Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[100%atheist]

Ions still involve negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons.

How about Hydrogen ions or double-ionized Helium ions? They don't have electrons.

The fine tuning aspect of the electron/proton charge is that electrons could have been positively charged at creation, or protons negatively charged, or each with different charges, or no charges at all. Without a one to one inverse correspondence between these particles chemistry is impossible, ergo life based on chemistry is impossible.

(On a side note, protons are not elementary particles, so it is not a proton that had to be "charged" on-creation.)

Your statement is big. It is interesting that scientists have partially disproved your statement by creating Antihydrogen consisting of a positive "electron" (positron) and negative "protons" (anti-proton). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

You can speculate if you wish about conscious plasma, or life inside black holes. Which you pretty much have to do if you wish to argue that there is nothing fine tuned for life in the construction of this universe. And theists are accused of believing in the unbelievable? Unbelievable.

I think I am missing your point. Where did I spoke about fine tuning? I actually think that our universe is PERFECTLY fine tuned for our life. Are you going to argue against this or what? Do you know the Anthropic principle?

[nygreenguy]

I agree that mutations lead to new traits. We would disagree (I assume) that these changes result in overall improvement rather than extinction.

Even though it has been observed?

[nygreenguy]

That is true, but also means that the stability of critters like horseshoe crabs, sharks, cyanobacteria, etc. is somewhat perplexing since they clearly have gone through significant environmental changes without changes in their genome. If evolutionary theory can figure out how to address rapid changes like the Cambiran explosion, or no changes over millenia like cyanobacteria or the malarial parasite then the theory would be considerably more coherent than it presently is.

Well, I have seen you claim this before and I asked for specifics, but perhaps you missed it. When you talk about horseshow crabs, sharks and cyanobacteria,which species are you talking about? If you think cyanobacteria have not changed, you should tell that to the plants because each of their cells have cyanobacteria. Thats what chloroplasts are.

I think you are seeing evolution as a one way street. In evolution, it is populations which evolve. While we may have some cyanobacteria today that are similar to cyanobacteria a billion years ago, other populations of cyanobacteria have evolved and diversified.

Malaria parasite? Not only has malaria evolved, it has spectated.

The closest relative of Plasmodium falciparum is Plasmodium reichenowi, a parasite of chimpanzees. P. falciparum and P. reichenowi are not closely related to the other Plasmodium species that parasitize humans, or indeed mammals generally. It has been argued that these two species originated from a parasite of birds.[7] More recent analyses do not support this, however, instead suggesting that the ability to parasitize mammals evolved only once within the genus Plasmodium.[8]

New evidence based on analysis of more than 1,100 mitochondrial, apicoplastic, and nuclear DNA sequences has suggested that Plasmodium falciparum may in fact have speciated from a lineage present in gorillas.[9] According to this theory, P. falciparum and P. reichenowi may both represent host switches from an ancestral line that primarily infected gorillas; P. falciparum went on to primarily infect humans while P. reichenowi specialized in chimpanzees. The ongoing debate over the evolutionary origin of Plasmodium falciparum will likely be the focus of continuing genetic study.

A third species has been discovered that appears to related to these two: Plasmodium gaboni. This putative species is currently (2009) known only from two DNA sequences and awaits a full species description before it can be regarded as valid.

Molecular clock analyses suggest that P. falciparum is as old as the human line; the two species diverged at the same time as humans and chimpanzees.[10] However, low levels of polymorphism within the P. falciparum genome suggest a much more recent origin.[11] It may be that this discrepancy exists because P. falciparum is old, but its population recently underwent a great expansion.[12] Some evidence still indicates that P. reichenowi was the ancestor of P. falciparum.[13] The timing of this event is unclear at present but it has been proposed that it may have occurred about 10,000 years ago.

More recently, P. falciparum has evolved in response to human interventions. Most strains of malaria can be treated with chloroquine, but P. falciparum has developed resistance to this treatment. A combination of quinine and tetracycline has also been used, but there are strains of P. falciparum that have grown resistant to this treatment as well. Different strains of P. falciparum have grown resistant to different treatments. Often the resistance of the strain depends on where it was contracted. Many cases of malaria that come from parts of the Caribbean and west of the Panama Canal as well as the Middle East and Egypt can often be treated with chloroquine, since they have not yet developed resistance. Nearly all cases contracted in Africa, India, and southeast Asia have grown resistant to this medication and there have been cases in Thailand and Cambodia in which the strain has been resistant to nearly all treatments. Often the strain grows resistant to the treatment in areas where the use is not as tightly regulated.
Like most Apicomplexa, malaria parasites harbor a plastid similar to plant chloroplasts, which they probably acquired by engulfing (or being invaded by) a eukaryotic alga, and retaining the algal plastid as a distinctive organelle encased within four membranes (see endosymbiotic theory). The apicomplexan plastid, or apicoplast, is an essential organelle, thought to be involved in the synthesis of lipids and several other compounds, and provides an attractive target for antimalarial drug development, particularly in light of the emergence of parasites resistant to chloroquine and other existing antimalarial agents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_falciparum

[Starboard Tack]

I agree that mutations lead to new traits. We would disagree (I assume) that these changes result in overall improvement rather than extinction.

Even though it has been observed?

Example?

[Starboard Tack]

That is true, but also means that the stability of critters like horseshoe crabs, sharks, cyanobacteria, etc. is somewhat perplexing since they clearly have gone through significant environmental changes without changes in their genome. If evolutionary theory can figure out how to address rapid changes like the Cambiran explosion, or no changes over millenia like cyanobacteria or the malarial parasite then the theory would be considerably more coherent than it presently is.

Well, I have seen you claim this before and I asked for specifics, but perhaps you missed it. When you talk about horseshow crabs, sharks and cyanobacteria,which species are you talking about? If you think cyanobacteria have not changed, you should tell that to the plants because each of their cells have cyanobacteria. Thats what chloroplasts are.

I think you are seeing evolution as a one way street. In evolution, it is populations which evolve. While we may have some cyanobacteria today that are similar to cyanobacteria a billion years ago, other populations of cyanobacteria have evolved and diversified.

Malaria parasite? Not only has malaria evolved, it has spectated.

The closest relative of Plasmodium falciparum is Plasmodium reichenowi, a parasite of chimpanzees. P. falciparum and P. reichenowi are not closely related to the other Plasmodium species that parasitize humans, or indeed mammals generally. It has been argued that these two species originated from a parasite of birds.[7] More recent analyses do not support this, however, instead suggesting that the ability to parasitize mammals evolved only once within the genus Plasmodium.[8]

New evidence based on analysis of more than 1,100 mitochondrial, apicoplastic, and nuclear DNA sequences has suggested that Plasmodium falciparum may in fact have speciated from a lineage present in gorillas.[9] According to this theory, P. falciparum and P. reichenowi may both represent host switches from an ancestral line that primarily infected gorillas; P. falciparum went on to primarily infect humans while P. reichenowi specialized in chimpanzees. The ongoing debate over the evolutionary origin of Plasmodium falciparum will likely be the focus of continuing genetic study.

A third species has been discovered that appears to related to these two: Plasmodium gaboni. This putative species is currently (2009) known only from two DNA sequences and awaits a full species description before it can be regarded as valid.

Molecular clock analyses suggest that P. falciparum is as old as the human line; the two species diverged at the same time as humans and chimpanzees.[10] However, low levels of polymorphism within the P. falciparum genome suggest a much more recent origin.[11] It may be that this discrepancy exists because P. falciparum is old, but its population recently underwent a great expansion.[12] Some evidence still indicates that P. reichenowi was the ancestor of P. falciparum.[13] The timing of this event is unclear at present but it has been proposed that it may have occurred about 10,000 years ago.

More recently, P. falciparum has evolved in response to human interventions. Most strains of malaria can be treated with chloroquine, but P. falciparum has developed resistance to this treatment. A combination of quinine and tetracycline has also been used, but there are strains of P. falciparum that have grown resistant to this treatment as well. Different strains of P. falciparum have grown resistant to different treatments. Often the resistance of the strain depends on where it was contracted. Many cases of malaria that come from parts of the Caribbean and west of the Panama Canal as well as the Middle East and Egypt can often be treated with chloroquine, since they have not yet developed resistance. Nearly all cases contracted in Africa, India, and southeast Asia have grown resistant to this medication and there have been cases in Thailand and Cambodia in which the strain has been resistant to nearly all treatments. Often the strain grows resistant to the treatment in areas where the use is not as tightly regulated.
Like most Apicomplexa, malaria parasites harbor a plastid similar to plant chloroplasts, which they probably acquired by engulfing (or being invaded by) a eukaryotic alga, and retaining the algal plastid as a distinctive organelle encased within four membranes (see endosymbiotic theory). The apicomplexan plastid, or apicoplast, is an essential organelle, thought to be involved in the synthesis of lipids and several other compounds, and provides an attractive target for antimalarial drug development, particularly in light of the emergence of parasites resistant to chloroquine and other existing antimalarial agents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_falciparum

Actually, I believe I did answer your question and it the answer included the qualification that it is the species of cyanobacteria forming bacterial mats and stromatolites that have remained unchanged for 3.5 billion years, while the habitat of the stromatolite has shrunk from worldwide to a very few locations on earth.

My reference to the malarial parasite is based on the observation that the limiting factor for it to populate the niche of humanity that exists in cooler regions is its transmission method through cross infection from Anopheles mosquitos. A useful adaptation would be exist in the gut of a flea, which would open up a rather large niche for the critter. Hasn't happened even though a single human infected with the parasite harbors around 1 trillion of them. The example of chloroquine resistance is a pretty good example of microevolution in action - a concept I have no objections to. It is the wholesale movement from Pakicetus to Cetaceans that I wonder about.

My point is that because evolutionary theory is purported to explain everything, and much of the explanations are based on unvalidated conjectures, it seems odd that there are so many examples of very long periods of stasis in the natural record that are explained by evolution while all change, however rapid is explained by the same mechanisms. This is the basis for skepticism of the theory, with such skepticism hardly the domain of non-scientists, big haired Baptist preachers and high school drop outs, as is frequently suggested.

For example this paper argues that the discontinuity between humans and non humans is far more profound than most understand. http://www.leecharleskelley.com/images/ ... istake.pdf

The paper includes opposing views, but the title "Darwin's Mistake" makes my point that far from being the solved problem many seem to argue philosophically, evolution has a hard time explaining what is observed. One of the dissenting papers notes that the reason that there may be this huge discontinuity between humans and animals in terms of their cognitive abilities is because all previous hominids possessing similar capabilities are now extinct. This is a classic example of how evolution is argued and why it sometimes seems incoherent. Modern man supposedly survived whatever bottleneck existed that shrank the population down to a few hundreds, then strove boldly forward to occupy the entire planet and has started to seriously explore space. Meanwhile all hominids who would be similar to us, well they all went extinct so aren't around any more, and not only that, left virtually no trace of every having been here at all.

As I said, evolution explains everything. It explains why critters like us have the population and culture we have, while explaining why critters like us all died leaving barely a mark.

[Starboard Tack]

Ions still involve negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons.

How about Hydrogen ions or double-ionized Helium ions? They don't have electrons.

Are you arguing that hydrogen ions don't have a charge, which is what I said that you appear to be disputing.

The fine tuning aspect of the electron/proton charge is that electrons could have been positively charged at creation, or protons negatively charged, or each with different charges, or no charges at all. Without a one to one inverse correspondence between these particles chemistry is impossible, ergo life based on chemistry is impossible.

(On a side note, protons are not elementary particles, so it is not a proton that had to be "charged" on-creation.)

Your statement is big. It is interesting that scientists have partially disproved your statement by creating Antihydrogen consisting of a positive "electron" (positron) and negative "protons" (anti-proton). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

Do anti-hydrogen electrons and protons contain inversely and precisely equivalent charges? Well, yes, so I am unclear why you think this advances your theory that chemistry is possible without such balance.

You can speculate if you wish about conscious plasma, or life inside black holes. Which you pretty much have to do if you wish to argue that there is nothing fine tuned for life in the construction of this universe. And theists are accused of believing in the unbelievable? Unbelievable.

I think I am missing your point. Where did I spoke about fine tuning? I actually think that our universe is PERFECTLY fine tuned for our life. Are you going to argue against this or what? Do you know the Anthropic principle?

The reason for the list of fine tuned features that was included in my post to NYGreen was because we were, well, talking about FINE TUNING, so yes I am familiar with Barrow, Carter and Tipler's work and was in fact arguing for fine tuning. You thought it worthwhile to ask a question about what was so special about the electron to proton charge ratio. I answered it. Without it, no chemistry. No chemistry, no life, except of course for conscious plasma existing in the centers of stars.

The conversation that has followed becomes more incoherent with each post, so I'll leave you to it.

[100%atheist]

Ions still involve negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons.

How about Hydrogen ions or double-ionized Helium ions? They don't have electrons.

Are you arguing that hydrogen ions don't have a charge, which is what I said that you appear to be disputing.

You said that ions involve negatively charged electrons, which is not true for a hydrogen ion. That's it.

The fine tuning aspect of the electron/proton charge is that electrons could have been positively charged at creation, or protons negatively charged, or each with different charges, or no charges at all. Without a one to one inverse correspondence between these particles chemistry is impossible, ergo life based on chemistry is impossible.

(On a side note, protons are not elementary particles, so it is not a proton that had to be "charged" on-creation.)

Your statement is big. It is interesting that scientists have partially disproved your statement by creating Antihydrogen consisting of a positive "electron" (positron) and negative "protons" (anti-proton). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

Do anti-hydrogen electrons and protons contain inversely and precisely equivalent charges? Well, yes, so I am unclear why you think this advances your theory that chemistry is possible without such balance.

I see now what you mean. But again, could you show, for example, that if the proton charge is, say, twice the electron charge, the atoms can't just have twice more electrons and remain electrostatically neutral, so the universe is electrostatically the same from the macroscopic point of view?

You can speculate if you wish about conscious plasma, or life inside black holes. Which you pretty much have to do if you wish to argue that there is nothing fine tuned for life in the construction of this universe. And theists are accused of believing in the unbelievable? Unbelievable.

I think I am missing your point. Where did I spoke about fine tuning? I actually think that our universe is PERFECTLY fine tuned for our life. Are you going to argue against this or what? Do you know the Anthropic principle?

The reason for the list of fine tuned features that was included in my post to NYGreen was because we were, well, talking about FINE TUNING, so yes I am familiar with Barrow, Carter and Tipler's work and was in fact arguing for fine tuning. You thought it worthwhile to ask a question about what was so special about the electron to proton charge ratio. I answered it. Without it, no chemistry. No chemistry, no life, except of course for conscious plasma existing in the centers of stars.

The conversation that has followed becomes more incoherent with each post, so I'll leave you to it.

You made the claim (that there would be "no chemistry" with any other values of charges), but you did not really provide any evidence for it. See, I am staying on topic.

Implying that "fine tuning" is made possible exclusively due to some conscious entity is no much different from Ray Comfort's banana nightmare.

[Starboard Tack]

Ions still involve negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons.

How about Hydrogen ions or double-ionized Helium ions? They don't have electrons.

Are you arguing that hydrogen ions don't have a charge, which is what I said that you appear to be disputing.

You said that ions involve negatively charged electrons, which is not true for a hydrogen ion. That's it.

Hydrogen ions don't require the absence or presence of negatively charged electrons? Really? Anti-matter, I concede the point. Not having run into any anti-matter lately, I overlooked this possibility.

The fine tuning aspect of the electron/proton charge is that electrons could have been positively charged at creation, or protons negatively charged, or each with different charges, or no charges at all. Without a one to one inverse correspondence between these particles chemistry is impossible, ergo life based on chemistry is impossible.

(On a side note, protons are not elementary particles, so it is not a proton that had to be "charged" on-creation.)

Your statement is big. It is interesting that scientists have partially disproved your statement by creating Antihydrogen consisting of a positive "electron" (positron) and negative "protons" (anti-proton). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

Do anti-hydrogen electrons and protons contain inversely and precisely equivalent charges? Well, yes, so I am unclear why you think this advances your theory that chemistry is possible without such balance.

I see now what you mean. But again, could you show, for example, that if the proton charge is, say, twice the electron charge, the atoms can't just have twice more electrons and remain electrostatically neutral, so the universe is electrostatically the same from the macroscopic point of view?

The issue you raised is not theoretical chemistry, but the electron/proton charge ratio. Whatever chemistry you want to have, to have any chemistry will require that the ratio remain what it is observed to be - 1:1, whether that involves partially charged electrons or multiply charge protons is irrelevant.

You can speculate if you wish about conscious plasma, or life inside black holes. Which you pretty much have to do if you wish to argue that there is nothing fine tuned for life in the construction of this universe. And theists are accused of believing in the unbelievable? Unbelievable.

I think I am missing your point. Where did I spoke about fine tuning? I actually think that our universe is PERFECTLY fine tuned for our life. Are you going to argue against this or what? Do you know the Anthropic principle?

The reason for the list of fine tuned features that was included in my post to NYGreen was because we were, well, talking about FINE TUNING, so yes I am familiar with Barrow, Carter and Tipler's work and was in fact arguing for fine tuning. You thought it worthwhile to ask a question about what was so special about the electron to proton charge ratio. I answered it. Without it, no chemistry. No chemistry, no life, except of course for conscious plasma existing in the centers of stars.

The conversation that has followed becomes more incoherent with each post, so I'll leave you to it.

You made the claim (that there would be "no chemistry" with any other values of charges), but you did not really provide any evidence for it. See, I am staying on topic.

No I made the claim that the electron proton charge ratio must be what it is for life to exist. That claim stands, and the question is why is this ratio as it is, facilitating chemistry? Put in broader terms, why is there anything rather than nothing? Nothing is a whole lot simpler than something, and we are surrounded by a whole lot of something that has specific parameters that must be exactly as we find them to be if we are to be here to observe them. Since there is no obvious requirement that we be here, the fact that we are raises interesting questions about how systems that appear to possess exquisite design essential for a function that includes the existence of consciousness come into existence by purely unconscious and random happenstance. But to the atheist, there must be nothing special going on, and nothing to see....

[Goat]

For example this paper argues that the discontinuity between humans and non humans is far more profound than most understand. http://www.leecharleskelley.com/images/ ... istake.pdf

The paper includes opposing views, but the title "Darwin's Mistake" makes my point that far from being the solved problem many seem to argue philosophically, evolution has a hard time explaining what is observed.

It also seems you didn't actually read the footnotes. I am sure that the title was chosen to titillate people, but they did include this paragraph

Let us be clear: All similarities and differences in biology are ultimately a matter of degree. Any apparent discontinuities between living species belie the underlying continuity of the evolutionary process and largely result from the fact that many, and often all, of the intermediate steps are no longer extant. In the present article, our claim that there is a discontinuity between human and nonhuman cognition is based on our claim that there is a significant gap between the functional capabilities of the human mind and those of all other extant species on the planet. Our point, to cut to the chase, is that the functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds is at least as great as the much more widely acknowledged discontinuity between human and nonhuman forms of communication. But we do not doubt that both evolved through standard evolutionary mechanisms.

So, it seems that the article, although it has a very strong title to get attention, doesn't say what you think it says.

[Starboard Tack]

For example this paper argues that the discontinuity between humans and non humans is far more profound than most understand. http://www.leecharleskelley.com/images/ ... istake.pdf

The paper includes opposing views, but the title "Darwin's Mistake" makes my point that far from being the solved problem many seem to argue philosophically, evolution has a hard time explaining what is observed.

It also seems you didn't actually read the footnotes. I am sure that the title was chosen to titillate people, but they did include this paragraph

Let us be clear: All similarities and differences in biology are ultimately a matter of degree. Any apparent discontinuities between living species belie the underlying continuity of the evolutionary process and largely result from the fact that many, and often all, of the intermediate steps are no longer extant. In the present article, our claim that there is a discontinuity between human and nonhuman cognition is based on our claim that there is a significant gap between the functional capabilities of the human mind and those of all other extant species on the planet. Our point, to cut to the chase, is that the functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds is at least as great as the much more widely acknowledged discontinuity between human and nonhuman forms of communication. But we do not doubt that both evolved through standard evolutionary mechanisms.

So, it seems that the article, although it has a very strong title to get attention, doesn't say what you think it says.

Of course they don't doubt that evolution explains the discontinuity they note. If you want continued grant funding, you don't challenge the orthodox paradigm. What you do is what they did, illustrate the huge gap that exists in the cognition of modern humans and everything else, then note that of course evolutionary theory explains it, without providing the slightest hint of exactly how the evolutionary theory would explain the extinction of all ancestral hominids who possess the characteristics that evolution says we are now rewarded for having.

A similar situation exists in origin of life research. A very few years ago, the belief commonly stated was that since chemical Darwinian evolution had the chance to unfold over 1.5 billion years, the fact that it was clearly extremely unlikely to happen wasn't a problem. Now that we know there is only 10 million years or so for the task, the standard response now is that of course Darwinian chemical evolution is responsible - it just happened very quickly. Mechanism? None known. Empirical evidence this chemistry could happen in the wild? None known. The paper says what it says. No more, no less.