On Goals

It has often been recommended to me that I write down my goals.  This is probably because it's an important thing to do.

A Little Nervous

It makes me a little bit nervous to think about my specific goals.  It's easy to think about my general goals, e.g. learn truth, live my life for the highest priorities, help people, do good, etc.  But, when I try to define those things more, I get a bit nervous because it is difficult to do and I don't want to be wrong.

Points on Productivity

Luke, at the Less Wrong community, wrote an interesting post about several things, one of which was productivity.

The points I found interesting were the following:

Addicted to Audio

I've been listening to a lot of mp3s lately.

My job allows me to listen to several hours of audio almost every day while I work.  It's pretty awesome.

Here are some of the podcasts that I've been listening to:

Book Blog 2: There is a God

Arguments

One of the arguments the contributed to Flew's change of mind about God was the cosmological argument.  It goes something like the following:

1. Everything that exists had a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
4. That cause was God.


Now, this argument is very old, and Flew surely knew about it in his days as an atheist.  But, due to the advances in science, e.g. the big bang theory, certain premises of the cosmological argument began to receive scientific support.  For example, the big bang theory states that there once was a beginning of time.  This is a crucial discovery because previously, the prevailing theory was that the universe was eternal (and therefore had no cause.  This used to be the main objection to the cosmological argument).   Therefore, the big bang theory is cited as scientific support for points 1-3, above.

Limits 
(I'm always pleased when the limits of an argument are openly acknowledged)

Point 4 above is controversial because it doesn't necessarily follow from the previous points. The cause of the universe could be something other than God.  For example, it might have been an alien from another universe.  The argument doesn't necessarily say anything about the nature of the cause.  Ultimately, in order to establish that God was the cause of the universe, one would need more corroborating evidence.

Another objection is that point 1 is true for causes and effects within this universe.  Therefore, it's not necessarily true for causes and effects outside of this universe.  So, some say that it doesn't necessarily follow to conclude that there was a cause of the universe that came from outside the universe, e.g. God.

Book Blog 1: There is a God

One of the most influential atheist philosophers of the twentieth century was a man called Antony Flew.  While a young grad student, he wrote a wildly popular paper called Theology and Falsification.  Not long after that, Flew became the leading defender of atheism in the philosophical world.

Conversion

In an interesting turn of events in 2004, after 50 years of defending atheism, Flew changed his mind about God and became a deist.  This conversion was not without controversy.  Some, including Richard Dawkins, alleged that Flew had become senile.  I don't know if this is true.  But, in an interview about his conversion, Flew seemed a bit absent-minded, and I thought he was a little off-base with a few of his comments.

In 2007, Flew wrote a book with Roy Abraham Varghese called There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind.  It lays out the general case for the existence of God that Flew believes in.  Being a deist, he has much less to say about the specific characteristics of God than proponents of specific religions, such as Christianity.  This somewhat minimalist approach to describing God was fascinating and refreshing to me.

Ideas

Flew is known for popularizing the presumption of atheism.  This is an idea that says that one should approach the question of the existence of God from the position of a lack of belief in God.  In other words, the proper starting point should be one with no prior belief in God.  Then, upon analyzing the arguments and evidence for and against God's existence, one should alter one's beliefs according to the strength of the evidence.

This method of following the evidence wherever it leads is what led Flew to believe in a God.

Book Blog 3: Darwin's Black Box

It has been recommended to me that I read the book called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  I plan to do just that, and blog through it until I'm finished.

The book was written by Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.  He is an Intelligent Design Theory advocate, and has popularized an argument for this theory from irreducible complexity. 

He is not a young-earth creationist.  Instead, he believes the earth and universe are billions of years old, and also that all biological life share a common ancestor.

--------------------------

Positive Argument 

Behe's positive (inductive) argument for intelligent design goes something like the following:

1. Certain molecular processes exist that are irreducibly complex.

2. Certain mechanical devices (e.g. mousetrap) exist that are irreducibly complex.
3. Those mechanical devices are a product of intelligent design.
4. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that certain complex molecular processes that are irreducibly complex are a product of intelligent design.


The bulk of Behe's book was spent on supporting point 1 because it is the crux of his argument.  Points 2 and 3 are probably undisputed by proponents of Darwinism, but I'm sure point 1 is disputed.  So, if Behe can succeed in supporting point 1, then point 4 potentially is a reasonable conclusion.

My Conclusions


I was pleasantly surprised by this book.  Granted, I'm not an expert in the field of biochemistry, so much of Behe's critique of Darwinism at the molecular level could be unfounded.  But, as far as I could tell his claims are supported enough to be scientifically considered.

Speaking of scientific, I was very pleased to hear that his claims were scientific, rather than of faith.  In fact, issues of faith were only mentioned toward the end of the book when Behe was listing some potential implications of intelligent design theory.

If...

If Behe's argument succeeds, then there is established scientific evidence for intelligence that designed some molecular processes.  This conclusion, I think, is one that Behe could agree with.

What one might notice are the limits of the conclusion.  That there was intelligence behind the design of some molecular processes doesn't say much about the nature of that intelligence.  Therefore, many questions are left for us.  Is the intelligence supernatural or natural?  Omniscient? Omnipotent? Loving? Just? Eternal?

I don't know.  Let's continue to search.

Book Blog 2: Darwin's Black Box

It has been recommended to me that I read the book called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  I plan to do just that, and blog through it until I'm finished.

The book was written by Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.  He is an Intelligent Design Theory advocate, and has popularized an argument for this theory from irreducible complexity. 

He is not a young-earth creationist.  Instead, he believes the earth and universe are billions of years old, and also that all biological life shares a common ancestor.

---

Evidence

In chapter 8, Behe shows the results of his examination of the scientific literature that deals specifically with the processes of molecular evolution.

Though there are some journals and textbooks that have attempted to explain the details of molecular evolution, Behe's conclusion is that there is little, if any, published scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution has produced molecular processes.

I imagine that saying this has gotten him a lot of flack. 

Falsification

Perhaps contrary to Darwin's statement about the falsification of his own theory, Behe says that,

"there is no magic point of irreducible complexity at which Darwinism is logically impossible."

This idea reminds me of an accusation I heard by an ID proponent against a Darwinist, i.e. that whenever there is some genuine scientific ignorance about a specific evolutionary process a Darwinist can always give their fall-back explanation, Darwinism.  This has been called the "Darwinism of the Gaps" argument, which is meant to bring to mind the fallacious argument called the "God of the Gaps."

Defense

To close out the book, Behe gives a defense of the theory of Intelligent Design against specific arguments against it.

In my opinion, what was crucial in this part of the book was that it came after Behe had actually made a positive argument for design, rather than only a negative argument against Darwinism.  As I've said before, this is necessary in order to convince people of a theory.  It is not enough to only argue against competing theories.

Therefore, I commend Dr. Behe for putting forth a positive argument rather than expecting that negative arguments against Darwinism should count as positive evidence for his own theory.

Book Blog: Darwin's Black Box

It has been recommended to me that I read the book called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  I plan to do just that, and blog through it until I'm finished.

The book was written by Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.  He is an Intelligent Design Theory advocate, and has popularized an argument for this theory from irreducible complexity.  


He is not a young-earth creationist.  Instead, he believes the earth and universe are billions of years old, and also that all biological life shares a common ancestor.

--------------------------

Defining Terms

In the preface, Behe defines the word evolution as he uses it in the book:

"a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means."

The first half of his definition, i.e. "a process whereby life arose from non-living matter," probably has caused some disagreement, because some would call that abiogenesis.  I would guess that a more agreeable definition of evolution would be only the second half of Behe's definition, i.e. "[a process whereby life] developed entirely by natural means."  The difference is that, according to some, evolution assumes life, whereas abiogenesis does not.

Behe defines a black box as,

"a device that does something, but whose inner workings are mysterious." 

He says that the cell is biology's black box.

Irreducible complexity is defined by Behe as the characteristic of a

"single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

He claims that such systems cannot come into existence by gradual, slight, successive modifications to a precursor system.  This (controversial) idea is foundational to his positive argument for intelligent design.

Book's Outline

Behe outlines his book in the following way:

Part I: Background Information - non-technical.
Part II: Example Chapters - technical.
Part III: Implications - non-technical.

Falsification

Behe realizes the importance that a scientific theory has the characteristic of falsification.  Therefore, he quotes Darwin saying,

"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." (emphasis mine)

One problem with this quote is that to "prove a negative" is either extremely difficult or impossible (I haven't decided yet...).  Therefore, I'm confident that it has caused, and will cause, a good deal of controversy.

He claims that biochemistry, via the tools of electron microscopy and crystallography, has pushed the theory of evolution to the limits because, he says, there's little to no evidence in the scientific journals and publications for how evolution produces complex molecules and processes, e.g. cilia, flagella, blood clotting.

Conversations with JW's: Genealogical Discrepancies

Every week or two I have been chatting with various Jehovah's Witnesses.  They bring me some of their literature to read, and the following week we discuss what I read.

It's usually a very intellectually stimulating time because new ideas are being communicated, different beliefs are colliding, and we are trying to be polite and articulate.

-------------------

Like other faithful Christians, the Jehovah's Witnesses told me that the Bible is completely true.

I responded by saying that I haven't seen the evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. Then, I showed them a potential contradiction in the Bible, i.e. the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

A week later, they brought to me a researched explanation of why the apparently discrepant genealogies are not in contradiction. I appreciated their effort, read their explanation, and formulated a response. It was the following:

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke refer to two different men as the father of Joseph, husband of Mary, the father of Jesus.

Here is a summary of your argument for reconciling this apparent contradiction:

1. If Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli (instead of his son), and
2. If Luke wrote that Joseph was the son of Heli using a Hebrew custom of referring to a son-in-law as a son,
3. Then, Luke's genealogy doesn't contradict Matthew's genealogy when they refer to two different men as the father of Joseph.

If points 1 and 2 are true, then I would agree that 3 is true, as well. Unfortunately, I don't know of any evidence for points 1 and 2. In fact, I know of an orthodox Jewish man who says that there was no custom like the one mentioned in 2, and he knows of not one example of this custom being used in the Old Testament.

Conclusion

Therefore, I cannot say that 1 and 2 are true, and thus, I cannot say that 3 is true. The Bible is apparently in contradiction with itself. Due to this reason, I disagree with the claim of my Jehovah's Witnesses friends that the Bible is completely true.

If anyone, Jehovah's Witness or not, can show me how they know that 1 and 2 are true, please let me know.

JW's Intelligent Design Magazine

Every week or two I have been chatting with various Jehovah's Witnesses.  They bring me some of their literature to read, and the following week we discuss what I read.

It's usually a very intellectually stimulating time because new ideas are being communicated, different beliefs are colliding, and we are trying to be polite and articulate.

-------------------

The last piece of their literature that I read is called The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking.  This magazine spends most of its pages describing the immense amount of complexity within biological systems, especially within the cell.  This I expected.  

What I did not expect was just how little it would make positive arguments for design.  This suggests that perhaps they've mistakenly presented a false dilemma, which is that if evolution hasn't been shown to have been able to produce the amount of biological complexity we have observed, then therefore something must have intelligently designed it.  This is not a good argument because it is a non-sequitur.

To criticize an opposing theory rarely counts as evidence for one's own theory.  In the debate between evolution and intelligent design, it does not.  Therefore, in order for the theory of intelligent design to be considered true, one needs to make strong arguments for it.  Therefore, the magazine should have spent more of its pages developing the argument for why and how biological complexity is evidence for intelligent design.

For example, the magazine could've attempted to develop the following inductive argument:


Certain biological systems can be observed in the world.
Certain mechanical systems, which have been intelligently designed, can be observed in the world.
These two types of systems are fundamentally similar.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that certain biological systems have been intelligently designed.

Contrary to the magazine's authors, biological complexity does not have the luxury of "speaking for itself."  To argue for a certain theory, it's not enough to point out biological complexity and the areas where Darwinian theory falls short.

Rather, one's theory needs to be argued for, and strongly, just as the author has demanded of the proponents of Darwinian evolution.

Book Blog 6: 50 Years from Today

I've finished the book called 50 Years from Today.  

I am surprised by the amount of emphasis that each author put on the issue of climate change.  This could have happened due to an agenda that the author had, but even if that was true, many intelligent authors explicitly mentioned the significance of this issue.

I am excited by the emphasis that the authors put on the issue of technological advancement.  There was a range of opinion, with some stating that technology will continue to make our lives better, to some stating that technological advancement will put us on a roller-coaster of dramatic life change over the next century and beyond.

Another exciting emphasis of the book was the great potential for medical science to treat, if not cure, many of the terrible diseases that plague us today.  These authors are definitely pro-vaccine, pro-genetic engineering, and pro-evidence-based medicine.  There were not many mentions at all of the need to come out against these things in favor of homeopathic methods, organic farming, or faith-based approaches.  Again, this could be an agenda of the editor, but many authors did explicitly mention the importance of being in favor of these issues.

Conclusions:

This book has excited me for the future.  It has increased my hope in the potential of humanity to continue to progress against causes of suffering in the world.  I hope we use this potential for good, and learn to seek together for that which is true while the ecological and social environment in which we find ourselves continues along its path of potentially drastic change.

I'm left with the question, "What is the most important thing I can do in order to bring about the most significant positive change?"

Book Blog 5: 50 Years from Today

I've been slowly reading the book called 50 Years from Today. It is an interesting collection of short writings by 60 influential people in the world in 2008.

I like the book because it shows a glimpse into the minds of intellectual people when they think about what life in the near future might be like.

Many of the writers predict that technology will play a huge part in transforming many different areas of life including healthcare, transportation, international relations, and commerce.

----------------------

In chapter 58, John C. Mather predicts that we will discover other earth-like planets elsewhere in the galaxy.  He also warns us that we may lose our way, as the people of ancient Alexandria, Egypt lost their way when their great library was burned, and the progress of knowledge was significantly slowed.  He admits that it would be much more difficult for us to lose our accumulated scientific knowledge today because of the internet.

In chapter 59, Ahmed Zewail reminds us that predictions of the future have often failed.  For example, Thomas Watson, the founder of IBM, predicted in 1943 that the world had a market for about five computers.  Due to progress in nanotechnology, Zewail predicts that we may have recreated a biological cell with all its intricacies in the form of a nano-machine.  Also, Zewail warns us that cheap and powerful technology will be accessible to more and more of the impoverished people of the world.  This may result, he says, in violent conflicts of a type that we have not seen before.  Lastly, Zewail highlights the importance of faith as a significant source of meaning of life.  This point of his was an uncommon one in this book. 

In chapter 60, Ross Gelbspan mentions that three prominent environmental scientists have said that humanity is either close to or beyond the point of no return in terms of staving off major climate impacts.  He fears that we will deal with these impacts by resorting to totalitarianism.  He hopes that these impacts will cause us to reform the energy sector of the world economy, thus bringing about a realization of our outdated and toxic nationalism that we have long outgrown.  He rounds out the last chapter of the book with a call to balance ourselves between the extremes of totalitarianism and laissez faire capitalism.