Replies

Er, if I may get a few cents into your discussion here – since I proposed the 9 challenges.

First and most importantly, the challenges are things to which an atheist (metaphysical naturalist) would have to have a scientifically or mathematically plausible explanation in order to defeat the claim that atheism is a religion – a rejection of God in favor of self. The challenges are not “proofs” for believers – such proofs are not necessary since believers already believe, i.e. are religious.

Secondly, orionblamblam, you’ve cut my phrasings short and have presented equally short retorts which are reactions and not "scientifically or mathematically plausible explanations".

Here’s the whole list and your responses in italics, my response follows:

1. He'd have to prove that there was no beginning of space/time, i.e. a "steady state universe". That would disprove all cosmologies since the 1960’s including big bang, ekpyrotic, multi-verse, multi-world and imaginary time. This is of course not possible because the universe is expanding, space/time is finite, there was a beginning, an uncaused cause, i.e. God!

A1: i.e.... somethign entirely else. "I don't know" does not equal God.

Not responsive, the challenge is not a proof of God. For a metaphysical naturalist to assert his position is not a religion, he’d need to have a material explanation for there being a beginning of space/time.

2. He'd have to prove a natural source for information in the universe and then translate it to information in biological life. This does not mean the DNA, but the communications that occur in living creatures - reduction of uncertainty of a molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. [Shannon] It is an action, not a message – i.e. a life force Possible but unexplored causes include harmonics, a universal vacuum field, geometry which gives rise to strings – all of which have a Scriptural root, i.e. God speaking it all into being, Creator outside space/time.

A2: Scientists ahve made living things (polio virii) from non-living molecular components. No "life force" was injected.

Not responsive, the question goes to the force of life and not the molecular machinery, i.e. what causes the reduction of uncertainty in the molecular machine going from a before state to an after state.

In the polio virus experiment, “they used a natural enzyme to copy the DNA into RNA--the genetic material used by the virus nature created. Finally, they stuck the RNA into a special sauce filled with chemicals and bits of cellular machinery, such as protein factories called ribosomes. Almost magically, the RNA copied itself and began to make the proteins and other components of the real virus. The result: complete viruses that are just as infectious as their natural counterparts.” Developments to watch

In the first place it was structured entirely around mimicking observed nature with primarily natural ingredients.

More importantly, the experiment does not address at all how the reduction of uncertainty in the molecular machine originated – which was the point of challenge #2.

3. He'd have to prove a natural source for the will to live, the want to live or struggle to survive that characterizes life. IOW, self-replication is not enough. In an embryo, if the cells simply self-replicated the result would be a tumor. In life, the cells are organized into functional molecular machines which communicate together striving as one organism to live. Why does the organism have a will to live? Why should the component machinery (cardiovascual, neural, etc.) cooperate to that end?

A3: Because if it didn't, it wouldn't live, and thus wouldn't reproduce.

The response is neither science nor mathematics – it is the anthropic principle – a statement of faith.

4. He'd have to explain how the incredibly delicate physical constants, physical laws and asymmetry between matter and anti-matter came to be so perfectly balanced. A slight change one way or the other and there would be no life, or no universe at all.

A4: Change the laws, and we become impossible. But change the laws and something *else* becomes possible.

The response is neither science nor mathematics – it is the anthropic principle – a statement of faith.

5. He'd have to explain out of all the possible spatial and temporal dimensions why our vision and mind are tuned to a particular selection of four coordinates – why not three or five, etc.

A5: These are the ones that are useful for perception of our environment.

The response is neither science nor mathematics – it is the anthropic principle – a statement of faith.

6. He'd have to explain how biological semiosis arose through natural means. Semiosis refers to the language or symbols of communication in biological life - the encoding and decoding. This has two sides, the language itself and the understanding of it. Where’d it come from?

A6: Look up the experiments of Urey, and the follow-on experiments of Fox.

AFAIK, Rocha and Kauffman are the main investigators to this subject and thus far, there is no plausible answer.

7. He'd have to explain how functional complexity arose through natural means – why and how molecular machines organized around functions to the benefit of the greater organism. Of particular interest would be the functions which would not work if any part were missing – i.e. cardiovascular without the lungs, nervous system without the brain, etc.

A7: Lungs and Brains aren't needed for life; note your nearest amoeba.

Not responsive to the question – why does complexity organize around function.

8. He’d have to explain how eyes developed concurrently across phyla – i.e. vertebrates and invertebrates – and why there have been virtually no new body plans since the Cambrian Explosion. Immutable regulatory control genes is all I can think of. But why would they in particular be immutable?

A8-b: Because optimums can be reached. There's a reason why really fast submersibles tend to look like fish, and why subsonic aircraft look like birds or insects (helicopters). Natural forces mean that certain forms function better than others. How effective would a fish shaped like, say, a mastodon be?

Again not responsive to the question at hand. Please review:

How the Eye got its Brain

Master Control Genes

No new body plan theories

9. He’d have to have a natural explanation for qualia – likes and dislikes, pain and pleasure, love and hate, good and evil, etc. – consciousness and the mind.

A9: Without them you die and don't reproduce.

Not responsive to the question – how did qualia come into existence?