The Great Debate of 1860

After my post “We Have Been Lied To”, a family member said I should write down the following discussion that I have used in support of my claim “that with the discoveries of the last 50 yeas of science it no longer takes faith to believe in intelligent design.“

In 1860, there was a debate at Oxford that changed the direction of science and the world forever. Our modern thinking and belief system is a direct result of the outcome of this debate. The debate was contest of evolution vs. creation. The creation side was presented by Lord Wilberforce. The Evolution side by Tomas Huxley.

Lord Wilberforce presented the famous William Paley watch argument. “Basically, this argument says that after seeing a watch, with all its intricate parts, which work together in a precise fashion to keep time, one must deduce that this piece of machinery has a creator, since it is far too complex to have simply come into being by some other means, such as evolution.“ (reference from Wikipedia.) These Oxford debates tended to be quite brutal, in the British debate tradition. And when it came to the evolutionary view that man evolved from a monkey, Wilberforce mocked Huxley's position by questioning as to whether it was through his grandmother or his grandfather that Huxley considered himself descended from a monkey.

Huxley was more than up to the challenge. By expertly playing on Wilberforce's monkey theme he asked Lord Wilberforce to allow him the service of six monkeys that would live forever, six typewriters that never would wear out, and an unlimited supply of paper and ink. Then, once granted, he proposed the question “what is the possibility that somewhere towards the end of eternity you would pick up among the piles of paper one that reads “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters...” “,and read the 23rd Psalm. At this point, Lord Wilberforce, a mathematician, knew the answer was one hundred percent. As a mathematician he knew, assuming infinity, all possibilities lead to “1” and was forced to concede defeat. In other words, assuming infinity, it is a certainty that the event will happen. And by inference so will evolution. (As a side note: there are differing accounts of the debate, some state that state that he used the complete works a Shakespeare in his argument, and others the entire Bible. I do not doubt that all these conflicting accounts are all accurate. I imagine that Huxley hit Wilberforce with the 23rd Psalm, and then sensing blood in the water, followed with the complete works of Shakespeare, the entire Bible and all the works in the library’s at Oxford.)

Since the time of the great debate, science has moved on. But one thing persists, the concept that given enough time and material all outcomes are possible. But what has gone by unnoticed is that the basic understanding of the universe has intrinsically changed. The concept of infinity is regarded as a useful mathematical concept, but is recognized as not being based in physical reality. Following Einsteins theory's of relativity and the Bohr/Heisenberg interpretation of quantum mechanics, we now realize we live in a very very large, but finite, universe. So how big is the universe? It is estimated that there are10^89 atomic particles in the Universe, (including photons.) This is a really big number, in fact it takes all 10 fingers to count the billions of billions of billions of atomic particles, but is still finite. The age of the universe is also finite, starting with a singularity now thought to be about16 billion years ago. 16 billion years equates to 10^18 sec, or 10^27 nanoseconds. From quantum mechanics we know that there is a measure of time that cannot be made smaller. That “Quanta” of time is 10^-43 seconds (Planck time.) So in 16 Billion years we would have 10^61 units of Planck time. Another really large number, but again finite.

Upon contemplating this, I began to wonder, so what are the odds, by random chance, that the 6 eternal monkeys could type out the 23rd Psalm, in relation to the size and age of the universe. So I went about calculating the probability of the sequence of letters that make up the 23rd Psalm, (this is called specificity.) The 23rd Psalm contains 461 letters. If we exclude spaces and punctuation, and capitalization (make it more likely,) the specificity is 10^592. This is a really, really large number, actually beyond comprehension. (Please feel free to do your own math to confirm this. Warning: It takes a computer and blows up spreadsheet software.)

If I haven't lost you yet, I will give you a postulate of my own. Assume that I am given a box that contained the scrabble board letters of the 23rd psalm for every atomic particle in the entire universe. We then shake the box to get a random distribution and let them settle in order towards the bottom of the box, and we did this for every Planck time within the entire history of the universe what are the odds of the 23rd Psalm happening randomly? That would be 10^592 / (10^89+10^61). That still leaves us only one chance in10^442. Clearly in a finite universe Huxley did not ask for enough monkeys.

It gets worse for the monkeys, It turns out that Huxley's analogy of using information was correct. All life contains information, we know this a DNA. DNA is a discreet code, (not analog,) and is thus very analogous to our alphabet. It turns out that the “alphabet” is made up of 22 amino acids. All the proteins in our cells, the machines that run our cells, are encoded in the DNA. What are the odds of a single average sized protein happening by random chance assuming all the correct amino acids are present. As a reference point, I will use Hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is an average sized protein ( made up of 574 amino acids) go ahead and calculate its specificity. I got 10^630.(There are about 10^5 different proteins of life, so the odds of any average sized protein would be approximately10^625) Assuming the same universe model for that we used for the 23rd Psalm, one full set of amino acids per atomic particle and all the time in the universe the odds are 1 in 10^480. To put the average sized protein in perspective, the smallest of the human chromosomes contains about a million amino acids in it. How about RNA strands? They are well over 1000 amino acids long. By the way how many amino acids are in the simplest cell's DNA? .Clearly not enough monkeys for even a single protein, let alone a living organism.

One of the results of the understanding of the complexity of life id the generation of a new concept called the multiverse. The multiverse is an eternal and infinite universe generating machine that pumps out universes forever. There is no evidence of this, it is just an attempt to create infinity, (where all outcomes are not only possible, but will happen.) So how big would a multiverse would there need to be to generate the random protein, (again assuming hemoglobin,) using the above model? If we assume that there is another universe for every atomic partical in our universe, with each universe the same size and age as ours, then what are the odds that the single protien is generated?That would be 10^480 /10^89 That still leaves us only one chance in10^391. Still not enough monkeys, so you get the point.

Changing topics...years ago, you used to hear a lot about Chaos theory, (the study of chaotic determinsm and randomness,) being ascribed to the spontaneous generation of life. You do not hear much about it anymore do you? Why? The end result of Chaos theory in a finite universe is that the universe is deterministic but will to the stochastic. In other words, true randomness cannot be found and the model presented is applicable.

Another theory that was hoped to confirm life by random chance is information theory. It was discarded as such in the early 1970's. The basic discovery was that information requires a transmitter and a receiver. The transmitter requires an intelligence, although the receiver does not. For example: a 3-D printing machine. You put in a design (information) for let's say a coffee cup. The receiver ( the material that is made into a coffee cup,) does not have intelligence, it is just a receiver of the information that makes it into a coffee cup. Modern science say's that the universe came into existence through the big bang. First there was nothing then it exploded. With information theory, we would say information was added.

Another puzzling thing is what cosmologists call the Anthropic principal. In essence it is the observation that the universe appears to be fine tuned for human life, and relatively small changes in physical constants would make life impossible. (To find out more you can wiki this.) Fascinating, sounds a lot like Paley's watch argument. By the way, this is one of the reasons for the multiverse fantasy, infinity is required to create even just one possible universe filled with life.

So here is the situation. We are in a finite electromagnetic reality, (see quantum mechanics.) We cannot directly perceive what is outside the bounds of this reality. What is clear it that the information within this universe comes from outside the realm of our perception.

Here are the two choices 1)Infinity and random chance and 2)intelligence and information. As mentioned earlier, the multiverse is the current postulate for the infinity/random chance line of thought. Being outside all perception, there is no chance of proving or directly disproving the possibility of the multiverse. It is the ultimate kick the can down the road.

Similarly, the intelligence that provided the information of the finite universe would do so completely outside of our perception. If the intelligence that provide the information did not want us to know anything about it, we would not be able to discovery anything at all. But what if the intelligence did want us to know? What would that contact look like? How would it confirm that it is truly from outside the bounds of our universe in both time and space? In our modern popular culture we actually have a decent handle on this. “There will be a knock at the door...follow the white rabbit.” - The Matrix. It is by telling specific things before they happen. Only an intelligence outside of space-time can do this. What we should look for is information that is both specific and is recognizable only after its occurrence. We should look for the elements of design. Signal as compared to noise. By the way, this is exactly what SETI, (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,) is attempting to do.

So heres the Question: is there any information anywhere on earth that tells history's details before it happens? Is there anything like this anywhere? (Hint: Yes, there is one.)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:1-5

The supposition that monkeys typing away at keyboards would inevitably result in coherent speech is patently false. Given even an eternity of years, those monkeys would not be able to muster even the most rudimentary level of human speech.

Huxley's monkeys were randomness generators. I used his argument, which in 1860 won the day, to invalidate randomness as a generator of design in light of modern science.

“In essence it is the observation that the universe appears to be fine tuned for human life, and relatively small changes in physical constants would make life impossible.”

This is a logical fallacy from a self centered viewpoint. It looks at everything around and decides it was all finely tuned to support the exact needs our physiology has.
The opposite is just as logical. A creature of our physiology could not possibly evolve in ANY other environment but this one, so this is the only place where you ever COULD find us.

The problem in the whole article is where is says you no longer “need faith to see a creator”. That is exactly and precisely what is needed. Efforts to prove god with science are a fools errand. You might as well try to search for heaven with the Hubble Telescope.

Just follow faith, live faith, and spread your faith to unbelievers. But using science to bring people to God is an error, because it everything in science is well explainable without God. Our argument is simple enough already, that our faith tells us god made such amazing and complex things.

I really do not think you need faith to see the creator, you do need faith to please God. And everything in science is NOT explained well without God. That is the point. We are a in a universe that requires the input of information. The entire universe testifies of God. Even in the book of Romans it states such, so that we are without excuse.

It has been said that Shakespeare didn’t write those plays, so how do we know that the monkeys didn’t write them in the first place?

Well... Because I wrote them and sent them back in my time machine. Shakespeare was the guy that found them.

Shakespeare helped Jack Weston write screenplays on the Twilight Zone.

Ok, I'll tell the truth. I stole the "Shakspeare" plays from Jack Weston. Sent them back in time and Shakespeare found them. You were going to figure it out anyway.

“Being outside all perception, there is no chance of proving or directly disproving the possibility of the multiverse.”

That’s really the only argument you need. It is a hypothesis that science can never test, therefore it is outside the bounds of naturalistic science. It may be theology, or philosophy, but “multiverse theory” is definitely not science.

“But using science to bring people to God is an error, because it everything in science is well explainable without God.”

That’s only true when science sticks to its proper domain. Nowadays, with things like this “multiverse theory”, science is peddling things that are outside the domain of naturalism and calling it “science”. Scientists have decided to infringe on the territory of theologians and philosophers, yet they are not following the proper rules for either of those disciplines.

A proper scientist, when asked if other universes could exist, would say that we don’t know and science can never tell us, not try to use the existence of an unproven possibility to get around fatal flaws in evolutionary theory.

monkeys typing away at keyboards would inevitably result in coherent speech

That is what you questioned after accepting the notion of six monkeys that would live forever, and six typewriters that never would wear out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.