The Privileged Planet: The rare confluence of conditions that allow Earth to support complex life also make the Earth the best location from which to make scientific discoveries. Those scientific discoveries reveal that the universe is understandable to humankind. All this indicates a purpose to the universe: to support intelligent life and to allow intelligent life to discover that the universe was created.

The Privileged Planet is a video about the conditions required for a planet to support intelligent life. It is based on a book by the same name by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. The video starts out discussing the scientific discoveries that led to the belief that the earth is ordinary - the earth orbits the sun, the sun is just one of many stars in our galaxy, and our galaxy is just one of the many galaxies in the universe. But the video goes on to point out there are about twenty conditions needed for a planet to be able to support life. These conditions are not individually likely to occur by chance, and they are exceedingly unlikely to occur together. It is also an odd coincidence that planets like earth that can support complex life, ie. that can support intelligent observers, are also the best platforms for observing the universe and making scientific discoveries. Furthermore, it surprising that our complicated universe seems to be fine-tuned to support life and natural laws are discoverable to humans All of this taken together, the conditions for a planet to be able to support intelligent life are very unlikely, those same conditions that make life possible also provide the best conditions for making scientific discoveries, the universe is finely tuned to support life, and natural laws are intelligible to humankind, suggest that there is a purpose to the universe. That purpose is to support intelligent life and provide a place where intelligent life can understand the universe and ultimately understand that the universe was created.

The video is in 12 short parts included in the youtube
playlist.

Conditions necessary for a planet to support life.

The factors necessary for a planet to support complex life include:

• Liquid water.
  

• The planet must be within the circumstellar habitable zone around its star - the distance from the star that liquid water and an oxygen rich atmosphere can exist.
  

• The planet must be in the galactic habitable zone. Being too close to the center of the galaxy would expose the planet to too much radiation. Too far from the center there are not enough heavy elements to support life.
  

• Orbiting main sequence G2 dwarf star, which is not too hot and not too cool. A smaller star would have a habitable zone too close to itself and the gravity of the star would keep the same side of any planet within the zone constantly facing the star. The side facing the star would be too hot and receive too much radiation to support life, the side facing away from the star would be too cold.
  

• Protected by gas giant planets that shield the inner planets from comet impacts.
  

• Nearly circular orbit.
  

• Oxygen-rich atmosphere.
  

• Correct mass.
  

• Orbited by large moon - "if the moon didn't exist, neither would we". The moon is 1/4 the size of the earth. The moon's gravity stabilizes the angle of the earth's axis insuring temperate seasonal changes. It also helps to circulate the warm and cold waters of the ocean stabilizing the climate and distributing elements, chemicals, and nutrients needed for life.
  

• Magnetic field - generated by the movement of liquid iron deep in the planet's interior, protects the atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind.
  

• Plate tectonics - regulates interior temperature of the planet, recycles carbon, mixes elements necessary for life, shapes the continents ensuring land as well as ocean environments.
  

• Enough heat in the interior to circulate liquid iron.
  

• Ratio of liquid water and continents to allow the diversity of life and an active biosphere needed to support complex life.
  

• Moderate rate of rotation
  

• Oxygen / Nitrogen atmosphere. Assures temperate climate, provides protection from sun's radiation, is the correct combination of gases for liquid water and complex life.
  

The video states the the probability of a planet having all the conditions needed to support life is 10^-15. There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Most sources say there are between 100 and 500 billion galaxies in the universe. By chance, there should be less than one habitable planet per galaxy but a few million habitable planets throughout the universe.

The conditions necessary for a planet to support life make a planet the best location for making scientific discoveries.

• The Moon The best place in our solar system to observe a solar eclipse is the earth which is also the one place that has observers. During an eclipse, the moon appears to be about the same size as the sun. In order for this to happen, the earth has to be the right distance from the sun and it has to have a large moon. These are both factors that also allow the earth to support life.
  

  An eclipse also provides an opportunity to make scientific discoveries. When the moon blocks the sun during an eclipse, stars near the sun become visible. Also the sun's atmosphere, the chromosphere, which extends beyond the surface of the sun, becomes visible too. Observations of the positions of stars near the sun allowed scientists to confirm that the gravity of the sun bends light that passes near it confirming Einstein's theory of relativity. Observations made of the sun's chromosphere allowed scientists to discover helium in it. Other observations allowed scientists to discover how the spectrum of sunlight is produced. This led to the understanding of how the spectra of distant stars are produced which is crucial to our understanding of astrophysics.
  

• The Atmosphere The Earth's atmosphere has the right mixes of gasses to support life and is transparent which allows us to observe the universe around our planet: the other planets, the sun, stars in our galaxy and other galaxies. There are 70 planets and moons in our solar system. Only seven have a substantial atmosphere, and only the earth has an atmosphere that is transparent and can support life. The sun, super novae, and other sources in the universe emit electromagnetic radiation, including gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infra-red light, microwaves and radio waves. Visible light is less than one trillionth of a trillionth of the natural range of the electromagnetic spectrum but visible light is useful for life processes. For example, photosynthesis could not make use of gamma rays or microwaves. Visible light is also the most informative about the structures in the universe. Visible light is produced in abundance by the sun and it most easily penetrates the atmosphere of earth. The atmosphere that is needed to support life allows us to observe the distant universe.
  

The universe is finely-tuned to support life.

The forces and mathematical constants of the laws of physics that apply in our universe are finely tuned to support life. Gravity causes planets, stars and galaxies to form. If the force of gravity was even slightly stronger, intelligent life could not exist. The strong nuclear force is necessary to holds protons and neutrons together to make the atoms which make up our environment and our bodies. If there were no electromagnetic force, there would be no light and no bonding between the atoms which is needed to construct our environment and our bodies. If the masses of subatomic particles were different, life as we know it could not exist. A slight change in any of the forces of nature or physical constants or if they were chosen at random, would make the universe unable to support life. The forces and constants are another example of the correlation between life and discovery. They are finely tuned to support life, and they can also be discovered and understood by humankind.

The universe is intelligible.

The human mind can understand the universe. Natural laws are discoverable because they obey simple mathematical relationships. Many of the most important theories in physics can be written on a single sheet of paper. This intelligibility cannot be explained by naturalistic assumptions. The discoverablity of natural laws is not needed for survival. According to materialist belief, human reason supposedly developed to hunt and survive in the wild. Our ability to discover and understand atoms or black holes, is unnecessary for Darwinian survival.

There is a plan for the universe.

The founders of modern science Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Kepler, all believed the universe was the product of a mind and that it was intelligible to us because it was the product of an intelligent being. In those times, science was part of religion, it was the study of the mind of God.

Modern science shows us that the universe seems to have been intended to contain observers who can understand it. The conditions that make a planet habitable also provide the best conditions to make scientific discoveries. The earth's atmosphere, its location in the solar system, its moon, the arrangement of other planets in its solar system, its star, and its location in galaxy are the most important conditions needed to support life, and also are ideal for making a wide range of scientific discoveries. The laws of nature are intelligible by humankind and from studying them we understand that the universe is finely tuned to support life. All of this cannot be explained by coincidence. It is too improbable to be the result of chance. It cannot be explained by impersonal forces of nature. It indicates a plan. Something beyond the universe must account for it. The universe seems to have been designed by a transcendent creator in order to support intelligent life, and allow intelligent life to discover that.

Many modern scientists believe the evidence that the universe was designed. These scientists include Nobel prize winners such as Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Guglielmo Marconi, Brian Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, Arthur Schawlow, and other scientists, Charles Darwin, Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, Wernher von Braun, Louis Pasteur.

Resources

There are links to resources for further study at theprivilegedplanet.com.

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Multiverse Theories Fail to Explain Our Finely Tuned Universe. Intelligent Design is a Better Explanation.

In the video The Beginning of the Universe and Fine-Tuning , Robert J. Spitzer, PhD. discusses the Big Bang theory and Bruce Gordon, PhD. discusses how the universe is finely tuned to support life and why multiverse theories do not provide a natural explanation for the fine-tuning.

There s also a fact sheet summarizing the information in the video at magiscenter.com.

This post will focus on Bruce Gordon's part of the video. In the video, Bruce Gordon explains that if the initial conditions, the natural laws, and the physical constants of the universe were just the tiniest bit different, the universe would not be able to support life. The fact that the universe is so finely tuned to support life is highly improbable. Gordon discusses a few examples of this fine-tuning such as the initial entropy of the universe, the gravitational constant and the cosmological constant. Then Gordon goes on to discuss multiverse theories and why they do not solve the problem of fine-tuning. He explains how inflation can produce a huge number of universes and how string theory can explain how each universe might have different natural laws. If there are enough different universes, then the chance that one like ours can exist becomes more probable. However Gordon explains why inflation does not solve the problem of fine-tuning, and he gives reasons why string theory is not credible, such as the absence of supersymmetric particles at low energy scales. Gordon then lists some of the absurd consequences of multiverse theories and using quotes from materialists shows that they believe in a multiverse instead of intelligent design not because of the science but because they don't want to believe in intelligent design.

Before going into the details of Bruce Gordon's talk, I would like to make the point that multiverse theories were not proposed in order to explain direct evidence of other universes. They were contrived to provide an alternative explanation for evidence that indicated the universe was designed and created at the time of the Big Bang (ie.was fine-tuned and had a transcendent creator). The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics was proposed to escape the conclusions that consciousness can collapse a wave function in a double slit experiment, sustain a wave function in the quantum Zeno effect, and cause the properties of matter to become fixed in a quantum entanglement experiment. These facts show that consciousness is fundamental and matter depends on consciousness therefore consciousness cannot be produced by the matter in the brain. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed to explain the evidence that falsified Darwinism: the long stasis of species and sudden appearance of new species (and phyla) faster than any natural explanation of genetic change can explain. When one considers these facts, one can see that it is not the intelligent design proponents who are interpreting data according to their metaphysical beliefs, it is the materialist naturalists who are contriving theories in order to avoid the obvious conclusions from empirical data.

The Finely-Tuned Universe

In the video, Bruce Gordon explained the fine-tuning of the universe by analogy to the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears where the porridge is not too hot and not too cold but just right. The initial conditions, natural laws, and physical constants of our universe are just right to support life. If they were even the tiniest bit different, the universe could not support life. This is highly improbable and as Gordon explains in his talk, cannot be explained as a natural phenomenon.

Initial Conditions: The Initial Entropy of the Universe

Gordon says that the Big Bang "explosion" was not "messy" it was an orderly expansion with finely tuned initial conditions represented by very low entropy. He explains how Roger Penrose calculated that the initial entropy of the universe to be 1 in 10¹⁰¹²³. Penrose used the observed entropy of our universe, the entropy per baryon (a baryon is a proton or a neutron) and the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the entropy of a black hole to calculate the entropy of the singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang. The observed entropy divided by the largest possible entropy is equal to the fine-tuning of the initial conditions and is 1 / 10¹⁰¹²³. To explain how small that value is, Gordon said that to write out that number you would need to write one zero for each of the 10⁸⁰ baryons in our universe and also write a zero for every baryon in 100 million trillion trillion trillion more universes with the same number of baryons.

The Gravitational Constant

Gordon continued on to explain how the gravitational constant is finely tuned to support life. He said that the strongest force in the universe is the strong nuclear force which is 10⁴⁰ times stronger than gravity which is the weakest force in the universe. Gordon explained that this value of 10⁴⁰ represented the range for which it is reasonable for a force of nature fall within, and so 1 in 10⁴⁰ represents the fine tuning of the gravitational constant. He explained how finely tuned that value is by suggesting that if a tape measure the length of the universe, 30 billion light years long, or 10²⁸ inches long was used as a scale, then if the gravitational constant was decreased by one inch, the gravitational constant would decrease a trillion fold and no structures would form in the universe. If the gravitational constant were increased by one inch, the gravitational constant would be one trillion times larger and as he said, "even weight watcher's wouldn't help you", meaning that gravity would be too strong for human life to exist.

The Cosmological Constant

Gordon also mentioned that the cosmological constant, the rate of expansion of space, is fine tuned to 1 part in 10¹²⁰. If it was larger, space would expand too fast to form structures, if it was smaller, the universe would re-collapse into itself too quickly to support life.

Multiverse Theories

Inflation

Gordon next began to discuss multiverse theories and started by discussing inflation. Inflation occurred a split-second after the Big Bang, when the universe underwent a period of super-fast expansion. This expansion was postulated to explain the uniform distribution of energy and matter, including the cosmic microwave background radiation and the fact that the universe is geometrically flat. After the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand at the rate we see today.

Gordon also explained that the mathematics describing inflation could provide a natural explanation for the improbably high level of fine tuning in our universe. Inflation allows for the creation of an infinite number of "bubbles", regions of space, other universes, distinct from our own. If there are an infinite number of other universes, then it becomes probable that there will be some like our universe no matter how improbable its fine-tuning. Gordon explains that the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem (explained earlier in the video by Robert Spitzer and also in the fact sheet linked above) applies to inflation so this process of creating new universes could not extend infinitely into the past and there must have been an initial inflation bubble because the average Hubble expansion is greater than zero. Therefore, even a multiverse produced by inflationary processes must have a beginning and a transcendent cause (a cause outside itself).

However, inflation does not solve the problem of the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe, it makes it worse. Gordon says, "When inflation turns off and normal expansion begins, the shut-off energy is fine-tuned to at least one part in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion." In addition, the initial fine-tuning of the Big Bang before inflation must be greater than it is after inflation. While inflation was proposed to explain the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation which was fine-tuned to one part in 100,000 and the flatness of the universe which was fine tuned to one part in 10¹⁵, there is a huge amount of energy needed to turn off inflation in just the right way and this energy is fine-tuned to between 1 in 10⁵³ and 1 in 10¹²³. After inflation, the initial conditions are fine tuned to 1 part in 10¹⁰¹²³ so before inflation, the fine tuning had to be greater than that value.

String Theory

Gordon continued on to explain how string theory has been proposed to explain why natural laws and constants are the way they are. He says, "String theory postulates that the fundamental constituents of nature are one-dimensional filaments instead of particles. These filaments are either open or closed into loops that vibrate in different ways to produce different particles." The size of strings are on the order of the Planck scale which is 10³³cm. Strings move in a space time of nine spacial dimensions and one time dimension. Gordon says, "The extra six space dimensions must be curled up or 'compactified.' There are infinitely many ways of doing this. Each compactification of space can be thought of as representing a different universe with different laws and constants." The size of the compactification represents the strength of physical constants.

When inflationary cosmology is merged with string theory, one can propose that each universe allowed under inflation is different due to a different compactification in that universe.

Problems with String Theory

However, Gordon explains that, "The "mechanism" by which the string landscape produces universes is highly speculative and lacks justification. In order to work, the landscape has to start in its highest energy state and cascade downward - but there's no reason to believe this is what would happen." And, "If the landscape exists, there's good reason to think we should see "supersymmetric" particles at low energy scales. We do not." Although there are 10⁵⁰⁰ possible different string universes we don't know if any of them they exist except ours. No one knows if there are enough universes with the right properties to make the existence of our universe probable. Also, as mentioned above, inflation does not solve the problem of fine tuning it only moves it back one step.

Problems with the Multiverse Theory

Gordon also pointed out that materialists are willing to accept several very unlikely conjectures in order to avoid accepting that the universe was designed and created. Those conjecture are:

• There is an inflaton field.
  
• A potentially infinite number of universes exist.
  
• Strings exist.
  
• There are six additional compactified spacial dimensions.
  
• "An infinite number of compactifications of the six additional spatial dimensions exist and each corresponds (via inflation) to a potential infinity of actual universes." Absurdly, the consequence of this is a space infinitely larger than our own universe.
  

Other absurd consequences of a multiverse theory include:

• An infinite number of universes.
  
• A subset of universes that are infinite in number and identical to ours.
  
• An infinite subset of universes that are almost like ours but slightly different.
  

Gordon also mentioned the Boltzmann Brain paradox, explained here in a New York Times article: "... you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos." Gordon explains that the multiverse is "falsified because the type of people we take ourselves to be are not the typical observers within it." Gordon says that cosmologists try to get around this but he implies it is not credible because it involves "gerrymandering" of the mathematics.

Gordon also explains how multiverse theories are self-defeating, "By providing an all-too-easy explanation for anything that has happened or may happen, the multiverse ends up explaining nothing at all."

Materialist's Bias

Gordon next asks why materialists persist in believing in multiverses? To answer that question Gordon give a series of quotes:

Leonard Susskind, professor of theoretical physics, Stanford university:

... If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation ... then as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.

Bernard Carr, University of London

To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed, anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it sees to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design.

Richard Lewontin, evolutionary biologist, Harvard University.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Materialists admit they believe in absurd things because they do not want to believe an intelligence designed and created the universe. It is ironic because believing in a multiverse requires believing in many much more absurd things than believing in a transcendent creator does. Gordon Closes with a slide that explains the absurdity of materialism:

In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.

In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle.

In a theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and thus are expressions of rational purpose.

Scientific materialism is epistemically self-defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

UPDATE: My post Guillermo Gonzalez on the Fine-tuning of the Universe to Support Life has more information on why the mulitverse theory cannot explain the fine-tuning of the universe to support life. Points covered include:

• Under the multiverse theory, it is 10¹⁰¹²³ more likely that our universe is much smaller than we think and its vast size is only an illusion. You have to believe in illusionism if you believe in the multiverse.
  

• The Boltzmann's Brain paradox is covered in more detail.
  

• How the multiverse theory undermines scientific rationality is also discussed.
  

---

Copyright © 2014, 2015 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Intelligent Design: Skeptical Fallacies

Below are some skeptical fallacies about intelligent design. Each fallacy is linked to an explanation of truth about the subject.

Fallacies:

• Intelligent design is creationism.
  
• Theories of intelligent design are unreliable because they are motivated by religious beliefs.
  
• Theories of intelligent design are implausible because they don't identify who the designer is.
  
• Intelligent design doesn't solve anything because it doesn't explain where the designer came from.
  
• The anthropic principle explains why humans have evolved despite highly improbable odds.
  
• The fine-tuning of the universe can be explained by a multiverse theory.
  
• Intelligent design is an argument from ignorance, or a "god of the gaps" theory.
  
• Intelligent design is not a good explanation for the origin of species because many species have vestigial structures or structures that are poorly designed.
  
• The belief that random mutation cannot produce the vast amount of genetic information in cells is not a problem for theories of natural evolution because there is evidence that cells might produce mutations in a non-random manner.
  
• Evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact proved by empirical evidence.
  

Truth:

Intelligent design is a branch of science.

Scientists who study intelligent design examine scientific data to look for signs that certain aspects of nature might have artifacts indicating that they were designed by an intelligence. Just as an archaeologist can tell an arrowhead is an artifact left by a human working with stone and not a chip of stone produced in an avalanche, scientists who study intelligent design believe they can make logical arguments based on objective evidence to explain why certain scientific phenomena are better explained as being caused by intelligence rather than natural unguided processes. The main areas where scientists have found evidence of intelligent design include the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the diversity of life.

Top

Theories of intelligent design are based on an analysis of scientific evidence and should be judged on their merits like any other scientific theory.

Darwinists are motivated by belief in atheism. If you are going to reject intelligent design because you think its proponents are motivated by beliefs then you have to reject Darwinism for the same reason. But it is better to consider the arguments made by scientists based on their scientific merit. Scientists who study intelligent design are interested in logical arguments based on objective, scientific evidence that demonstrate certain aspects of nature are better explained by intelligent design than by unguided natural causes.

Top

It is not necessary to know the identity of the intelligent designer for an explanation based on intelligent design to be scientifically valid.

In a theory of intelligent design, intelligence is treated just like any other known phenomenon such as gravity or electromagnetism.

The capabilities of intelligence are known from our observations of human intelligence. Intelligence is capable of producing information, cybernetic systems, irreducibly complex systems, and using mathematics.

In the same way that an unseen massive body can be identified by the observation of perturbations in the orbits of planets, an unknown intelligence might be identified by observation of the existence of information (in DNA), cybernetic systems and irreducibly complex systems (in cellular machinery and physiological systems), mathematical principles (in natural laws) and mathematical values in nature (the finely tuned physical constants that allow the universe to support life). When there is no plausible explanation for how an unguided phenomenon, such as gravity or the chemical properties of the elements, can produce an effect that intelligence is known to be capable of causing, then intelligence is the best explanation for the phenomenon.

If you reject this line of reasoning, you should also reject the belief that gravity can move planets.

Top

Where the designer came from is irrelevant to the scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Theories of intelligent design are based on an analysis of scientific evidence and they try to show that intelligent design is a better explanation of the evidence than natural explanations. It is not necessary to identify the designer or explain how the designer arose. An unknown intelligence can be inferred from empirical evidence just as the gravity of an unseen mass can be inferred from observations of the perturbations of the motions of planets.

See the section It is not necessary to know the identity of the intelligent designer for an explanation based on intelligent design to be scientifically valid for more details.

Top

The anthropic principle does not explain how humans could arise by natural causes against vastly unfavorable odds.

The anthropic principle states that intelligent life can only exist in a place that is capable of supporting intelligent life. It is sometimes misconstrued to explain why we might exist despite improbable odds. But in order to explain a chance event, sufficient probabilistic resources have to be shown to exist. They cannot simply be assumed to exist because of the "anthropic principle". If life is unlikely to arise naturally on Earth, there have to be enough other planets to provide enough chances for life to arise naturally on at least one of them in order to explain how life was able to arise naturally on Earth. If the fine tuning of our universe is improbable, there have to be enough different universes to make one like ours probable. In cases like these, for which there are insufficient probabilistic resources, a better explanation is a cause capable of producing the phenomenon in need of explanation that does not depend on chance. For example, just as the gravity of an unknown mass can be inferred as the cause of observed perturbations of the orbits of planets, an unknown intelligence can be inferred as a cause of information, codes, specified complexity, irreducible complexity, cybernetic systems, mathematical laws and mathematical fine-tuning in nature.

Top

Multiverse theories do not eliminate the improbability of fine-tuning.

Most scientists recognize that a universe able to support life as ours does is extremely improbable. Scientist also have no explanation for how the physical characteristics of universe would be set. Because of this, they needed a way to explain how it is possible that our universe has the unlikely characteristics needed to support life. One way they did this was to propose that there are an infinite number of different universes because if there are enough universes, then one like ours may occur by chance. However, multiverse theories don't solve the problem of fine-tuning because they require fine-tuning themselves. According to Stephen Meyer,

Both in String Theory and in the Inflationary Cosmology, in order to explain the fine-tuning you have to posit certain processes which are themselves finely tuned to generate universes or a universe like our own. ... So you really haven't gotten rid of the evidence for intelligent design, you've just pushed it back one generation. And that's precisely what these physical theories do in their attempt to posit some mechanism that could generate new universes.

Top

Intelligent design is not an argument from ignorance or a "god of the gaps" theory.

Intelligent design theories are based on positive assertions, they are not simply offered as explanations when a natural mechanism is insufficient to explain a phenomenon. Intelligence is treated as any other known phenomenon such as gravity or electromagnetism. Theories of intelligent design are based on the known capabilities of intelligence, such as the ability to produce information or use mathematics. For example, the materialistic explanations of natural phenomena often rely on events that are hugely improbable. There is far too much genetic information in DNA for it to have been produced by any known natural cause. Since intelligence is known to produce information, intelligent design is a better explanation for the genetic information in DNA. The rate of expansion of the universe is finely tuned to one part in 10⁶⁰ to support life. Any greater deviation from its value would prevent life from forming. There is no natural explanation for how or why the expansion rate of the universe was set so precisely to the value needed to support life. However intelligence is capable of using mathematics and intelligent design is therefore a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe to support life.

To suggest that some unknown natural cause could explain these phenomenon which can be explained by intelligence is an argument from ignorance or a "god of the gaps" argument.

See the section It is not necessary to know the identity of the intelligent designer for an explanation based on intelligent design to be scientifically valid for more details.

Top

Physiological structures that seem to be vestigial or seem to be poorly designed do not invalidate intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of species.

The criticism that vestigial structures or poor design implies that design is not a good explanation for the origin of species has at least two problems.

Firstly it is an argument from ignorance. Just because a Darwinist does not know why a structure has been preserved does not mean there it has no useful function. Just because a Darwinist does not see how a structure can be a good design does not mean it isn't.

Secondly, it is peculiar that a Darwinist, who does not believe in intelligent design, would seem to know so much about it and in such intricate detail that he is willing to make such detailed assumptions about the design process. Just because something is designed does not mean it has to function according to some ideal of perfection. It only has to function well enough. In a design process there are always trade offs. The evidence that is said to show common descent is also consistent with common design. This applies to vestigial or other physiological structures in an organism. A human engineer would understand that the cost of altering a design has to be weighed against the benefits of the new design. Sometimes a "good enough" design is a better solution to a problem than an ideal design. As someone who has worked as a software engineer I can say with complete certainty that there are commercial software products have vestigial and poorly designed components. These characteristics are not evidence of natural evolution they are artifacts of intelligent design.

Top

Cellular mechanisms for non-random mutations do not explain how the vast amounts of genetic information in cells could arise naturally.

There is ample evidence that random variation and natural selection could not produce the vast amount of genetic information in cells. The possibility that cells might have mechanism of generating mutations in a non-random fashion doesn't help explain the production of this genetic information. The law of conservation of information requires that non-random searchers have built in information that is greater than or equal to the information produced by a random search. If a system generating non-random mutation makes beneficial mutations more likely, then the information needed to produce the system would require information greater than or equal to the new biological information it generates.

Similarly the no-free-lunch theorem shows that any search of the fitness landscape will be no better than chance unless there is information built into the search.

John Garvey writes:

Kurt Gödel's logical objection to Darwinian evolution:

The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].
As quoted in H. Wang. "On 'computabilism' and physicalism: Some Problems." in Nature's Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).

Gödel's argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start - and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough. In other words, either information must be added later, or some currently invisible front-loading would be necessary. The one mathematical impossibility, he says, is the spontaneous generation of the (specified) complexity of life simply by random variation and selection from nothing.

Top

Evolution by natural selection cannot be proved from empirical evidence because "survival of the fittest" is a tautology, it is not falsifiable.

The theory of evolution by natural selection cannot be supported by any empirical evidence because there is no objective way to measure fitness except by assuming what you are trying to prove - that individuals with greater fitness are the individuals that survive. This makes the theory unfalsifiable. Evolution by natural selection is believed only because it is logically compelling not because of empirical evidence. When it comes to microevolution, this compelling logic might be considered self-evident. However when it comes to the origin of life and macroevolution, natural selection as the cause of biological information is by no means self-evident and requires empirical evidence or detailed mathematical theoretical proof. In fact, the empirical evidence such as the fossil record and genetic analyses, and theoretical work such as the law of conservation of information and the no-free-lunch theorem contradict the theory that macroevolution is caused by natural selection. Worse still, the tautological nature of the theory of natural selection has been used to prevent genuine inquiry into evolution because its unfalsifiability has been used to reject any competing theory a priori.

Top

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

The Cambrian Explosion is Best Explained by Intelligent Design

In the video The Cambrian Explosion, Stephen Meyer and Marcus Ross discuss the 80 page chapter The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang written for the book Darwinism, Design and Public Education.

The Cambrian explosion refers to a period of time 530 million years ago when many animal phyla first appeared on earth. Biologists classify life according to a hierarchical organization of levels that include kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. A kingdom may contain one or more phyla, a phylum may contain one or more classes, and so forth. In the video, four reasons are given to explain why intelligent design is a better explanation for the Cambrian explosion than neo-Darwinism.

1. Darwinian mechanisms cannot produce the information in DNA needed for the sudden appearance of new phyla that occurred during the Cambrian explosion, however intelligence can produce information.
   

   For Darwinism to work, there has to be a series of single mutations that lead from one species to another where each mutation provides greater fitness. Theoretical research shows that because of the way proteins work, this is impossible. It is prohibitively improbable that the individual mutations needed to produce a new function would increase fitness if they occurred one at a time. Multiple simultaneous mutations that could increase fitness by producing new functions are also too improbable to occur.
   

   Furthermore, to create the significant changes in body plan needed to create a new phylum, a mutation would have to affect early embryo development. Such mutations are usually fatal so it is also vastly improbable that a sequence of individual mutations could cause increasing fitness as they changed the body plan of a species.
   

   Also, epigenetic information, information not encoded in the DNA, is required for embryonic development and cell function. There is no plausible theory that explains how epigenetic information can be produced naturally.
   

2. Darwinism predicts new phyla should evolve from existing species but the fossil record shows the new phyla appearing without ancestors. This sudden appearance is what one would expect if the new phyla were created by a designing intelligence. There are sufficient fossils of soft bodied animals from before the Cambrian explosion that if the phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion had ancestors, fossils of them would have been found.
   

3. Darwinism predicts that new phyla will arise as new species repeatedly branch off and diversify until a new species is so different that it merits classification as a new phylum. Therefore there should be many species existing when a new phylum arises. However contrary to these predictions of Darwinism, during the Cambrian explosion, many new phyla arose but there were relatively few species at the time. This dearth of species is exactly what would be expected if the new phyla were created by a designing intelligence.
   

4. Darwinism predicts existing phyla should produce new phyla as species branch off and diversify until a new species is so different it merits classification as a new phylum. However no phylum has ever produced a species so different that it could be classified as a new phylum. But this is exactly what we expect from designed objects, cars change each year but do not become airplanes.
   

Because of these four ways neo-Darwinism fails to explain features of the Cambrian explosion that are more consistent with intelligent design, intelligent design is a better explanation of the Cambrian explosion than neo-Darwinism.

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe to one part in 1010123 is best explained by an intelligent designer and creator, aka. God.

Many Nobel Prize winning scientists believed there is scientific evidence which is best explained by an intelligent designer and creator of the universe. These Nobelists include Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Guglielmo Marconi, Brian D. Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes, George Wald, Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, and Arthur Schawlow. Other great scientists who believed the same thing include Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, and Wernher von Braun. (Eminent Researchers.)

This scientific evidence of design and creation includes the evidence that if certain natural laws were only the tiniest bit different, life could not exist in the universe. This indicates the universe was fine-tuned to support life. To understand why this argument is so convincing, consider that the ratio of the number of electrons to the number of protons in the universe is fine-tuned to one part in 10³⁷. To visualize how improbable that value is, consider this explanation from godandscience.org

One part in 10³⁷ is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10³⁷.

The ratio of electrons to protons is not the only parameter of the universe that is fine tuned. There are many others. To calculate the probabilities of these all together you would multiply them and the result would be fantastically, incomprehensibly, improbable:

(The information below comes from godandscience.org unless otherwise noted. More information on fine-tuning of the universe and an explanation of how fine-tuning is calculated can be found at Guillermo Gonzalez on the Fine-tuning of the Universe to Support Life.)

Expansion rate of the universe: fine-tuned to 1 part in 10⁶⁰ (1:10⁶⁰) (See refrence 1)
If larger: the heat and energy of the universe would dissipate too quickly stable galaxies would not form
If smaller: the matter in the universe would have collapsed back on itself

Gravitational force constant: 1:10⁴⁰ (ref. 1)
If larger: stars would be too hot, they would burn up too quickly, and too unevenly
If smaller: stars would remain too cool so that nuclear fusion would never ignite and hence we would have no element production

Initial Entropy of the Universe: 1:10¹⁰¹²³ (one in ten to the tenth to the 123rd) (ref. 3)
If larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
If smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

Initial entropy before inflation: Greater than 1:10¹⁰¹²³ (ref. 5)
If larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
If smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

Mass Density of Universe: 1:10⁵⁹
If larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

Strong nuclear force: 1:50 (ref. 4)
If larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable
If smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form

Cosmological constant: 1:10¹²⁰
If larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Ratio of number of electrons to number of protons: 1:10³⁷
If larger or smaller, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

Ratio of Electromagnetic force constant : Gravitational force constant: 1:10⁴⁰
If larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support life
If smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

Flatness: 1:10¹⁵ (ref. 5)

Inflation shut-off energy: Between 1:10⁵³ and 1:10¹²³ (ref. 5)

Cosmic microwave background radiation: 1:100,000 (ref. 5)

Godandscience,org lists 34 fine-tuning parameters:

1. Strong nuclear force constant
   
2. Weak nuclear force constant
   
3. Gravitational force constant
   
4. Electromagnetic force constant
   
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass
   
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   
8. Expansion rate of the universe
   
9. Entropy level of the universe
   
10. Mass density of the universe
    
11. Velocity of light
    
12. Age of the universe
    
13. Initial uniformity of radiation
    
14. Average distance between galaxies
    
15. Density of galaxy cluster
    
16. Average distance between stars
    
17. Fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines)
    
18. Decay rate of protons
    
19. ¹²C to ¹⁶O nuclear energy level ratio
    
20. Ground state energy level for ⁴He
    
21. Decay rate of ⁸Be
    
22. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    
23. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    
24. Polarity of the water molecule
    
25. Supernovae eruptions
    
26. White dwarf binaries
    
27. Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    
28. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    
29. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
    
30. Mass of the neutrino
    
31. Big bang ripples
    
32. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
    
33. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    
34. Cosmological constant
    

Many people have wondered how the universe could be so mathematically precise: how natural laws could follow mathematical rules, and how the universe could be so fantastically, improbably, fine-tuned to permit the existence of life. There is a simple answer for that.

First, consider the analogy that the universe might be a simulation running on a computer. That would explain how it could operate with such mathematical precision. All the laws and fine-tuned parameters could be specified in the program. But that is just an analogy. I am not suggesting the universe is a computer simulation. However, it may be that the universe was created in the mind of God. In which case God is analogous to the computer and the universe is analogous to a program running on the computer.

Mathematics consists entirely of ideas. God is pure mind. God creates through thought. All that can exist is mind. Your consciousness is not part of the "simulation". Your brain and body are part of it, but you, your consciousness, is not physical. You would still exist if the "simulation" ended. But the physical universe of space and time may exist only in the mind of God. This may be what mystics mean when they say everything is part of God.

If this is right, then God can create miracles with a thought. He can cause improbable events such as the origin and evolution of life with a thought.

It also makes sense of quantum mechanics. If the physical universe exists as thought in the mind of God, then there is no ultimate reality to explain quantum mechanics or to explain what a wave function is. There are only mathematical formulas that describe how our reality will behave. It is exactly what you would expect if you found natural laws that obeyed mathematical rules that made no physical sense. It might be because there isn't anything physical behind them. There is only a mathematical engine (consciousness, the mind of God) behind them. It could explain wave/particle duality, quantum entanglement, and the quantum Zeno effect. It is also consistent with the theistic and mystical belief that the continued action of God is necessary to keep the physical universe extant.

References

1. jashow.org: The Four Great Discoveries of Modern Science That Prove God Exists/Program 3

2. godandscience.org: Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe by Rich Deem

3. evolutionnews.org: Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: "Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe" by Casey Luskin

4. Wikipedia: Fine-tuned Universe

5. Multiverse Theories Fail to Explain Our Finely Tuned Universe. Intelligent Design is a Better Explanation.

---

Copyright © 2014, 2015 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Eminent Researchers: Nobel Prize Winning Scientists Werner Heisenberg, Guglielmo Marconi, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Ernst Chain, Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, and Walter Kohn

I have added entries for Nobel Prize winning scientists Werner Heisenberg, Guglielmo Marconi, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Ernst Chain, Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, and Walter Kohn to my web page on eminent researchers who believed in some paranormal phenomena because of their own research, the research of others, or their own experiences. There are now twenty fve Nobelist on that page.

• Werner Heisenberg believed that studying science led one to believe in God.
  
• Guglielmo Marconi believed that studying nature and working in science led to the belief that the universe was created.
  
• William Phillips believed the that evidence of natural laws and the fine-tuning of the universe is evidence that the universe was created.
  
• Richard Smalley believed the fine-tuning of the universe is scientific evidence that the universe was designed and created by God.
  
• Ernst Chain did not believe in the natural origin of life because it is chemically impossible. He also did not believe in natural evolution because he felt natural selection was only an assumption not a scientific theory, and it did not explain the purposefulness in the development of individual organisms or the evolution of species.
  
• Arthur Compton believed that the "orderly unfolding" of the universe demonstrated a plan created by God.
  
• Antony Hewish did not believe that the universe or life arose naturally.
  
• Christian Anfinsen said that, like Albert Einstein, he believed that studying science leads to belief in God.
  
• Walter Kohn said that he, like Albert Einstein, believed that studying nature led him to believe in a higher power.
  

The following is the text of the entires:

Werner Heisenberg
(Nobel Prize for Physics)

From Wikikpedia:

Werner Karl Heisenberg (5 December 1901 - 1 February 1976) was a German theoretical physicist and one of the key creators of quantum mechanics. ... Heisenberg was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1932 "for the creation of quantum mechanics".

Heisenberg thought that belief in God is a natural result of studying science. He said:

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.

Guglielmo Marconi
(Nobel Prize for Physics)

Guglielmo Marconi, 1st Marquis of Marconi (... 25 April 1874 - 20 July 1937) was an Italian inventor and electrical engineer, known for his pioneering work on long-distance radio transmission... Marconi ... shared the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics with Karl Ferdinand Braun "in recognition of their contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy". (Wikipedia)

Marconi believed that studying nature and working in science led to the belief that the universe was created.

The more I work with the powers of Nature, the more I feel God’s benevolence to man; the closer I am to the great truth that everything is dependent on the Eternal Creator and Sustainer; the more I feel that the so-called science, I am occupied with, is nothing but an expression of the Supreme Will, which aims at bringing people closer to each other in order to help them better understand and improve themselves. (Quotes about God...)

William Phillips
(Nobel Prize for Physics)

William Daniel Phillips (born November 5, 1948) is a Nobel Prize award winning, American physicist. He shared the Nobel Prize in Physics, in 1997, with Steven Chu and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji. (Wikipedia)

William Phillips believed the that evidence of natural laws and the fine-tuning of the universe is evidence that the universe was created.

I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. (A Hitch in the Giddy-Up)

Richard Smalley
(Nobel Prize for Chemistry)

Richard Errett Smalley (June 6, 1943 - October 28, 2005)... In 1996, along with Robert Curl, ... and Harold Kroto, ... he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of a new form of carbon, buckminsterfullerene ("buckyballs") ... (Wikepedia)

Smalley believed the fine-tuning of the universe is scientific evidence that the universe was designed and created by God.

... God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. ... Wikiquote.

Ernst Chain
(Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine)

Sir Ernst Boris Chain, FRS (19 June 1906 - 12 August 1979) was a German-born British biochemist, and a 1945 co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for his work on penicillin. (Wikipedia)

Chain did not believe that life arose naturally because it would be impossible due to the laws of chemistry. He believed the existence of life is better explained by the action of God.

(The excerpts about Chain below are from 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists who Believe in God by Tihomir Dimitrov.)

Concerning the Materialistic theory of evolution Ernst Chain ... states:

I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.

I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.”

Chain also did not believe in natural evolution. He recognized it was based on assumptions and was not a scientific theory.

Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life - the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. And a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.

Chain thought the theory of "natural selection" explained nothing. He thought that "survival of the fittest" was a statement of an obvious fact and was lacking substance and therefore was not a scientific theory. He also believed that something more was necessary because development of individual organisms and evolution of species demonstrated purposefulness (teleology) that could not be explained by natural factors.

Concerning the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution Chain wrote:

It is, of course, nothing but a truism, and not a scientific theory, to say that living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive.

To postulate, as the positivists of the end of the 19th century and their followers here have done, that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.

This hypothesis wilfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species.

These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.

Arthur Compton
(Nobel Prize in Physics)

Arthur Holly Compton (September 10, 1892 - March 15, 1962) was an American physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1927 for his discovery of the Compton effect. He is also known for his leadership of the Manhattan Project's Metallurgical Laboratory. He served as Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis from 1945 to 1953. (Wikipedia)

Arthur Compton believed that the "orderly unfolding" of the universe demonstrated a plan created by God.

It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.' (brainyquote.com)

Antony Hewish
(Nobel Prize in Physics)

Antony Hewish FRS (born Fowey, Cornwall, 11 May 1924) is a British radio astronomer who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1974 (together with fellow radio-astronomer Martin Ryle) for his work on the development of radio aperture synthesis and its role in the discovery of pulsars. He was also awarded the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1969. (Wikipedia)

Hewish did not believe that the universe or life arose naturally.

I believe in God. It makes no sense to me to assume that the Universe and our existence is just a cosmic accident, that life emerged due to random physical processes in an environment which simply happened to have the right properties. (doesgodexist.org)

Christian Anfinsen
(Nobel Prize in Chemistry)

Christian Boehmer Anfinsen, Jr. (March 26, 1916 - May 14, 1995) was an American biochemist. He shared the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Stanford Moore and William Howard Stein for work on ribonuclease, especially concerning the connection between the amino acid sequence and the biologically active conformation... (Wikipedia)

Anfinsen said that, like Albert Einstein, he believed that studying science leads to belief in God.

I enclose a favorite quotation from Einstein that agrees almost completely with my own point of view.

Einstein himself once said that "The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God." (50 Nobel Laureates And Other Great Scientists Who Believe In God)

Walter Kohn
(Nobel Prize in Chemistry)

Walter Kohn (born March 9, 1923) is an Austrian-born American theoretical physicist. He was awarded, with John Pople, the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1998. The award recognized their contributions to the understandings of the electronic properties of materials. (Wikipedia)

Walter Kohn said that he, like Albert Einstein, believed that studying nature led him to believe in a higher power.

I have been influenced in my thinking by the writings of Einstein who has made remarks to the effect that when he contemplated the world he sensed an underlying Force much greater than any human force. I feel very much the same. There is a sense of awe, a sense of reverence, and a sense of great mystery. (doesgodexist.org)

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Mainstream Scientists Admit the Evidence for the Natural Origin and Evolution of Life is Missing

Many mainstream scientist admit the evidence for the natural origin and evolution of life is missing. The following excerpts from articles written by Casey Luskin provide several examples.

Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology By Casey Luskin

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."
--Leading 20th Century Evolutionary Biologist Ernst Mayr

Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record By Casey Luskin

Stephen Jay Gould explains:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
...
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

A Primer on the Tree of Life By Casey Luskin

Looking higher up the tree, a recent study published in Science tried to construct a phylogeny of animal relationships but concluded that “[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.”6 Likewise, Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”7

The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information By: Casey Luskin

As Professor of Neurosurgery Michael Egnor insightfully said in response to one evolutionary biologist:

[G]ene duplication is, presumably, not to be taken too seriously. If you count copies as new information, you must have a hard time with plagiarism in your classes. All that the miscreant students would have to say is 'It's just like gene duplication. Plagiarism is new information- you said so on your blog!'16

...
Biologist Austin Hughes warns that most inferences of positive selection are based upon questionable statistical analyses of genes:

A major hindrance to progress has been confusion regarding the role of positive (Darwinian) selection, i.e., natural selection favoring adaptive mutations. In particular, problems have arisen from the widespread use of certain poorly conceived statistical methods to test for positive selection. Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution on the basis of computational analyses alone, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations. … Contrary to a widespread impression, natural selection does not leave any unambiguous ‘‘signature’’ on the genome, certainly not one that is still detectable after tens or hundreds of millions of years. To biologists schooled in Neo-Darwinian thought processes, it is virtually axiomatic that any adaptive change must have been fixed as a result of natural selection. But it is important to remember that reality can be more complicated than simplistic textbook scenarios. … In recent years the literature of evolutionary biology has been glutted with extravagant claims of positive selection on the basis of computational analyses alone ... This vast outpouring of pseudo-Darwinian hype has been genuinely harmful to the credibility of evolutionary biology as a science.19

Problems with the Natural Chemical "Origin of Life" (updated) By Casey Luskin

After seeing difficulties faced by the origin of life, perhaps this is why over 20 years ago, the noted scientist who discovered the structure of DNA, Francis Crick, said:

"The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."38

...
Klaus Dose said the following about the state of OOL research:

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New lines of thinking and experimentation must be tried."47

Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories By Casey Luskin

Have modern theorists explained how this crucial bridge from inert nonliving chemicals to self-replicating molecular systems took place? Not at all. In fact, even Stanley Miller readily admitted the difficulty of explaining this in Discover Magazine:

Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that's easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That's very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it's easy to make money in the stock market -- all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it's done.12

...
Frank Salisbury explained the problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher:

It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.19

...
As two theorists observed in a 2004 article in Cell Biology International:

The nucleotide sequence is also meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical "hardware" capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the Shannon message "receiver." But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein "workers" produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.20

...
Harvard chemist George Whitesides was given the Priestley Medal, the highest award of the American Chemical Society. During his acceptance speech, he offered this stark analysis, reprinted in the respected journal Chemical and Engineering News:

The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea.21

As Nobel prize winning neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles said, promissory materialism is superstition. Because of all this missing evidence, it is materialism that is the "god of the gaps" argument.

Related Articles

• Articles Arranged by Subject: Intelligent Design
  
• Survival of the Fakest By Jonathan Wells. Many of the examples claimed to prove Darwinism are false or misleading.
  
• The Politics of Suppression of Intelligent Design.
  

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.

Eminent Researchers: Nobelist George Wald believed consciouness is not produced by the brain. Nobelist Brian Josephson believed the universe was created through the action of intelligence.

I have added the following entry on Nobelist George Wald to my web page on eminent researchers who believed in some paranormal phenomena because of their own research, the research of others, or their own experiences.

George Wald
(Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine)

From Wikipedia:

George Wald (November 18, 1906 - April 12, 1997) was an American scientist who is best known for his work with pigments in the retina. He won a share of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Haldan Keffer Hartline and Ragnar Granit.

George Wald believed that consciousness was not produced by matter and that matter and life existed only because of preexisting consciousness.

From LIFE AND MIND IN THE UNIVERSE By George Wald

... mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life-breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

...

What we recognize as the material universe, the universe of space and time and elementary particles and energies, is then an avatar, the materialization of primal mind.

I also updated the entry for Brian Josephson
with the following:

Brian Josephson also believed that the universe was created through the action of intelligence. The following is an abstract from a talk given by
Josephson:

I shall argue for an explanation involving the idea that a more elementary form of life, not dependent on matter, existed prior to the big bang, and evolved at the level of ideas in the same way that human societies evolve at the level of ideas. Just as human society discovered how to use matter in a range of technological applications, the hypothesised life before the big bang discovered how to organise energy to make physical universes, and to make fruitful use of the matter available in such universes.

This web page on Eminent Researchers now includes sixteen Nobel Prize winners:

• Max Planck
  
• Wolfgang Pauli
  
• Erwin Schrödinger
  
• Albert Einstein
  
• J. J. Thomson
  
• Brian D. Josephson
  
• Charles Robert Richet
  
• John William Strutt
  
• Marie Curie
  
• Pierre Curie
  
• Eugene Wigner
  
• John Eccles
  
• Otto Stern
  
• Arno Penzias
  
• Charles Townes
  
• George Wald
  

And, many other brilliant scientists including:

• Charles Darwin
  
• Kurt Gödel
  
• Sir Fred Hoyle
  
• John von Neumann
  
• Alan Turing
  
• Wernher von Braun
  
• David Bohm
  
• Karl Popper
  
• Sir Robert Boyle
  

---

Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.