Response to Darrel Falk’s Review of Signature in the Cell By Stephen C. Meyer

By Stephen C. Meyer

"In 1985, I attended a conference that brought a fascinating problem in origin-of-life biology to my attention—the problem of explaining how the information necessary to produce the first living cell arose. At the time, I was working as a geophysicist doing digital signal processing, a form of information analysis and technology. A year later, I enrolled in graduate school at the University of Cambridge, where I eventually completed a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science after doing interdisciplinary research on the scientific and methodological issues in origin-of-life biology. In the ensuing years, I continued to study the problem of the origin of life and have authored peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific articles on the topic of biological origins, as well as co-authoring a peer-reviewed biology textbook. Last year, after having researched the subject for more than two decades, I published Signature in the Cell, which provides an extensive evaluation of the principal competing theories of the origin of biological information and the related question of the origin of life. Since its completion, the book has been endorsed by prominent scientists including Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences; Scott Turner, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York; and Professor Norman Nevin, one of Britain’s leading geneticists.

Nevertheless, in his recent review on the Biologos website, Prof. Darrel Falk characterizes me as merely a well-meaning, but ultimately unqualified, philosopher and religious believer who lacks the scientific expertise to evaluate origin-of-life research and who, in any case, has overlooked the promise of recent pre-biotic simulation experiments. On the basis of two such experiments, Falk suggests I have jumped prematurely to the conclusion that pre-biotic chemistry cannot account for the origin of life. Yet neither of the scientific experiments he cites provides evidence that refutes the argument of my book or solves the central mystery that it addresses. Indeed, both experiments actually reinforce—if inadvertently—the main argument of Signature in the Cell.

The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question.

Nowhere in his review does Falk refute this claim or provide another explanation for the origin of biological information. In order to do so Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this. Thus, Falk opts instead to make a mainly personal and procedural argument against my book by dismissing me as unqualified and insisting that it is “premature” to draw any negative conclusions about the adequacy of undirected chemical processes.

To support his claim that I rushed to judgment, Falk first cites a scientific study published last spring after my book was in press. The paper, authored by University of Manchester chemist John Sutherland and two colleagues, does partially address one of the many outstanding difficulties associated the RNA world, the most popular current theory about the origin of the first life.

Starting with a 3-carbon sugar (D-gylceraldehyde), and another molecule called 2-aminooxazole, Sutherland successfully synthesized a 5-carbon sugar in association with a base and a phosphate group. In other words, he produced a ribonucleotide. The scientific press justifiably heralded this as a breakthrough in pre-biotic chemistry because previously chemists had thought (as I noted in my book) that the conditions under which ribose and bases could be synthesized were starkly incompatible with each other.

Nevertheless, Sutherland’s work does not refute the central argument of my book (More)

Great God Debates

"There is a great tradition of debates between atheists and believers in God. In the first half of the twentieth century, G.K. Chesterton debated George Bernard Shaw on topics ranging from God to socialism. In a famous debate, philosophers Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell squared off on whether God's existence could be proved. Dinesh D'Souza seeks to revive this great tradition, and in recent months he has been debating several of the world's leading atheists. More debates are coming up. Here believers and non-believers alike can see case for and against God and Christianity presented by capable advocates on both sides. So watch, and enjoy, and make up your own mind."

View Debates...

Did God Evolve?

Recently Dinesh D'Souza, author of "What's So Great About Christianity" reviewed The Evolution of God by Robert Wright for Christianity Today.

"There are three kinds of people: those who believe in God, those who don't, and those who believe in belief. Robert Wright is a member of the third group. He calls himself an unbeliever who holds that "gods arose as illusions" invented by mankind. At the same time, he thinks it is an excellent thing for others to believe in God. Since he advocates belief largely for secular and social purposes, Wright insists that religions evolve in the direction that he considers most conducive to social harmony and global peace.

It may seem odd that someone would take the trouble to write a 576-page book making this argument. Even so, I approached Robert Wright's new one, The Evolution of God (Little, Brown and Company), with anticipation. Years ago I enjoyed Wright's The Moral Animal (1994), which competently summarized then-recent research of evolutionary biologists on the origins of altruism. Wright presented his findings in a supple, breezy style that made the book a pleasure to read.

The Evolution of God is also engaging, and when you consider the topic you might wonder if the book is yet enough to do it justice. According to the publisher's summary, Wright seeks to provide nothing less than a "sweeping narrative that takes us from the Stone Age to the Information Age," a span of about 7,000 years. Besides, Wright's book covers the entire world, drawing on multiple fields including anthropology, history, biology, philosophy, and theology. Even great polymaths from Voltaire to Thomas Jefferson never attempted anything so ambitious, and Wright deserves credit for trying.

His thesis is simply stated upfront: While the gods arose as illusions, "the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity," Wright argues. Moreover, religion has "matured" so that it is now closer to modern ideas of tolerance and scientific truth. In Wright's words, "the illusion has gotten less and less illusory."

This may seem a strange way to justify religion, and it is. Oddly enough, Wright considers himself a friend of religion. His massive narrative is intended to show that religion has slowly gotten its act together and its story right, and he is hopeful that religion will continue to evolve away from its harsh, primitive roots, toward less exclusivity and more tolerance, so it can be reconciled with modern secular liberalism. Wright sees himself as making a kind of defense of God, although "not exactly the kind of God that most religious believers currently have in mind."

Wright begins by claiming that polytheism persisted much longer than the Old Testament lets on, and that even Jews persisted in worshiping many gods despite their monotheistic God's jealous demands for exclusive allegiance. So far, he isn't saying anything controversial.

Wright proceeds to make claims about Jesus and Muhammad that are equally banal. He insists that Jesus didn't say some of the things that are attributed to him, something Christians have been hearing for a century and a half, and something that rests on questionable assumptions. The logic behind such an approach is that scribes in subsequent centuries may have made up the good stuff attributed to Christ, but they surely wouldn't have made up things in the Bible that make Christ look bad. But no one applies these principles to Socrates or any other historical figure. Imagine if you deleted all of Socrates' good arguments, imagining these to have been exaggerations concocted by his enthusiastic disciples Plato or Xenophon, and only credited Socrates with his bad arguments. We would have an entirely different picture of Socrates today. While there is indeed controversy about how accurately the disciples of Socrates pictured him, no philosophy student would stand for such a tendentious, one-sided mode of historical interpretation. By the same token..."

(Rest of article).

These days "evolution" as a concept is applied to anything and everything. The latest is God. Dinesh highlights some of the problems with this view.

On the Origin of Life

Here is Dr. Stephen Meyer presenting his argument:

What Darwin Didn't Know...

Would Charles Darwin be a 'Darwinist' if he were around today? An intersting question to be sure. Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana has written an engaging article--What Darwin Didn't Know--exploring the kinds of evidence Darwin did not have available to him when he set forth his theory.

(excerpt) "When Charles Darwin advanced his theory of biological evolution, there was a lot of biology he didn't know. Some of it he recognized. But there was much he never even thought about. During the 150 years since then, scientific advance has yielded important understanding about life's origin, history and characteristics. These accomplishments provide the framework for modern biology. Even more, they are causing scientists to question his theory. Learning what scientists know will equip Christians with a response to the Darwin anniversaries and his theory of biological evolution that can change minds and lives..." Read More...

Dr. Woodward Article - Explaining about Our Creator: ANSWERING DARWIN

Dr. Thomas Woodward recently wrote an article for Kindred Spirit talking about Charles Darwin and how we can have a productive cultural conversation about issues Science, Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Faith. It is well worth a read.

(Article Begins)

THE TOWERING FIGURES OF CHARLES DARWIN AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN RARELY RECEIVE mention in the same breath. Yet because of a quirky coincidence—their births on the same day, February 12, 1809—the two are perpetually linked in our consciousness.

This year massive bicentennial celebrations are being launched for both. Clearly the more controversial for Christians is Darwin. He became the father of modern evolutionary theory when he argued that nature knitted together the living world through an all-powerful mechanism of creation—natural selection. This legacy, the center of praise in Darwin celebrations, reigns supreme in biology under the name “neo-Darwinism.”

Neo-Darwinism is a theory that says all biological complexity and diversity—from beetles to zebras and mosses to sequoias—arise from unintelligent forces in nature rather than from an intelligent agent such as God. Over a million species of plants, animals, and microbes, they say, have been sculpted through a long process of “macroevolution.” Darwin’s prime sculptor, tweaked with modern understandings, is nothing more than random genetic glitches filtered by natural selection.

Christians, on the other hand, observe the beauty of the natural world, take note of the gigabytes of coded DNA information packed within living cells, and see the fingerprints of God. To those with a biblical perspective, biology confirms that “since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom 1:20).

As “Darwin’s year” continues, we must ask, “Is there a creative, redemptive way to participate in the celebration of Darwin to the glory of God? Could a great opportunity be staring us in the face?”

To address these questions we need to understand that Darwinian celebration won’t rapidly fade as we move through 2009. It will roar on, building to a second climax on November 24—a date that marks the one-hundred-fiftieth anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

At www.darwinday.org one can follow the cascade of festivities in dozens of countries. Historians, scientists, and educators are seizing this moment to trumpet Darwin’s achievements and to bash intelligent design. By the end of 2009, millions will be influenced through TV specials, historical exhibits, conferences, books, and films.

In an odd twist Darwin enthusiasts have tied Darwin to Lincoln and given the nod to Darwin. Robert Stephens, the American who founded the annual Darwin Day Celebrations, told the BBC that “Feb. 12, 1809, was a very good day for our planet because Lincoln became the great emancipator of the slaves in America, and Darwin became the great emancipator of the human mind!” Stephens added that a “poignant” relationship exists between Lincoln’s great achievement and “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection . . . that freed the human mind from superstition, thus permitting the interpretation of scientific data through the lens of naturalism instead of through the lens of theology.”

The irony in Stephens’s comment seems to escape him. His preferred philosophy of naturalism is itself a theological and metaphysical doctrine, not a finding of science. Naturalism declares that the universe is a “closed system of material causes and effects” which cannot be affected by anything outside such as God. The great Oxford-trained journalist Thomas Bethell saw this irony when he described naturalistic Darwinism as the great “intellectual superstition” of our time.

Freeing the Mind?

Darwinists like Stephens preach passionate sermons, arguing that science must build on naturalism’s firm foundation or perish. The upshot is clear: Any biblical notion of creation is to be discarded with other outmoded myths.

As a historian of the ongoing “Darwinism vs. Design” controversy, I am frequently shocked by how mainstream science has become unguarded in pushing a theology. It was trumpeted brazenly at a Darwin Day event at the University of Tennessee when William Provine of Cornell University boasted, “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism that has ever been invented.”

More than a decade later, in lectures, essays, and in the film Expelled, Provine says that Darwinism tells us there is no detectable god or designing force in the universe; no purpose in life; no life after death; no foundation for ethics; and no free will. Provine emphasizes that Darwin agreed with these conclusions.

Provine’s message is recast into an evangelistic appeal by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Daniel Dennett at Tufts University was even more blunt. In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea Dennett wrote that Darwinism is like a “universal acid; it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized worldview.”

Confronted by this atheistic chorus, Christians wonder if it makes sense even to interact with Darwinian celebrants and celebrations. To add to the confusion, some religious leaders draw theological lessons from evolution and salute Darwin’s theory as a map of how God created by using forces of nature. Evangelical Christian and geneticist Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, pushed a pro-Darwin stance and dismissed intelligent design in The Language of God. (Collins’s book is excellent in many other respects.)

So, to celebrate or not to celebrate? That is the question. Oddly the focus on Darwin presents us with a teachable moment, a year-long window of ministry we may never again see. So as the world focuses on Darwin and design, this is the year to study, learn, preach, and teach about God as Creator. Here are some suggestions:

1. Schedule one or more movie nights in home or church settings to show high-quality DVDs that dispel the confusion about Darwinism and design. (See below.)
2. Host a reading program or a book club to benefit from the rich literature that probes Darwin and the evolution/design debate. Consider reading Darwin’s own Origin of Species, and then balance that with the intelligent-design classic Darwin’s Black Box by biochemist Michael Behe.
3. Individually or in a group develop a chart or balance sheet listing both the positive things discovered in Darwin and his writings as well as the flaws and fallout from his life and legacy. Keep adding to this as your research expands.
4. Do a study and share your findings on what the Bible says about Creation. Remember to include the forgotten Creation verses such as Zechariah 12:1 and passages such as Job 38–40 and Isaiah 40–46. Emphasize Christ’s role in Creation (John 1; Col. 1; Heb. 1). To claim that a creaturely thing—raw matter and energy, unassisted by intelligence—gave rise on its own to the complexity of life is to worship that creature as a creator-substitute.
5. Adopt as a motto these words from the Introduction of Origin of Species: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Darwin’s immediately preceding words are significant: “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.” Those who say that only Darwin’s side should be presented are not following Darwin’s own counsel.
6. Note that Darwin had the courage to confront problems with his theory. His chapter on “Difficulties with the Theory” grew longer as his book passed through six editions.
7. Study the many lines of evidence that oppose naturalistic-creation theories. Focus on the most embarrassing new development, the meltdown of Darwin’s cherished mechanism (natural selection acting on random mutation) as an engine of change.

Now is the time to focus on Darwin and the history of the controversy he inaugurated. Plunge in, learn, read on both sides, and build the big picture of Darwin—both good points and bad—and his theory with its modest successes and massive problems. Here lies a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that is too great to miss.

SIDEBAR ON RESOURCES
The following are books, videos, and websites Dr. Woodward recommends for those wishing to become more conversant with their neighbors about Darwinism.

DVDs
Unlocking the Mystery of Life
The Privileged Planet
The Case for a Creator
Expelled

Woodward notes, “Two documentaries, Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet, both from Illustra Media, are extraordinary. Some of this material is combined in a DVD from La Mirada Films, Lee Strobel’s hour-long The Case for a Creator. Watch for a forthcoming Illustra documentary, Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record.

Websites
Visit these sites each week for the latest:

www.crev.info
Source that provides summary with links for headlines relating to the subject of Creation-evolution

www.evolutionnews.org
Website that provides an analysis of news coverage about evolution as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution

www.arn.org
The official site of Access Research Network (ARN), a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology, and society

www.uncommondescent.com
The intelligent-design weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O’Leary, and friends

Books
Beginner: What’s Darwin Got to Do with It? A Friendly Conversation about Evolution (2000)
Cartoon book by John L. Wiester, Jonathan Moneymaker, Janet Moneymaker, and Robert C. Newman. Takes about an hour to read. Recommended for ages twelve and older.

Intermediate: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design (2006)
Jonathan Wells, who holds doctorates in biology and theology, speaks in clear, nontechnical language about Darwinism, explaining who is fighting whom, the root of the conflict, and the evidence for and against Darwinism and intelligent design. He also explains what is ultimately at stake for liberals and conservatives, Christians and non-Christians, educators, policymakers, and scientists.

Advanced: The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (2007)
William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells lay out the main lines of evidence and argument in the current dispute between the Darwinists and the growing body of intelligent-design theorists.

For a balanced treatment on Darwin himself see Gertrude Himmelfarb’s classic Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. Himmelfarb, a renowned historian, has produced a work that is meticulous, gripping, and extremely fair.

For a great analysis and critique (with heavy doses of humor) of Richard Dawkins’s arguments, check out The Devil’s Delusion, by agnostic David Berlinski.

Thomas E. Woodward is a Research Professor and Chair of Bible/Theology Division at Trinity College of Florida. He is the Executive Director of the C.S. Lewis Society and has authored two award-wining books, Doubts about Darwin and Darwin Strikes Back.

Is the God of the Old Testament a Moral Monster?

That is a question that gets raised by a lot of the New Athiests. And there is probably no more passionate defender of atheism than Richard Dawkins of Oxford University.

Here are his devotional thoughts on the God of the Old Testamet:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Hey...Richard...tell us how you really feel.

What can / should a Christian say in response to this?

First, Christians recognize that the God of the OT is the God of the NT--they are one and the same. So however we answer this, we can't right the OT off.

Second, We live in a fallen, broken world; God did not do this to us or intend this for us, humanity did this to ourselves by rejecting God. This is important because God used Israel (a deeply flawed people just like everyone else in the Ancient Near East) to be a force for good in the world...but Israel was not God's ideal community. He worked with fallen people in a very violent society to help show a better way and prepare the way for the messiah.

Now, none of these take away the bite of the passages that seem to advocate genocide in the OT. But they help us better appreciate the situation.

Dr. Paul Copan has written a thoughtful article engaging this issue called Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics

It is well worth a read. He also deals with issues like this in That's Just Your Interpretation

What is apologetics?

What is apologetics? I will let one of the most prominent apologists of our day—William Lane Craig—answer that question.

“Apologetics (from the Greek apologia: a defense) is that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith. Apologetics is thus primarily a theoretical discipline, though it has a practical application. In addition to serving, like the rest of theology in general, as an expression of loving our God with all our minds, apologetics specifically serves to show to unbelievers the truth of the Christian faith, to confirm that faith to believers and to reveal and explore connections between Christian doctrine and other truths” - taken from his excellent book Reasonable Faith.

Peter wrote that we are to in our hearts "set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander (1 Peter 3:15-16).

This will include rebutting and refuting claims against Christianity as well as providing reasons for the plausibility of the Christian worldview.

Which comes first...The philosophy or the science?

In an essay discussing the limits of science, Yale philosopher George Bealer proposes two guiding principles. The first is the autonomy of philosophy principle which states that “Among the central questions of philosophy that can be answered by one standard theoretical means or another, most can in principle be answered by philosophical investigation and argument without relying substantively on the sciences.”

The second principle concerns the authority of philosophy, “Insofar as science and philosophy purport to answer the same central philosophical questions, in most cases the support that science could in principle provide answers for those answers is not as strong as that which philosophy could in principle provide for its answers. So should there be conflicts, the authority of philosophy in most cases can be greater in principle.” Bealer further notes that these two principles have “constituted the dominant view” throughout our intellectual history until recent infatuation with scientism displaced them.

Many times seemingly scientific disagreements are in reality philosophical ones. This is most often the case when it comes to the interpretation of the available empirical data.

Does Ignorance = Design?

This question came up in one of the comments. And so I figure I would bring it up here to discuss. Dr. Thaxton does a good job of working through some of these issues here.

Who Designed the Designer?

Here is one of the most common objections to Intelligent Design and that comes up in discussions surrounding the existence of God. Philosopher Jay Richards offers some good insight about how to think about this intriguing question.




For more on this, check out the Case for the Creator.

Chance or Design?

I came across this clip and was again reminded of how easy "design" is to recognize in everyday life; but then how ironic it is that design is a forbidden inference when we look at "really small" or "really big" stuff like the bacterial flagellum or the universe. Enjoy this clip...

Do Humans Have Minds or Brains (or Both?)

Do I have a mind, a brain or both? Am I only my physical brain states or is there an immaterial mind / soul that interacts with the physical brain in the process of thinking and reality consciousness? Related questions of free will of course enter this discussion.

The debate about Intelligent Design vs. Naturalism (cf. Neo-Darwinian Evolution) has now spread to the Mind / Body problem. Do brains / minds need a designer or are they the product of random, blind processes? Can physics and chemistry alone account for consciousness, free will, thinking etc?

In answering this question, we need an explanation that best explains all of the data.

Here is an interesting podcast by Dr. Egnor (a neurosurgeon) and Dr. Schwartz (a neuropsychiatrist at UCLA) Below is an article that I have copied and pasted by Dr. Egnor for your convenience that really sets the table for this discussion:

The Mind and Materialist Superstition by Dr. Egnor

MaterialismPhilosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Superstition1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Mind(in a human or other conscious being) The element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges.

Materialists have taken note of the growing efforts by non-materialist neuroscientists to point out the deep problems with the inference that the brain is entirely the cause of the mind. Materialist neuroscience, like materialist evolutionary biology, is a vacuous orthodoxy, and its proponents resent threats to their dogma. Darwinian explanations for functional biological complexity are nonsense, but some familiarity with the relevant science is necessary to understand that it is nonsense. Materialist explanations for the mind are transparent nonsense.
Consider the six characteristics of the mind, generally accepted by materialist and non-materialist scientists and philosophers. Each of the six poses enormous problems for a materialistic explanation:

Intentionality

Intentionality is the "aboutness" or meaning of a mental state, the ability of a mental state to refer to something outside of itself. Ink on paper has no meaning unless it is conferred by a mind, which wrote it or read it. Matter may have intentionality only secondarily ("derived intentionality"). The problem of intentionality is believed by many philosophers of the mind to be the most serious challenge to materialism. "Meaning" is imparted to matter by a mind; matter isn’t the source of meaning. Therefore matter (brain tissue) can’t be the entire cause of the mind.

Qualia

Qualia is subjective experience, which is first person ontology. You can describe pain, using science or literature or whatever. But the experience of pain is something qualitatively different. There is nothing in science which infers subjectivity — no "Newton’s Fourth Law" by which objective matter produces subjective experience. No material law or principle invokes subjectivity, yet subjectivity is the hallmark of the mind.

Persistence of Self-Identity

We are the same person throughout our lives, despite a continual turn-over of matter in our brains. The matter that constitutes your brain today is different matter, for the most part, than the matter that constituted your brain ten years ago. Furthermore, your brain matter is organized differently now than it was ten years ago. Yet your sense of identity, which is a fundamental characteristic of minds, is continuous over time. You are you, despite profound changes in brain matter and organization. What property then is the “same” that accounts for you being the same? It’s not matter and it’s not organization of matter. Hume thought that the sense of personal continuity was the result of a continuous string of memories, but his theory begs the question. Who is it that has the string of memories? Continuity of self is a prerequisite for a string of memories, so it can’t be the result of a string of memories. Persistence of self-identity through time can’t be explained materialistically; the most reasonable explanation is that there is an immaterial component of the mind that is continuous over time.

Restricted Access

Restricted access means that I, and only I, experience my thoughts first-hand. I can choose to describe them to others, and others may be able to explain better than I some of the ramifications of my thoughts, but only I experience them. Even a lie-detector machine or a functional MRI doesn’t permit other people to experience my thoughts; they are merely material expressions of my brain activity, akin to speech. This is entirely unlike matter. I know the brain anatomy (matter) of my patients much better (usually) than they do. I know what their brains look like, whereas they have never actually seen them. Yet I have no first-hand experience of their thoughts, no matter how well I know their brain. We each have absolute restricted access to the experience of our own thoughts. Matter does not have this property, and therefore matter cannot be the entire cause of our thoughts.

Incorrigibility

Incorrigibility, which is related to restricted access, means the unassailable knowledge of one’s own thoughts. If I am thinking of the color red, no one can credibly refute that fact. Of course, I may be lying about what I am thinking, or I may be mistaken about the implications of my thoughts, but I experience my thoughts in a way that no one else does. If I say (honestly) that I like impressionist painting, it is nonsensical for someone else to assert, "You are mistaken; you don’t like impressionist painting." This incorrigibility isn’t a property of matter. I can hold an honest opinion that the hippocampus is in the parietal lobe (it isn’t; it’s in the temporal lobe). My interlocutor can point out that I am incorrect about the material issue (where the hippocampus is located), but he can’t plausibly argue that I’m wrong that I hold that opinion. Incorrigibility is a property of mind, but not matter.

Free Will

If the mind is entirely caused by matter, it is difficult to understand how free will can exist. Matter is governed by fixed laws, and if our thoughts are entirely the product of brain chemistry, then our thoughts are determined by brain chemistry. But chemistry doesn’t have "truth" or "falsehood," or any other values for that matter. It just is. Enzymatic catalysis isn’t true or false, it just is. In fact, the view that "materialism is true" is meaningless… if materialism is true. If materialism is true, than the thought "materialism is true" is just a chemical reaction, neither true nor false. While there are some philosophers who assert that free will can exist in a deterministic materialistic world (they’re called "compatibilists"), and some have argued that quantum indeterminacy may leave room for free will, the most parsimonious explanation for free will is that there is an immaterial component of the mind that is undetermined by matter.

So is the materialist inference that the mind is caused entirely by the brain plausible? Please note that materialism has failed to offer any explanation for any of the six salient characteristics of the mind. Not a single salient characteristic of the mind is a property of matter. The strict materialistic explanation for the mind — the attribution of immaterial mental acts and properties to brain matter — is, by definition, a materialist superstition, a "false irrational conception of causation in nature maintained despite evidence to the contrary."

Of course, on reflection, we wouldn’t expect neuroscience to have important things to say about the material/immaterial nature of the mind. Neuroscience studies correlations between material events and behaviors, which are third-person objective phenomena; it has provided no explanation for subjective-first person processes, which is the essential quality of the mind. The assertion that neuroscience demonstrates the material nature of the mind is an ideological assertion, a misuse of neuroscience to serve a tenuous materialist agenda.In Wolfgang Pauli’s deathless phrase, the materialist explanation of the mind ”isn’t even wrong.” It’s superstitious nonsense. Materialism can’t explain the mind, because the salient characteristics of mental states — intentionality, qualia, persistence of self-identity, restricted access, incorrigibility, and free will — do not admit material explanations.

A coherent and meaningful understanding of the mind requires a repudiation of this materialist superstition. Strict materialism offers some insight into behavioral correlations — behavioral arousal is associated with activation of neurons in the brainstem reticular activation system — but materialism offers nothing to explain the subjective properties of mental experience, which constitute the mind as we actually experience it. A genuine understanding of the mind must be open to immaterial causation, because there is nothing in materialist science (or materialist philosophy) that can account for subjective experience.

The viewpoint that matter has desires, intentions, and subjective experiences has a long history in human affairs. It was the foundation of Aristotelian natural philosophy — matter fell to the earth because it seemed to "desire" to return to its natural place. The ancient world was haunted with "sentient" inanimate objects — talismans, charms and idols. Children attribute wishes and feelings to stuffed toys. Since the dawn of man we have ascribed sentience and feelings and will to matter, and a salient triumph of modern science has been to expunge this attribution of subjectivity to matter. The work of physical science is to identify and if possible quantify regularities in the "third person objective existence" of matter. Matter has third person objective existence. The mind, as experienced, has first person subjective existence.

Superstition is “a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.“ The foundation of the scientific revolution is the repudiation of the inference that matter has will, emotions and desires. If there is anything that modern science has demonstrated beyond dispute it is the gulf between objective and subjective ontology — between matter and mind. Yet the materialist superstition isn’t completely gone. It persists in its modern scientific manifestation — the inference that the mind is entirely caused by the brain — which is a superstition.

Richard Dawkins believes in god????

Maybe. Yeah, I know, pretty interesting. You can read the whole article here (which is insightful). But the short of it is that at a recent debate, Dawkins - Mr. God Delusion himself - conceded that, wait for it, "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." Stop the presses!!

That would be similar in principle to the case that Anthony Flew makes in his recent conversion to deism, in There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. This is a fascinating read--even if you disagree with his conclusions.

Has Science Killed God?

Oxford professor John Lennox says no and gives a compelling case why. He refutes the arguments offered by the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins.

The book is God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? And it needs to be on your bookshelf. It is accessible and substantive--a difficult thing to do.

(About the Author) John Lennox is reader in mathematics in the University of Oxford and fellow in mathematics and the philosophy of science at Green College. He has lectured in many universities around the world, including Austria and the former Soviet Union. He is particularly interested in the interface of science, philosophy, and theology.

Does evolution make good sense of objective morality?

As we continue to explore the moral argument, we have admitted that objective moral values are real (i.e., rape is always wrong). The question at hand is whether anyone other than a moral lawgiver--God--can account for these objective moral values.

It seems to be the only other option is Nature gave them to us. but what is Nature? Well Nature turns out--even mother nature (notice the personification of nature to make people feel better and offer purpose and care)--to be nothing more than blind, random chance over time according to the Naturalistic story--Neo-Darwinism being a prominent part of the just so story.

Here is what Dr. Michael Ruse, a Darwinian Philosopher of Science at Florida State, had to say about morality:

“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.”

Now not everyone agrees with him. But it is hard not to. Where do objective moral values come from? What about a random, blind process of chemical reactions puts an obligation on me to do one thing and not another? Even an 'obligation' is not physical, though we all know they are real--so how do you get non-physical obligations from a physical process...a rearranging of the bb's of matter?

Darwinian evolution, at best, only offers a description of the current state of morality today--perhaps social agreement? What it does not offer is why I ought to be moral tomorrow.

So it seems then that premise 1, in absence of a counter argument is more likely than not true as well.

If that is the cast then the argument is sound. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values & duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Apologist: Objective moral values evidence of God's existence

Here is some of an interview on the issues we are discussing by Dr. Paul Copan: (for the whole article click here)

Evolutionary ethics produce skepticism about a human’s ability to know truth, Copan said, adding that Charles Darwin said, “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals are of any value or are even trustworthy.”

Ethical foundations, then, are undermined by “an evolutionary process that is interested in fitness and survival but not true beliefs,” Copan said.Theism offers a more plausible context for affirming human dignity than naturalism that puts moral objectivity and rational thought in question.

Copan cited the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to show that humans have an intrinsic understanding of human rights, regardless of religious convictions. He quoted French philosopher Jacques Maritain, one of the document’s drafters, who said, “God and objective morality cannot be plausibly separated since God is the Creator of valuable, morally responsible human beings and is the very source of value.”Copan concluded by saying that a moral argument alone doesn’t prove the existence of the Christian God but can be supplemented with other arguments for God.“The moral argument points us to a supreme, personal, moral being who is worthy of worship and who made us with dignity and worth,” Copan said. “He is a being to whom we are accountable and who could reasonably be called God.”

Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics

In light of the conversation we are having here about the Moral Argument, I wanted to make you aware of a new book debating these issues.

(From Publisher's Website)

Morality and religion: intimately wed, violently opposed, or something else? Discussion of this issue appears in pop culture, the academy, and the media—often generating radically opposed views. At one end of the spectrum are those who think that unless God exists, ethics is unfounded and the moral life is unmotivated. At the other end are those who think that religious belief is unnecessary for—and even a threat to—ethical knowledge and the moral life.This volume provides an accessible, charitable discussion that represents a range of views along this spectrum. The book begins with a lively debate between Paul Kurtz and William Lane Craig on the question, Is goodness without God good enough? Kurtz defends the affirmative position and Craig the negative. Following the debate are new essays by prominent scholars. These essays comment on the debate and advance the broader discussion of religion and morality. The book closes with final responses from Kurtz and Craig.

List of Contributors: Louise Antony, William Lane Craig, John Hare, Donald C. Hubin, Paul Kurtz, C. Stephen Layman, Mark C. Murphy, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Richard Swinburne.

About the Editors:

Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King are Ph.D. candidates in the philosophy department at the University of Notre Dame.

Does God Exist? Cont. (the Moral Argument)

Well, let's continue our discussion. In order to stay on task, here is the argument as it stands:

If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.

Objective moral values & duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

An important clarification needs to be made here. Often, people misinterpret the argument to entail that people cannot live moral lives or 'be good' unless they believe in God. This of course if false and it isn't the argument here. The argument here concerns, what makes the best since of objective moral values and duties. What is a sufficient ground for them if they exist? So atheists can live moral lives. It remains to be seen however if atheism has the resources to provide ontological grounding for objective goods, duties and values which one would then have an obligation to exemplifying.

By way of review, premise 2 seems solid (at the very least more probable than its contradictory).

So what of premise 1 - that objective moral values and duties would not exist if God did not exist?

Let's ask the question this way. It seems to me that Atheism entails Naturalism. And Naturalism reduces all existence to physics and chemistry. Non-physical stuff like consciousness, minds, freedom of the will, moral obligations, and beauty seem out of place in such a worldview.

So moral values and obligations if they exist, on an atheistic view, would arise from only three sources (can you think of any others that would possibly be objective?).

1. social agreement (but does this confer ontological grounding to what we agree on?)
2. evolutionary emergence (but in what since are these objective instead of arbitrary?)
3. some sort of platonic heaven as abstract objects (but how do abstract objects, like numbers, confer obligations?) 
   

So the question then is, what is the more reasonable inference? That God grounds objective morality and duty in his very essence, being, and character or these three possibilities?

What do you think?

I will post more of my thoughts on these 3 options soon.

Making the Case for Objective Moral Values

William Lane Craig argues for objective moral values and this is a key premise in the moral argument for God's existence.