Syndicate
User login
Navigation
The Big Bang
This is the next installment dealing with the double-standards between science and theism-- specifically the faith allowed in the former as opposed to the latter. You may recall that I used the Higgs Boson as an instance of "faith" in the standard model, though I could have chosen dark matter or any number of other topics.
This is the promised break-down of the Big Bang Theory, and I'll list one problem with the theory as noted by physicists when discussing it. But you may have to dig back a ways to find the notes of this problem, since the problem becomes quite large when God enters the discussion. As a matter of fact, the Big Bang opened a pretty big Pandora's Box for scientists where God is concerned because the "Bang" smacked of a "beginning".
Here's the minimally-helpful brief introduction to the Big Bang Theory, followed by the discussion of its importance to the cosmological discussion:
The Big Bang is the theory developed due to many observations in relatively recent physics. The Universe has been observed to be expanding. This may seem like an odd, or even impossible, observation. But scientists have observed it none the less. They can measure stars very far away from us by the "red shift" of the stars (the spectrum of these distant stars reads more on the red end). Through these measurements, the expansion has been observed.
Of note to these scientists was that, no matter which direction we look from Earth, everything appears to be moving away from us. Unable to think that Earth is the center of the Universe, it became apparent to them that the entire Universe is expanding-- i.e. that everything is moving away from everything else. (Imagine drawing a bunch of dots on a deflated balloon and then inflating it. Every dot will expand away from every other dot.)
So, the thought was that if we reverse the timescale, then the Universe contracts back to a beginning singularity. It was believed to have begun as a very small and dense mass of mater that exploded out and cooled as it expanded. As it cooled, it organized into particles, which further organized into the systems of the Universe that we see today.
These observations were reinforced by the discovery of a constant bombardment of radiation falling on us at all times from all directions. This radiation was defined as the remnants of the light that was created in the Big Bang.
Now, the easy question for the creationist to ask is: "Where did this matter come from, no matter how small or dense?" But this question (though very pertinent to any discussion of the Big Bang and its place in cosmology) is too obvious. A look at the question from the scientists seems much more intriguing to me. But first we need to look a bit deeper into the Big Bang and the Universe as we are able to observe it.
I've read a lot of the back-and-forth between the Intelligent Design scientists and the more mainstream scientists on the subject of our Universe and the chances of it developing in a way that would support life. Since I am a Christian, it seems natural that I see a lot of value in the ID argument. It wasn't until reading "The Edges of Science: Crossing the Boundary from Physics to Metaphysics" by a secular PhD theoretical physicist (Richard Morris) that the subject was polarized in my mind.
All observations are that we live in a nearly-flat Universe. In other words, the density of our Universe is very nearly equal to a value called "critical density." In a Universe with only slightly less density, stars and galaxies would never have formed. The expansion rate would have been too fast for any formation. Any denser and gravity would have halted any expansion and the "Big Bang" would have reversed into a "Big Crunch".
Richard Morris makes a pretty interesting statement on page 54 of the above mentioned book concerning this fine-tuning.
Even if this were not the case, even if life could exist in a different kind of universe, this accuracy of one part in 10^15 would still be something that had to be explained. It would not do to call it a coincidence, and leave it at that. Scientists distrust coincidences. When they find that a number is that close to critical value, they are generally unwilling to believe that this could happen by chance. They are not satisfied until they find a reason why the fine-tuning should be exact.
Theists offer the explanation to them, that it wasn't chance at all. Peruse any of the discourses between modern "scientists" on the subjects of ID-- or even evolution-- and you'll soon see their newfound acceptance of chance and coincidence. They practically worship at the altars of these new gods. Specifically in evolution, Chance is capitalized as a new force of nature. Coincidence is rephrased as "random mutation" and given sentience in "Survival of the Fittest."
Physicists have abandoned this distrust of coincidence as the Intelligent Design community embraces it as a new argument for God. The roles have reversed as many modern scientists seem to be seeking refuge from the very questions they should be asking their models.
It makes one wonder just what it is that they are trying to escape.
Be blessed..
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags:
I'm Baaaaack!
So, the crux of your argument here is the flatness problem. You seem to imply that scientists have generally ignored the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe to avoid facing the consequence of accepting a "fine-tuner" or designer.
On the contrary, as Morris points out, scientists are unwilling to ignore such an apparent coincidence. However, they are also unwilling to simply accept Goddidit as the answer. That kind of answer explains nothing and is akin to just giving up.
Science seeks more useful explanations. In this case, something called Cosmic Inflation has been proposed. It seems to neatly account for the flatness and horizon problems, as well as making certain predictions that have been confirmed by observations. The following site has a good overview of the above subject. The link is directly to the section on "fine-tuning", but the whole article has good coverage of the Big Bang in general as well as links for further reading.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#flatness
Now, you also make a quick segue to evolution via the terms "chance" and "coincidence." It is a common misconception that evolution is a purely random process driven by chance events. While it's true that chance does play a role in providing some of the raw material, it is the selection process that does all the work. Selection removes the randomness and what's left is specialized to the environment. Here's a good article that explains in far more detail:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
And here's a theistic perspective on the same subject:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html
Welcome back e-dogg
Good to "see" you again.
Are you truly wanting to use the Inflationary Universe Theory as an answer? Really? That's pretty cool, as I'm sure you've noted that my next blog subject is that very theory. Since I'm not really hurting for blog subjects, I'll just forgo the blog, let the reader follow your links as a backdrop, and just dive in here.
The Inflation Theory's model predicts that we should see "domain walls" where the little bubbles of Universe expanded (inflated) and combined to form our overall Universe. But we don't see that, thus the theory was discarded. It was saved by a series of later "Inflation Theories" that reworked the math and put the domain walls beyond the horizon of the Universe. In other words, the walls are now far enough out that we can never see them, no matter how long we wait. So, that which makes the theory testable is a test that we can never perform. It is not verifiable, so now we are back to the questions of what exactly defines a theory as actual science.
Now, I don't think I'm being unfair here since I have seen many, many, many mainstream physicists poo-poo inflation in its many forms since it was proposed in 1981. My first study of the theory was Hawking in "A Brief History of Time", and he himself was the first I saw that spoke of its problems. He even spoke to the fact that it doesn't even answer the problems that you (and others) propose that it does answer-- the problems that I brought up in this blog post. To quote "A Brief History of Time", updated edition, page 7 of chapter 8, Hawking says:
It cannot be the case, however, that every initial configuration would have led to a universe like the one we observe. One can show this by considering a very different state for the universe at the present time, say, a very lumpy and irregular one. One could use the laws of science to evolve the universe back in time to determine its configuration at earlier times. According to the singularity theorems of classical general relativity, there would still have been a big bang singularity. If you evolve such a universe forward in time according to the laws of science, you will end up with the lumpy and irregular state you started with. Thus there must have been initial configurations that would not have given rise to a universe like the one we see today. So even the inflationary model does not tell us why the initial configuration was not such as to produce something very different from what we observe. Must we turn to the anthropic principle for an explanation? Was it all just a lucky chance? That would seem a counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the underlying order of the universe.
And, for the record, I'm not proposing that science accept "goddidit" as an answer. I'm proposing that as the answer that theists will give. I'm proposing it as a valid answer in its own right, but not forcing it on anyone, nor asking science to stop its search. But I am also proposing that science has become very accepting of chance as the answer, as you admit they give "some" play of it in science. I won't lengthen my reply here with a break-down of evolution since I will be blogging on that in the future and you've provided a couple of very good links to further information.
But I will thank you for your agreement (admission?) that science bases evolution on chance at work, which was my point in the blog. I would also be interested in your thoughts on "selection" as it acts upon the "raw material". How is it that this new force of nature is able to further a species using defects that have no immediate value and in many (perhaps most) situations would be a hindrance.
For instance, let's say a random genetic mutation produced wings on a wingless bug. Would the same chance you admitted to produce the thousands of random mutations that would give the bug nerve endings for the wings, muscles to power them, etc...? If not, would this freshly-winged bug, with useless wings slowing it down as it crawled around, be considered somehow more "fit" by selection? We could make the same argument for a blind lizard that somehow randomly mutates light-sensing cells as the predecessor to eyes. Without the receptors to connect these cells to the brain, is it now somehow better off than the OTHER blind lizards?
I think that Hawking's words are appropriate here also:
"Was it all just a lucky chance? That would seem a counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the underlying order of the universe."
In any event... I sincerely appreciate your replies. I love this stuff. Please stick around and keep me on my toes. :D
Be blessed...
A lot to chew on
OK, you've provided a lot to chew on here.
First, I never said Cosmic Inflation was THE answer. I merely provided it as evidence that scientists would never ignore an apparent coincidence. It's their job to try to explain it. Cosmic Inflation is one hypothesis that has been offered. It's been modified somewhat from its original form, but it's still a viable explanation, or at least the basis for one. Just because one element of the hypothesis (the domain walls) happens to be unobservable doesn't mean that it's unfalsifiable. There were certain predictions made by the hypothesis that turned out to be true. That doesn't make it right, but it might be. It passed one little test of many.
My point here is that scientists encountered a problem (apparent fine-tuning), and rather than just saying, "oh well, I guess we were just lucky!" they are working on explanations. You seem to deride them when their hypotheses turn out to be wrong, but that's how science works. Most of our guesses turn out to be wrong, but science, itself, will weed those out, and we're left with a stonger understanding of the universe.
So, rather than view these hypotheses (big bang, cosmic inflation, etc.) as the ANSWER that science gives, we should recognize that we're peering into the scientific process in action. That's why you've found "many, many mainstream physicists" with differing opinions. Science hasn't settled on THE answer to these questions, but scientists will always continue to look. Theists will tend to say they have THE answer (it's not luck, it's GOD), and leave it at that, which is fine, but it's still different and not particularly helpful in the practical sense.
Now, on to evolution. Science is much more solid in this area. No, we don't have all the answers, but the overall picture is pretty clear. Evolution is not based on chance. Random mutation just provides something to work with (though there are several other processes that also supply the raw material). If every living thing always reproduced an exact copy of itself, evolution would stop in its tracks. Variety is the key to get things started.
Once we have variety in the population, things get really interesting. The varieties that work poorly will get weeded out in favor of those that do better. What you're left with is a stronger population, but that population continues to display variety. Over many, many iterations, the population slowly changes, especially if the environment is changing too.
You mentioned a straw man arguement in one of your previous posts, and I'm afraid I'll have to call you on it. Your example of a wing appearing on a wingless bug is one such scarecrow. Mutation doesn't work like that. The process is slow and painstaking. That wing may have started out as a protective shell (like on a ladybug, for instance). Some little change allowed the bug to swivel that shell and use it for gliding over short distances, thereby making it easier to escape a predator or reach a new source of food. After enough generations most, if not all, these bugs have the swivelling shell. Next once of them has a mutation that allows just a tiny bit of muscle control of the shell, so it now has a bit of directional control to the glide...
Surely you can see that these small steps could eventually lead to a creature that is very different from the original. And, yes, along the way there are lots of mutations that seemingly do nothing. Those mutations just add to the variety, and may at some later date be co-opted for a new funtion, through serendipity. Of course, many mutations are harmful. That's OK, though. They get weeded out pretty quickly, and as long as the population is healthy enough to produce copious offspring, there'll be a sibling to take the place of the dead mutant.
Your final quote from Hawking was missing an important sentence: "Must we turn to the anthropic principle for an explanation?" It seems that he would lump this in as a "counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the underlying order of the universe." The ID supporters are great champions of the anthropic principle, and that's why ID isn't science. I don't deny you the right to claim that a designer is responsible for this or that, but you'll be hard pressed to call that science.
Much to chew on indeed.
I haven't tried to insinuate that you have proposed Inflation as "the" answer any more than my point in these blogs is that these theories are invalid. Please understand that my intent isn't to deride the scientific process. As we discuss these issues, I think it important to reflect the context of this series of blogs and the overriding subject. Your first reply to this particular blog indicated that the crux of my argument is the flatness problem. But these blogs are all a series and linked accordingly to try and keep the context of my argument, thus my argument as defined in the beginning of the series is:
There are many potential Christian Apologists out there who just choose to keep their mouths shut. In some cases, I think this is a good thing. No argument is actually better than a poor argument. But I think there are many out there who are more than capable of making great cases for God, but they choose not to. They feel that they are not equipped to. They don’t have all of the answers, and have been convinced that they therefore have nothing of value to add to meaningful discussion.
I don’t think you need to have all of the answers. If one needed all of the answers to speak intelligibly, the earth would be a very quiet place. No one would speak. I think that this is another area where Christianity has allowed a blatant double-standard to quiet us. We see so many apparently difficult questions raised that we fear to tread the path of defense. We have been convinced by the skeptic that, if we don’t have all of the answers, then none of our answers can be trusted.
So, my intent is not to crucify or deride science. It's merely to say that science doesn't have all of the answers either so the apologist shouldn't be afraid to speak up for his beliefs, and the skeptic shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the conversation.
With that said, you can hopefully see that I don't disagree with you as to the process that science uses to find its answers. I think that we are needlessly debating that point simply from a misunderstanding of intent and context. Again, I've tried to reiterate in these discussions that I don't find these endeavors as useless. (Though I have questioned some of the fringes and whether they are scientific in nature.)
As to my "strawman", I would have to disagree. My reference was to actual use of DNA-altered fruit flies to support the theory of evolution. A second set of wings were genetically added and the mutation was published in science journals and textbooks as support. The problem is that the second pair of wings was useless and dead, and would never have been beneficial as a building block for natural selection, just as newly formed, dead wings on a species would be useless and dead if they showed up on a bug just as the picture fruit fly's wings did. My "strawman" was built on the modern "proof" of mutation and its use by natural selection.
I understand the process of evolution as you described it. And this form of natural selection is evident even today-- within species! There is still nothing to explain what in natural selection works for macroevolution. There is nothing to indicate what beneficial mutations create new organs or the associated systems that make such changes beneficial. The point was (and stands even in the process as you described it) that chance is very much a force in evolution. Chance does much more than provide the raw materials. Chance has to build the supportive systems that cause any mutation to become a benefit.
Spreading these mutations over millions of years doesn't change the fact that chance must produce a change, then later produce another associated change, then another, and another... Even in your example, there are thousands and thousands (perhaps millions) of subtle mutations that must build one system to produce a totally new system. If we expand this out to just one complex system, like the eye, we see the need for millions and millions of small mutations that must fit together like shards of broken crystal just to produce that system.
And this doesn't even take into account the possible billions of mutations that must work together to take a simple creature across species and type barriers to a totally new creature. By describing the process in a more micro way, you haven't done anything to downplay "chance" in action or expose the supposed strawman. You've actually highlighted the point. All of these micro mutations must fall into place perfectly, and spreading them out over millions of years doesn't negate the extremely fortuitous nature of this "chance" in action.
With all of that said, I truly enjoyed your post. You have a very well founded understanding of your beliefs and speak from studied conviction. I can see the rationale of your belief and thus respect it. However, I think that your comment...
"The ID supporters are great champions of the anthropic principle, and that's why ID isn't science."
...is a bit unfair to the discussion at hand. On one hand, you defend the process of science in the naturalistic school and then disallow the ID scientists the benefit of that same process. The ID scientists are making observations and calling theories into question based on those observations. I think that you are fully aware that saying they champion the anthropic principle is a bit of a misnomer. They are making observation on the order in our Universe and proposing a solution. To say that it isn't science ignores the observations of mainstream scientists (such as Hawking and Morris as I have quoted) that observe the very same things.
Thanks again, and be blessed.
P.S. No she doesn't (For everyone else, that's a joke from behind the scenes of his post. :D)
More chewy
I took the point of this post from the opening paragraph:
This is the next installment dealing with the double-standards between science and theism-- specifically the faith allowed in the former as opposed to the latter.
Then you point to some realtively cutting-edge hypotheses in physics to illustrate the "faith" of scientists and compare it to the faith of theists. The active debate WITHIN the scientific community and constant modification of these hypotheses should be evidence enough that there isn't much "faith" in the particular explanations.
I'm fine with apologists voicing opinions and welcome the dialogue. I do have a problem with apologists trying to use science to prove a theological point. When they do this, they're stooping to the level of an athiest who tries to use science to prove their position. Science and religion are usually mutually exclusive disciplines. Sure, some specific religious beliefs directly contradict accepted science, but the holders of such beliefs are either ignorant of the science or choose to ignore it--and that's fine. There's no guarantee that accepted science is correct. Please note that the hypotheses we've discussed are NOT considered accepted science, not yet anyway.
As for the bug wings, I'm not familiar with that particular study, but I suspect the interpretation of the results was much more subtle and specialized than, "hey, these extra wings prove evolution!"
I've never understood the creationist fascination with micro vs macro evoloution. This seems to be an imaginary border. Divisions between species are not clearly defined. For instance, horses (64 chromosomes) and donkeys (62 chromosomes) can mate and produce a mule offspring, but it's usually infertile. Lions and tigers can mate, too. Are these all separate species, or are they remnants of a formerly homogenous species that is in the process of diverging?
Macroevolution can't be pictured as a major change in a single organism, it's just what happens when microevolution continues to occur over a long period of time. At anywhere along the line, the individuals are never very different from each other. It's only after enough time, when you compare the current organisms to the originals, that big differences become apparent.
Chance does not do more than provide the raw materials for the process. You're right that there are thousands and thousands of changes required to build the intricate biological systems we see today. That doesn't mean that all these changes had to happen in exactly the right order and at the right time. There are lots of mistakes along the way that kill individuals and even entire groups.
Keep in mind that there are usually thousands or millions of individuals in a population at any given time, and each little benefit gets quickly spread around. The combination of deep time and nearly infinite combinations is very powerful.
I had a chuckle at your statement of "ID Scientists." There are ID supporters that claim to do science, and some of the actually do perform science. However, their conclusions about design are clearly religious statements. They're trying to draw conclusions about philosphical problems utilizing materialistic tools--much the same as an athiest would "prove" that God doesn't exist. Their proposed explanations are not based on observations, but rather preconcevied notions--and that is decidedly NOT science.
I'm not sure if the
I'm not sure if the following was directed at me, the ID scientists, or whomever:
"I do have a problem with apologists trying to use science to prove a theological point. When they do this, they're stooping to the level of an athiest who tries to use science to prove their position."
If it was for me, I can unequivicably say that I am not trying to prove God or my theology. I do boldly propose that belief in Him is a more rational belief than some are willing to give us credit for. But it isn't up to me to prove Him, whether through science, woo or logic.
And I got a chuckle of my own from:
"Science and religion are usually mutually exclusive disciplines."
I plan a post on this myth shortly, so you can check back for that one. In short, the scientific process we know was birthed from the Christian worldview and its definition of nature-- a definition which differed greatly from the competing religious thoughts that nature was either not actually real, was made up of various deities and their whimsical actions, etc... It is no coincidence that the scientific process as we know it came about in Christian Europe by people steeped in the Christian worldview.
Tell Isaac Newton that they are mutually exclusive. Tell that to Jahnnes Kepler, who burst into praises of God and His creation while writing in his astronomy notebooks. Tell that to Copernicus, who defined his cosmology as "wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator." Tell that to Dr. Francis Collins, current director of the Human Genome Project, who said, "I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship."
It appears to me that your statement shows the presuppositions which you abide by in your definition of science and I can thus understand why my ID statement would bring a chuckle. You seem to disallow their presupposition in a Creator while allowing the naturalistic scientist's presupposition that the Universe doesn't need a creator, and while professing your own (flawed) presupposition that Christianity and science are primarily incompatible.
That's cool. I have my own presuppositions. The fact is that we all have them. And that fact is what makes these discussions so important, engaging, and at times biting (not that I would consider our discussions as such, mind you).
Once again, your response was well-written, and it is a pleasure to disagree with such a skilled debater. :)
Blessings...
Clarification
I was not specifically pointing to you with my comment about apologists using science to prove God. I was just trying to illustrate the difference between the disciplines of science and faith.
You seem to have misunderstood my statement that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I certainly don't think a person can't be both a scientist and person of faith. I'd go so far as to say that most scientists have strong religious convictions.
Those scientists, including Newton, Kepler, etc., are not speaking as scientists when they make statements about a creator. They are professing their personal faith and opinion on theological questions. The same is true of ID "scientists", but they try to cloak their religious statements in science to sneak their brand of theology into public schools.
I certainly don't think science and Christianity are incompatible. On the contrary, like Collins, I'd say they are complimentary. They each answer different questions. The problems arise when, like some ID folks, you intermingle the two and try to answer the questions of one with the tools of the other.
I hope that clears up my position a little and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
No apology necessary
Especially since it appears the misunderstanding was on my end.
To a certain extent, I agree that some in the ID/creationist camp do as you propose. I'd go as far as to say that some of them use underhanded tactics to get their message across (including knowingly using fallacious arguments, appeals to emotion, etc...), and I think this hurts the credibility of what should be a legitimate discussion on observable phenomena. It's a pity. Naturally, though, you can hopefully understand that I would see the flipside also, though I won't be so bold as to speak to motives.
It looks like this has been a very profitable discussion for me. Perhaps my disection of specific theories gives the appearance that I am speaking to motives, when my overall point is that of the presuppositions that naturally dictate how we interpret our surroundings. Look for future blogs on such subjects.
Thanks again.