“But now that we know it had a beginning, we have a starting point for the math and if the mathematical probabilities put the time it takes for chance to create life longer than the age of the Universe then we have a problem. So what does the math say?

Here are just a few scientific experts who’s math, I believe, is more important than your assertion.”

First of all, probability is not certain, by its very definition. So, though there may be one-in-one billion odds of an event happening, that does not prevent the event from happening on the first chance.

Because of this, probability CANNOT say something is impossible. There is no “problem” as you seem to claim. However, given two events, their probabilities can determine which one is more LIKELY to occur. In order to use the probability of the universe arising from evolution/abiogenesis/Big Bang theory as evidence for a creator, you must also provide the probability of a creator having created the universe, to show that one is more likely than the other. Unless you can provide the mathematical probability of a creator, the probability of the scientific explanation is meaningless in this discussion.

Oh, and I seem to recall having seen a post on slavery on your blog, but it’s gone now. What happened to it?

In addition, simply quoting other people is meaningless, as I mentioned in my previous comment. It is far better for us to analyze the evidence for ourselves. Seeing as current theories propose self-replicating peptides as early life, we can analyze the probabilities of one of these groups having formed–in this case, the Ghadiri group. This is 32 amino acids long, so it has a probability of occurring of about (1/20)^32 or 4.29*10^40. Given the evidence for the concentration of amino acids in the primordial soup, there are 1*10^50 potential starting chains. Thus, about 1*10^31 peptide ligases could be formed per year. Simple life, then, is not as improbable as it may first appear (more can be seen at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html). Thus, there is evidence that the quotes you mentioned are, in fact, wrong, given current abiogenesis hypotheses.

The “Reason” website you mentioned seems to focus more on the non-biological factors involved in the creation of life. The problem is that they never explain how these factors affect life. Indeed, looking at the titles of the papers they referenced, most do not appear to focus on life at all. In the case of the Oort cloud, if it is modeled as a sphere, ring or torus, its mass and position will have no gravitational effect on bodies closer to the sun than it is. Without a better explanation for why those constants are important, the probability derived from them may be meaningless–we do not know.

Science has not ignored irreducible complexity. In the case of a heart, there are fish with two chamber hearts, and a human was born–and lived to adulthood–with 3 chambers. For the other common points, coagulation, eyes and flagellum, Wikipedia has good information on how they are, in fact, reducible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity). So, while there may be structures for which reducibility has not yet been demonstrated, this seems due to a lack of research, not because the structure is, in fact, irreducible.

On the note of proving Christianity true–your goal may not have been to prove Christianity true, but your goal was to establish it as more true than the other world views (as you said yourself). However, every point you made to that effect was either circular logic, based on assumptions that were not proven, or could be applied to the other world views. You claim we should analyze the evidence–well, then provide me with the evidence (not instances of begging the question) that the bible, and Christianity, is more accurate than other world views. Without such evidence, you cannot assert that the Christianity is the correct world view. At best, you could assert the Christianity is as accurate as other world views. You also did not respond to any of my points, instead dismissing them as bias and stories. However, since your goal was to demonstrate Christianity’s accuracy versus other world views, any opposing story that also meets your criteria used in evaluating the bible goes to weaken your claim. The fact that you claim you can so readily construct such stories of your own harms your cause, by showing that the bible is just one of many stories for which those six points hold true.

True that the GENERAL Theory of Evolutions deals with the origins of life, but abiogenesis is the keystone of this theory. It presupposes that life came from non-life – it has to – otherwise the theory would have no foundation on which to stand. True science has been looking into the problem of abiogensis but there are no scientific answers to the question. When there is scientific answer, come back write me then. We are talking about evidence not what scientists are supposedly doing. It doesn’t follow that because science is looking into something that they have or ever will make any progress on the topic. Are you suggesting that I should believe the life came from non-life because science is “looking into it?”

2. “How many of these planets support life? One. So, while you may consider our presence proof that the Earth was designed for us, I consider the Earth as simply one out of millions, if not billions or trillions of planets in the universe. With those odds, it is quite likely one of them (the Earth) would happen to have all the right qualities to support life”

Your point seems logical to me, but mathematics and probabilities disagrees with you. This type of logic held water when scientists believed that the universe was infinite. But now that we know it had a beginning, we have a starting point for the math and if the mathematical probabilities put the time it takes for chance to create life longer than the age of the Universe then we have a problem. So what does the math say?

Here are just a few scientific experts who’s math, I believe, is more important than your assertion.

a. Prof Watson, In the Journal of Astrobiology: ““Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” He suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring ultimately resulting in intelligent life emerging is less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years. How many steps are there? Roughly 322 steps had to occur in order for the Universe to be as it appears!

b. Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Harold C. Urey: “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere” (2001 Principle)

c. Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist: estimates the chances of the above scenario taking place on earth as 1 in 10 to the 100th billionth power.

d. Huge Ross PhD, Ray White PhD III, William C Keel, PhD: “…Less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.”

READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOR MORE DETAILS

These are just a few of the literately thousands of physicists, biologists, and astronomers who would disagree with your view.

3. “Irreducible complexity has be proved false”. I suspect you don’t want to address it because there is nothing to address. Your assertion is simply false and unless you can base this assertion on some sort of evidence (even weak evidence), I will just simply ignore it. Simply put it hasn’t been refuted. There have been some organisms that have been refuted, but the theory and proofs of the theory still stand and science has largely ignored this issue.

3. Your next point, “these don’t prove Christianity true”. This is the same view as my own. I clearly stated that none of the points I made (prophecy, unity, answering the big questions, index to history, changes lives, fighter) show the truth of Christianity, however they are still a valid test to show that it contains evidence of possible truth. Truth should show it’s ugly face through those people who are living it. Taking each point one by one, you can come up with a falsifying statement(story) for each (I can do that) but looking at them as a whole should lead a person to the ultimate conclusion, NOT that Christianity is necessarily true, but other world views are false (or a least can be falsified. I could also hold you to the same standard that you are holding me as what you are saying is nonsensical and completely unhelpful. If the evidence points to abiogensis, for instance, I could simply say, “Just because life can be shown from non-life doesn’t mean it’s true”. Though the statement may BE truthful, it doesn’t help anyone conclude that it MIGHT be true and that the EVIDENCE and not your bias should be analyzed to to to help us better understand if if it MIGHT be true. Whenever I hear the “Just Because….Doesn’t Make it….” argument I know immediately that the one making the claim is more interested in keeping his or her bias than having a meaningful dialog about evidence. This, by the way, goes both ways and most of the time it is my Christian brothers that are saying it. Christians and scientists alike seem to prefer to take the easy way out and make assertions as opposed to searching out the facts. This leads me into my last point regarding to your response to the apparent lack of evidence for the flood. Let me use a common answer from evolutionists when questioned about the lack of fossil evidence — “Just because we haven’t found proof yet, doesn’t mean they won’t.” You wouldn’t dare hold me to a higher standard then the professional scientists who have made that claim — would you? See how nonsensical that sounds? Instead we would have to have a meaningful conversation about the premise of a global flood based on evidence, and textual criticism and come to conclusion that way. As much as I’d love to take on the point, this is a post on world views and not textual criticism so that will have to wait awhile as it is irrelevant to my point.

On the note of an ordered universe–consider how vast our universe is. There are seven other planets in the solar system, and many more large orbiting bodies. How many of these planets support life? One. So, while you may consider our presence proof that the Earth was designed for us, I consider the Earth as simply one out of millions, if not billions or trillions of planets in the universe. With those odds, it is quite likely one of them (the Earth) would happen to have all the right qualities to support life. Thus, our existence on this planet is not proof of a creator.

The third test you apply–asking what experts and eyewitnesses think–is a meaningless test. If someone is an expert, they will have reached this position by analyzing the evidence on the subject. Likewise, if someone is an eyewitness, they are simply providing more evidence, and historically unreliable evidence at that. Thus, any opinion held by an eyewitness is not proof, and any belief held by an expert, whose opinion is to be used as proof, should have evidence to support it. Rather than approaching people and going by their opinions, it is best to analyze the available evidence for ourselves, and thus avoid any intellectual pitfalls. This makes the third test redundant at best, and incorrect at worst.

Most cases of supposedly irreducible complexity have been addressed (and disproven) by far better people in the field then me, and as there are so many different supposed “cases” of irreducible complexity, I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to Google the proof against them.

I believe this, in conjunction with the work the deacon has been doing at Evangelical Realism, covers all the major points you had against “naturalism”– as you can see, there was very little evidence against it as a world view.

Now, on to the Bible, and it’s “truth,” according to your points:
Point #1: This can be reduced down to “what the Bible predicted, the Bible also says came true.” As such, it is useless in determining the accuracy of the Bible.
Point #2: A book having a unified theme is no proof of its truth, either. After all, H.P. Lovecraft wrote many novels regarding cthulhu, as an ancient god. This does not make cthulhu real, nor does it make the books true.
Point #3: Again, the Bible providing a story of creation is not proof that that story is true. If we are saying that Biblical creationism is accurate with reality (which is also debatable), so, too, is Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, as they have almost identical creation stories at a high enough level.
Point #4: While it may accurately relate some historical events, the Bible is also inaccurate or unable to explain many other events, such as the lack of great flood evidence in geology and fossils. Furthermore, consider that the best historical fiction written today includes as many historically accurate facts as possible, to better draw in the believer to the story. Thus, even if the Bible does accurately relate some historical events, this is not evidence of its accuracy as a whole.
Point #5: People’s actions are determined by their beliefs. Believes, however, do not determine reality, or else every one of the world views mentioned above would be true, an impossible situation. Thus, people’s actions do not directly indicate truth.
Point #6: My response to point #5 still stands. Consider, too, that almost every group has fought persecution at some point. Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants. Even scientists were persecuted, by religious leaders that felt threatened (Galileo is a common example).

These are just my quick responses to your article. Though I may seem a bit harsh, I do encourage all attempts a critical analysis, especially against evolution, as only through discovering, and then resolving, gaps in theories can we deepen our understanding of the world.