And then did there exist a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found.” (1) But that fellow died of course, and we did come to know things to be different than originally conceived by our prophet, who liberated us from oppression and superstition. Though we are grateful, we realize he is quite dead and buried, and his ideas have little to do with what we think now. And being very very intelligent, we did discover that biopolymers possibly did arise. (2) Of course, we know that the prophet was correct with his notions of a primordial soup, because life is not observed as arising from anything other than life today. So, we do remain thankful, although not in a direct way, to the Great Prophet. (Continued in Part VII; I don’t think this will take billions of years to complete, but who knows?).

(1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
(2) http://www.pnas.org/content/93/2/839.full.pdf+html

And then was there thought for a long time to be a giant impact upon the Earth that resulted in the moon. (1) Or later, perhaps not. (2) Indeed, the Earth was in fact very different from today. There were no oceans and no oxygen. Then was the Earth bombarded by left over planetoids and other early material. The left-over heat and bombardment caused the planet to be fully molten. During this stage, the ‘iron catastrophe,” did cause the heavier elements to sink, whereas the lighter elements did float. Although the early atmosphere would have been composed of hydrogen and helium, the winds of the sun and the heat of the Earth, would cause this to be taken away. And then as the radius of the Earth did increase, temperatures did plummet. And as the crust did solidify and form, so did the atmosphere. Between 4 and 3.8 billion years ago, did the Earth undergo a heavy bombardment of asteroids providing water, which condensed into clouds. And then did life begin to originate… (Continued in Part VI).

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

(2) http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/older_earth_020828.html

In Part II, I laid out an overview of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and in Part III, I began addressing some of the controversy with YEC. I will continue addressing the controversy and potential problems with YEC in this post.

Radiocarbon Dating

Radiocarbon dating is used for dating the age of fossils or formerly living matter (organic matter) up to 60,000 years old. (1) This method of dating poses an apparent problem for YEC, because dates obtained from Carbon 14 dating are frequently greater than the 6,000 year-old age as purported to a literal biblical interpretation. The basic assumptions of Carbon 14 dating are challenged by YEC proponents. Namely, that the initial amount of Carbon 14 in organic materials can be known, changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, and the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere was much higher before the global flood. (2)

Star Light and Time

If you look up into the sky at night you will see stars. The speed of light in a vacuum is a known rate (186,282 miles/second). So, the distance that light travels in a year is known (5,878,625,373,183 miles), and the distance to stars and distant galaxies has been estimated. The distance to the most distant objects in the universe is estimated in billions of light years. So, the assumption is that the light from these objects originated billions of years ago. YEC proponents do not question the distance to these stars and galaxies.

One argument is,

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. (3)

However, it is also noted that,

It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument.

Again, YEC proponents challenge uniformitarian views. Although some creation scientists challenge the speed of light, others approach the challenge with respect to time.

Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. (3)

And then there is the time zone argument,

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility. (3)

Challenging the assumptions of naturalism is also an argument. It states that although God sustains the universe in a certain way presently, this tells us nothing about how He actually created things in the beginning.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. (3)

Cosmology is also examined, and it is noted that there is a star light and time problem with current cosmological theories as well. This perspective forces a detente between the creationist view and the naturalist view by asserting that both perspectives are faced with the same basic problem.

… since the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. (3)

The most distantly observable matter in the universe is said to be 46 billion light years away from the Earth. (4) If the universe is approximately 14 billion years, old, then it would be impossible for us to see things that far away. Naturalists invoke unverifiable theories such as “dark energy” to explain this problem. So the notion is that both the creationist viewpoint and naturalist viewpoint both have problems with star light and time. The notion is where you place your faith, in those things that are said to be ‘revealed by God,’ or in the theories of humans.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon

(2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

(3) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe

A potential cosmological resolution to the star light and time problem is presented in the book, Starlight and Time.

In Part II, I gave a basic summary of the view of Young Earth Creationism. In this section, I’ll discuss some of the controversies.

Catastrophe versus Uniformitarianism

That naturalist viewpoint is that the rate at which geological and other natural processes occur today, is the rate at which these things have always occurred (geological changes, formation of strata layers, formation of fossils, and so forth). The YEC viewpoint is that many of these things can be explained by global catastrophic processes, and specifically the Great Flood, as described in the Bible.

Plate Tectonics

After naturalistic scientists finally came to a point of resolution about plate tectonics, it became possible to measure the speed of continental drift (.5 to 6 inches per year). (1) And by the uniformitarian view of geology, the separation of the continents from the original single land mass was estimated to have taken 1 billion years. (2) Evidence for the YEC perspective is presented at Answers in Genesis, and computer models related to the catastrophic hypothesis have been developed. (1)

According to AIG,

… a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.¹⁰ And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.¹¹

Radiometric Dating

The uniformitarian view receives support from examining evidence pertaining to the rate of decay of radioactive elements. Radiometric dating is used in the dating of the formation of igneous rocks.

Which are defined as,

formed by solidification of cooled magma (molten rock). (3)

So, this type of dating is confined to only certain types of rocks.

Types of igneous rocks include granite and basalt (lava). Sedimentary rocks, which contain most of the world’s fossils, are not commonly used in radioisotope dating. These types of rocks are comprised of particles from many preexisting rocks which were transported (mostly by water) and redeposited somewhere else. Types of sedimentary rocks include sandstone, shale, and limestone. (4)

Different elements are seen to have different “half lives.” Radioactive elements decay into other elements that is extremely consistent in current observations of radioactive decay. YEC challenges the assumptions of the rate of radioactive decay and provides support for their position that the Earth is young (thousands of years) instead of old (billions of years). (5) Additional evidence is provided in book and DVD form. (6) (7)

The RATE group has been criticized by naturalists. ( 8 )

This post is getting rather long, so I will continue in Part IV.

(1). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

(2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

(3). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous

(4). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

(5). http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

(6). Thousands not Billions

(7). Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth (DVD)

(8). http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

]]> http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/on-christian-views-of-creationism%e2%80%93part-iii-continued-young-earth-creationism/feed/ 8 The Country Shrink http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/some-basic-concepts-in-intelligent-design/ http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/some-basic-concepts-in-intelligent-design/#comments Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:32:41 +0000 thecountryshrink http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/?p=97 ]]>

Hallmarks of Design

I’ve written before about how things that are designed exhibit function or specific complexity.  I’ll give a definition in a bit more detail here.

Systems that are of high complexity, that is functionally integrated multicomponent systems, systems that are of high specificity where only one or very few of many possible arrangements of these components works, and systems which are of low probability, at least spontaneous occurrence . . . these are the hallmarks of purposefully designed engineered systems. (1)

Teleology

Proponents of intelligent design theory often invoke the notion of teleology.  What is teleology?

…. is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists. (2)

Irreducible Complexity (IC)

Charles Darwin specified one aspect of his theory that would allow for falsifiability.  Falsifiability is thought to be an essential aspect of a scientific theory.  Darwin wrote:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. (3)

Although Darwin at least made an attempt to allow for the falsifiability of modern evolutionary theory, modern evolutionists have rejected any arguments that have been made in terms of irreducible complexity. 

Two major proponents of intelligent design theory have defined IC in these ways:

^{The term “irreducible complexity” was originally defined by Behe as:}

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (<emDarwin’s Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition) ….

A second definition given by Behe (his “evolutionary definition”) is as follows:

An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.

Intelligent design advocate William Dembski gives this definition:

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)

(4)

Evolutionists today dismiss the idea outright.  To my knowledge, they don’t even present a way that evolution can be falsified.  Although there are a number of credible arguments made for irreducible complexity, there are of course counterarguments for each.  This points to the fact that naturalistic evolution has no clear way of being falsified.  For example, all an object would have to do to falsify the law of gravity, is to fall upward once!  But the fact that the argument continues shows that naturalistic evolution has no true basis for falsifiability.

In the everyday practice of research on evolution, the assumption is that naturalistic evolution is true, because a majority of scientists agree.  A mere agreement among scientists as evidence violates the philosophical assumptions of science.  Research on evolution routinely employs research designs that do not allow for causal conclusions (that the results found imply a cause and effect relationship), but that does not stop evolutionary biologists from inferring causality nonetheless.

The type of research that allows for inferences about causal relationships is an experimental design.  Evolutionists argue that, “How do you propose we construct a multi-billion year research design?”  And I reply that if your theory requires a multi-billion year research design, it’s not much of a scientific theory.

(1) Lumsden, Richard, 1995, quoted by Alters, Brian J., 1995, A content analysis of the Institute for Creation Research’s Institute on Scientific Creationism. Creation/Evolution 15(2): 1-15.

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

(3) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

And did then the Earth form from the same disc cloud that the Sun formed. And so did the mass and gravitational pull of the Earth increase. And did metorites impact frequently, creating a “hellish” early Earth. Plate techtonics did completely destroy the evidence of this early Hell. But the “Hell” time was preserved in the moon and other planets. Thus, because of the Apollo program, the intelligent scientists know that the same thing as occurred on the moon, happened on the Earth (4.0 to 3.8 billion years ago). The Earth did lose heat and slowly cooled. And the Earth did segregate into an iron core and silicate mantle. And these things are still observable in the Earth today. (1) Continued in Part V.

(1) The Formation of the Earth

And then, things cooled off.  Matter coalesced into suns and planets.  And then was there a nearby supernova.  Squeezing the clouds of dust.  The squeezing made the clouds of dust coalesce, and gravity pulled the clouds together.  The clouds began to spin as it began to collapse.  Eventually, this cloud grew heavier and denser in the center as it began to collapse, and also did it grow hotter.  Matter did begin to clump together.  And the clumps eventually began to form planets or moons.  Only rocky matter could stand the heat near the center of the clumping and so planets like the Earth formed.  The center eventually became so hot, that it formed a star, the sun.  The sun blew most of the stellar gas and dust of the solar system with a strong stellar wind.  And so it was, that by studying meteorites that the truly intelligent beings on Earth did discover that the solar system was 4.6 billion years old.  By the facts of the rocks, they turned over generations of delusion, and finally found the truth.  (1)  And thus, the tale continues in Part IV.

(1). Solar System Formation

And then, things cooled off. Matter coalesced into suns and planets. And then was there a nearby supernova. Squeezing the clouds of dust. The squeezing made the clouds of dust coalesce, and gravity pulled the clouds together. The clouds began to spin as it began to collapse. Eventually, this cloud grew heavier and denser in the center as it began to collapse, and also did it grow hotter. Matter did begin to clump together. And the clumps eventually began to form planets or moons. Only rocky matter could stand the heat near the center of the clumping and so planets like the Earth formed. The center eventually became so hot, that it formed a star, the sun. The sun blew most of the stellar gas and dust of the solar system with a strong stellar wind. And so it was, that by studying meteorites that the truly intelligent beings on Earth did discover that the solar system was 4.6 billion years old. By the facts of the rocks, they turned over generations of delusion, and finally found the truth. (1) And thus, the tale continues in Part IV.

(1). Solar System Formation

I ran across a very interesting story that dates back to 2003.  It was on a site that has a focus of advancing nanotechnology.  There is a very interesting interview with a Japanese researcher studying the bacterial flagellum.  The researcher appears to utilizing the aspect of applied science where I think ID theory fits very well.  I’ll quote some interesting poritions.

The design concepts of protein molecules to realize various functional mechanisms by their three-dimensional architecture are quite different from those we design by our engineering technique with bulk materials. Folding of single polymer chain into some three-dimensional structures gives a huge amount of freedom and flexibility in both function and structure. Individual atoms are used as functional parts, and this is the essential feature that makes biological macromolecules distinct from artificial machines at present. The design concepts have to be well understood and learned for future nanotechnology applications. So far, for the flagellar motor, the deeper our insights get into the mechanism, the deeper the mystery becomes. Now the mystery of conformational switching of the filament has been solved, and in terms of the number of protein molecules, the filament makes up 99% of the entire flagellum, it does not mean 99% of the mystery is solved. It is the motor mechanism that is even more difficult to understand. (1)

The more that is learned about such things, the deeper the mystery becomes.  The level of complexity and design increases with increasing knowledge on the subject.  In my line of work, I have to evaluate complex and simple trends that my patients exhibit.  I evaluate one complex trend of science as forever marching toward the realization of increased complexity of biological processes and systems.  Ocam’s razor seems to perpetually slice the wrong way in biology.  Now back to the flagellum.

It rotates at around 20,000 rpm, at energy consumption of only around 10^-16 W and with energy conversion efficiency close to 100%. Prof. Namba’s research group is going to reveal the mechanism of this highly efficient flagellar motor that is far beyond the capabilities of artificial motors.

I also recommend taking a look at the pictures and diagrams with the story.  Now this simple little bacteria dwarfs anything we can design.  We can come nowhere near 100% energy efficience with a motor, let alone build one out of individual atoms and molecules.  I know I didn’t expand my notion of Ocam’s razor slicing the wrong way in biology, but that is worthy of being expanded in another post.

References:

(1). Revealing the mystery of the bacterial flagellum