"Take out the garbage - mom"
"Sixteen year old Johnny came down from his bedroom and stumbled in the kitchen to get a bowl of his favourite cerial - Alpha Bits. When he got to the yable ,he was surprised to see that the ceral box was knocked over, and the Alpha - Bits letters spelled "TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE - MOM" on the placemat.
Recalling a recent high school biology lesson, Johnny didn't attribute the message to his mum. Afterall he had just been taught that life itself is just a product of mindless natural laws. Why couldn't this message be a product of natural laws as well? Maybe the cat knocked the box over or an earthquake shook the house....
The incredible specified complexity of life becomes obvious when one considers the message found in the DNA of a one celled amoeba .... the message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica ....
Now we must emphasise that these 1,000 'encyclopedias' do not consist random letters, but of letters in a very specific order - just like real encyclopedias.
So here's the key question for Darwinists like Dawkins: if simple messages such as 'Take the garbage out - mom' require an intelligent being, then why doesn't a message 1,000 encyclopedias long require one?"
... That's why I Don't Have enough Faith to be an atheist. " (Geisler Turek)
Recalling a recent high school biology lesson, Johnny didn't attribute the message to his mum. Afterall he had just been taught that life itself is just a product of mindless natural laws. Why couldn't this message be a product of natural laws as well? Maybe the cat knocked the box over or an earthquake shook the house....
The incredible specified complexity of life becomes obvious when one considers the message found in the DNA of a one celled amoeba .... the message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica ....
Now we must emphasise that these 1,000 'encyclopedias' do not consist random letters, but of letters in a very specific order - just like real encyclopedias.
So here's the key question for Darwinists like Dawkins: if simple messages such as 'Take the garbage out - mom' require an intelligent being, then why doesn't a message 1,000 encyclopedias long require one?"
... That's why I Don't Have enough Faith to be an atheist. " (Geisler Turek)
Comments
What I find interesting about this argument is that there is a confusion or perhaps a ‘fusion’ of ideas. The argument presented is stating there is intelligent design because DNA is a language and contains vast amounts of data – it is more complex than human speech. In logic this could be seen as the logical fallacy ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’ (with this, therefore because of this). There is nothing in the argument you have presented that either proves or disproves evolution. Indeed when one starts to look at the detail, intelligent design does not rule out evolution. Humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes – but many creatures that have been around on earth for far longer than humans have many more. This is because as evolution progresses organisms get stuck with redundant DNA. e.g. Ichthyomys pittieri, Pittier's Crab-eating Rat has 92 pairs of chromosomes. Now why would a rodent need all this information? It is just that it is a long way further down the evolutionary tree and is stuck with a lot of DNA it no longer needs – what you might call evolutionary baggage. A donkey has 62 pairs of chromosomes but so does a gypsy moth. Why would a little moth need so much more genetic information than a human being and the same as a donkey? The answer in evolutionary terms is simple, the moth evolved millions of years before humans and therefore accumulated a vast store of what is now redundant DNA.
Hence all this anthropomorphic language argument (in terms of suggesting DNA is a language like human language) can say is that perhaps there is intelligent design. But this doesn’t mean that the Bible is true does it? Indeed, intelligent design often raises more questions than it answers. In many ways Hindu ideas of death and rebirth fit this argument for intelligent design much than the three versions of creation found in Genesis. Personally I think you are on a highway to nowhere when you try and marry science and religion; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it takes a good deal of hammering to knock a square peg through a round hole and the net result can be a bit of a good deal of epistemological splintering! QED!
As regards the passion at present for ‘dissing’ Dawkins, likewise this is just foolishness. He is a scientists, with his own axe to grind (an axe that has made him a very wealthy man – hence why he likes to keep the sparks flying). His brand of atheism is almost akin to hermeneutical Evangelicalism in that both present themselves as absolute truths. Faith is not about evidence, it is about belief; Dawkins can be dismissed quite easily: he says you can believe in what you can’t prove scientifically – the reply is ‘But faith is about believing what can’t necessarily be proved.’ Yes, you have to accept that your belief will not receive the same degree of credibility as Dawkins when it comes using his epistemological paradigm; but Dawkins cannot use the same paradigm to prove or disprove the existence of God. You just have to agree to differ and move on. The fact Dawkins doesn’t do this, doesn’t mean you have to follow his example, remember Matt 5: 43-48!
Regards:
P.
Spotted a crucial typo in what I have just posted:
The sentence on Dawkins and proof should read:
"Dawkins can be dismissed quite easily: he says you can’t believe in what you can’t prove scientifically – the reply is ‘But faith is about believing what can’t necessarily be proved. (Heb 11:1 etc.)"
P.
Thanks for you constructive comments. You wouldn't expect me to agree fully with what you say but you are right that faith isn't about believing what can't necessarily be proved.
Whilst faith is essential for the Christian as you rightly pointed out, there are often barriers to faith. People like Turek and Geisler obviously use apologetics to help people overcome their barriers. I have seeen people come to Christ after certain barriers and belief systems have been broken down. You join in one world view by suggesting that there is not an absolute truth but the question I would ask is "is that world view absolutely true or not?
Cheeers
Neil
Thanks for this.
‘What is truth?’ Pilate asked; and it is a pertinent question today. We have to agree to differ on whether the Bible is true. I would say it contains truths, but not that it is an infallible document. For one, take Codex Sinaiticus, the first complete copy of the New Testament – written 300 hundred years after the apostolic age. It has way too many ‘alterations’ that can’t be ascribed to ‘corrections’ of copying errors. It is no coincidence that there were alterations, particularly after the Council of Nicaea, when Trinitarian Christianity was devised (see http://www.codexsinaiticus.com/en/). e.g. The opening chapter of Mark begins ‘The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ,...’ there is no mention of ‘Son of God’ – later translations have this addition, but it is not in the Codex – nor is Mark 16:9 onwards. There are some 40,000 alterations or ‘corrections’; some are probably copying errors – it was handwritten - but others are marked alterations of the text. So that is one area where it is difficult to see scripture as ‘truth’, because it is obvious it has been changed – and still is changed (particularly the NIV!).
So there a few, not insignificant, quibbles, with the belief in the ‘truth’ or authority of Scripture. But there are other wider issues. Geisler & Turek – from what I have read of the book on line – use a well worn tactic in apologetics, and that is half truth – they appeal to ‘common sense’ but it is often a ‘common sense’ rooted in people’s ignorance of science.
I have noticed the for some Christians (and Jews & Muslims for that matter) science is seen a gift from God. Thank God, but why did he wait until the 19th century to do this? What about the centuries before science and medicine were effective and people died (as they do today in the developing world) of dirty water and (more worryingly) of the ‘medicine’ practiced at the time (you were more likely to live if a doctor DIDN’T treat you in the 18th & early 19th centuries). I am constantly amused, reading ‘Fundi’ blogs, by how ‘fundamentalists’ (or their near kin) write post after post opposing Darwin and ideas about Evolution and telling us of the inerrancy of Scripture – and then a post will appear telling of their recent visit to hospital (asking for prayer – I’ll leave you to ponder the irony!) and a good deal then follows thanking God for doctors. So much for putting your money where your mouth is! They aren’t daft enough to rely on prayer and faith alone whatever Jesus tells them to do in the Bible! The basis of medicine, empirical positivism, is what led Darwin to his conclusions... But no – our Fundamentalist friends can hold contrary beliefs because God sent the doctor to help me... I think the latter pronoun says it all really – our endemic conceit that whatever happens in the world is about us and for our benefit... The unsaid bit - often unconscious, but nevertheless there – ‘because I’m special...’
I just think you are best keeping science where it belongs and religion in its place... They are distinct elements that combine to create toxic alloys!
P.