creation as a result of man's sin? Well, technically not quite true...

Can you have a belief in deity and not have any qualms with science? Sure! But you are limited in the type of deity you can believe in, or at least you must excuse significant portions of revealed scripture.

To your point about DNA vs protein. I think atheists (and others) have a certain assumption that a naturalistic explanation will be found. I think a scientist MUST have this assumption, otherwise why bother trying to find an explanation? And if science has provided strong evidence for evolution that supports everything BUT origin of life, then what action does that leave for God? Putting a few proteins in a lipid and then sitting back to see what happens? It seems a far cry from Yahweh's actions in the OT. This could be any God of any religion, or no religion.

So do atheists have "faith" in naturalism? I think you need to define faith, since we use it different ways. There is faith in the theological sense of believing in God and trusting to His will, but this is different from faith that means belief in the trustworthiness of a person or ideal. It's even different from faith which is belief without proof or evidence.

I think that you think atheists have belief without proof or evidence that naturalism will discover the abiotic origin of life, while atheists will say that they have belief in the trustworthiness of naturalism as a means of attaining knowledge.

[peterLounsbury]

It depends on how you choose to look at the Bible. The flood for example is not necessarily global according to the Bible. Here's a good read on this:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf

The key here isn't the article's stand. The key to me is that there are many possibilities of what really happened in the historical sense. There was a flood that mankind seems universally aware of, but was it because there was global flooding, as in floods were felt globally? Or was there global flooding as in the whole planet was under water? This article is a perfect example of a scientist who took a different approach to find the truth. She laid everything out on the table and tried to determine if the Bible could match the facts of she put aside what some claim has to be true.

Same goes for all of it doubtertom. It is how you choose to look at the Bible that will determine everything. If folks want to pick at it and find fault, I'm sure they will see things exactly like they want to. If on the other hand you look at it in an attempt to see what it says and to determine what the truth is, something different altogether will emerge. And if you look at it and try to force issues as most young earth creationists do, you get what falls out of that tree as well; usually some form of fundamentalism.

[element771]

Biochemical Predestination: "This theory was developed in the late 1960s by Dean Kenyon and Gary Steinman to explain the self assembly of biochemical molecular compounds such as proteins from non-living raw chemicals given the right environmental conditions1. The basic idea proposed by the theory was is that amino acids are structured in such a way, and have properties such that they are pre-disposed to assemble in a way highly conducive to the chance production of life molecules such as proteins. The theory was popular for more than twenty years as an explanatory theory of self assembly as the starting point for chemical evolution. The theory has more recently grown unpopular, being supplanted by other explanatory theories, and due to some of the critical shortcomings of biochemical predestination as an explanatory hypothesis2. New discoveries about the complexity and intricacy of the structural assembly requirements and patterns for amino acids in proteins have led Dr. Kenyon himself to seriously doubt the veracity of 'Biochemical Predestination'3.

It was the complex specific configurations exhibited in the folding of life molecules, along with the probabilistic challenges that they presented, that first caused Dr Kenyon to question the theory4. The theory of biochemical predestination fails to explain how complex amino acid based proteins self assembled themselves without, or prior to the existence of, DNA based sequencing or assembly codes, given the requirements of the complex spatial arrangement and correct sequencing of amino acids5. The improbability of chance alone producing complexly arranged proteins in such a setting is enormous. These difficulties led to an inferential circularity wherein the theory is forced to assume the existence of the very life molecules of which it seeks to explain the spontaneous origins6. Professor Kenyon, and many other brilliant biochemists and scientists, still struggle with the issues presented by the assembly and structure of life molecules, and still no naturalistic solution exists."

There are several problems with some of this....

1. Non-living raw chemicals are what we are made of. There is nothing special about the carbon that is in our bodies.

2. Also, the peptide bond that allows amino acids to be strung together just does not spontaneously form. With no peptide bond, no strings of amino acids

3. More often than not, RNA is the candidate of what kicked it all off. You have both functionality as well as genetic information with catalytic RNA molecules.

[Seasanctuary]

I don't have a problem admitting a form of faith that current unknowns have natural explanations. So far, it's always gone that way and never the other.

[peterLounsbury]

I think there's a difference between natural phenomena and miracles. Natural phenomena should absolutely be able to be explained scientifically, I would expect nothing less even if the answer is not yet known. Miracles on the other hand are a very different matter.

Some have tried to explain the parting of the waters as told in Exodus as a natural phenomena, and perhaps it was. The Bible states that an east wind blew preceding the event, so that's a maybe in my opinion. Honestly I lean towards miracle, but as always I go with the truth no matter what it is.

[Seasanctuary]

The flood for example is not necessarily global according to the Bible. Here's a good read on this:

[...]

It is how you choose to look at the Bible that will determine everything. If folks want to pick at it and find fault, I'm sure they will see things exactly like they want to. If on the other hand you look at it in an attempt to see what it says and to determine what the truth is, something different altogether will emerge. And if you look at it and try to force issues as most young earth creationists do, you get what falls out of that tree as well; usually some form of fundamentalism.

It's hard to see how the Bible could possibly be more clear the flood wasn't just a regional flood. YECs take their unpopular positions precisely because they do take the Bible at its word for what happened in the past. It's those trying to force modern understanding back into these stories that are forcing the text to mean something readers would prefer it says.

Some have tried to explain the parting of the waters as told in Exodus as a natural phenomena, and perhaps it was.

Yeah, those folks are silly. It's easier and probably more accurate to suspect no such crossing occurred at all. Same as how it's likely there was no empty tomb at all. Those non-miraculous elements were made up to support the miraculous bits. No reason to take out the miracles and still try to explain the framework designed for them.

[peterLounsbury]

There are several problems with some of this....

1. Non-living raw chemicals are what we are made of. There is nothing special about the carbon that is in our bodies.

2. Also, the peptide bond that allows amino acids to be strung together just does not spontaneously form. With no peptide bond, no strings of amino acids

3. More often than not, RNA is the candidate of what kicked it all off. You have both functionality as well as genetic information with catalytic RNA molecules.

I've read and listened to Dr. Kenyon explain his views numerous times and what I take away every time is that he came to a breaking point in his own support for his own theory because it became overwhelmingly clear to him that what he knew about about chemistry could not explain what he knew to be true. When he opened his mind to the possibility of intelligent design, he felt that it was the obvious answer given the facts as he understood them.

I believe that both design and evolution are apparent, and in this particular case (biochemical evolution), design is overwhelmingly apparent. Does that mean that science can't explain a natural chain of events that led to abiogenesis? Not at all. I am saying that design is apparent and how it happened is currently unknown. Whether by the direct hand of God or by biochemical evolution via naturalistic explanation, design is still apparent unless you can demonstrate how the driving forces of naturalism caused life to emerge from the primordial chemical soup present on earth at that time.