Science

Archived Posts from this Category

October 17, 2012

Can the universe come from nothing? If so, I want nothing for Christmas.

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Naturalism, Science, Theistic Arguments
1 Comment 

Luke A. Barnes, a specialist in astro-physics and researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, has an excellent quote responding to those who claim it’s possible that the universe could have come into being from nothing: 

The claim regarding a universe coming from nothing is either nonsensical or a non-explanation. If we use the dictionary definition of ‘nothing’ – not anything – then a universe coming from nothing is as impossible as a universe created by a married bachelor. Nothing is not a type of thing, and thus has no properties. If you’re talking about something from which a universe can come, then you aren’t talking about nothing. ‘Nothing’ has no charge in the same sense that the C-major scale has no charge – it doesn’t have the property at all. Alternatively, one could claim that the universe could have come from nothing by creatively redefining ‘nothing’. ‘Nothing’ must become a type of something, a something with the rather spectacular property of being able to create the entire known universe. It’s an odd thing to call `nothing’ – I wouldn’t complain if I got one for Christmas.[1]

Love it!

[1]Luke A. Barnes, “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life,” 21 December 2011; available from http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647; Internet; accessed 16 April 2012; page 67.

 

October 5, 2012

An Atheist Explains Why Many Scientists So Vehemently Oppose Intelligent Design

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Naturalism, Science
[3] Comments 

In his new book, atheist Thomas Nagel had some interesting things to say about why scientists are so opposed to Intelligent Design: “Nevertheless, I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion.” – Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 12.

 

July 10, 2012

Another Scientist Claiming that the Laws of Physics + Time = Protons and Plato

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Naturalism, Science, Theistic Arguments
[10] Comments 

Astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the Universityof California, Berkeley took part in a panel discussion on June 23, 2012 at the SETICon 2 conference on the topic “Did the Big Bang Require a Divine Spark?”  Taking a page out of the playbooks of Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, Filippenko claimed that “the Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes.”[1] If the laws of physics are responsible for churning out universes, then the ultimate question is not the origin of the universe, but the origin of the laws of physics.  Where did they come from?  Filippenko recognizes this problem, saying “The question, then, is, ‘Why are there laws of physics?’  And you could say, ‘Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.’”[2] 

(more…)

 

July 3, 2012

Is Science Superior to Religion Because Science Can Be Mistaken?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Logic, Science
[32] Comments 

Recently I listened to the debate between Peter Atkins and Callum Miller.  As usual, Atkins was short on arguments and long on ad hominems, although I must admit that he was more civil in this debate than usual.  One of the things Atkins said, however, caught my attention.  He said that one of the advantages of science over religion is that in science, one can be wrong, whereas in religion one is never allowed to be wrong.  I’ve heard other atheists make the same claim.  I find it interesting because whether it’s true or false, it’s irrelevant.  

(more…)

 

June 25, 2012

Quote of the Day: C.S. Lewis on the limits and findings of science

Posted by Jason Dulle under Quote of the Day, Science
Leave a Comment 

“[C.S.] Lewis insists that, because science confines its examination to the universe, it’s natural that science discovers nothing beyond it.” — David Bagget and Jerry Walls in their book, Good God.

 

May 22, 2012

Do Quantum Mechanics Invalidate the Causal Principle?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Science, Theistic Arguments
[33] Comments 

Premise one of the kalam cosmological argument (KCA) states that everything which begins to exist has a cause.  It goes on to reason that since the universe began to exist, it too requires a cause.  Given the properties required of such a cause, the KCA is a powerful argument for a personal creator God.  

To avoid the conclusion of the argument many new atheist-types take exception with the causal principle embodied in premise 1.  Quantum physics, they say, has shown that there can be effects without causes.  And if quantum events do not need causes, then perhaps the universe doesn’t either.  

(more…)

 

April 23, 2012

Richard Dawkins doesn’t know the first thing about philosophy

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Dawkins, Philosophy, Science
[55] Comments 

During his recent dialogue with Archbishop Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins invoked the anthropic principle to say that even if the origin of life is improbable, it “had to” happen at least once on this planet since we are here.[1]  At that point the moderator, Anthony Kenny, an agnostic philosopher, asked Dawkins what kind of necessity he had in mind when he said life “had to” originate here.  Kenny noted that there are two kinds of necessity: metaphysical necessity and epistemic necessity.  Metaphysical necessity means it is impossible that some X not exist, whereas epistemic necessity means it is impossible not to know that some X is true.  He went on to explain that epistemic necessity does not entail metaphysical necessity, so while it may be epistemically necessary that we exist (we cannot not know that we exist), it does not mean we had to exist.  Our existence may be contingent, even if knowledge of our existence is not.  As expected, Dawkins clarified that he was not saying our existence was necessary, but only that it there can be no doubt that life did arise at least on this planet since we are alive.  

What struck me about Dawkins’ response was not his answer to the question, but what he said immediately before his answer: “I don’t know the words ‘epistemic’ and so on, so I’m not going to use that.”  Really?  That is a term so basic to the study of philosophy that no student could pass an intro-to-philosophy course without knowing it.  It leads me to believe that Dawkins does not know the first thing about philosophy (which should not be surprising to anyone who is familiar with Dawkins’ arguments).  

(more…)

 

April 3, 2012

NYT reviews Lawrence Krauss’ new book on why something exists rather than nothing…and it isn’t pretty

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Naturalism, Science
[22] Comments 

Physicist Lawrence Krauss’ new book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing, purports to answer the age-old philosophical question of why there is something rather than nothing from a scientific, rather than philosophical or religious perspective.  In the book’s afterword Richard Dawkins announces that Krauss has triumphed in his quest:

Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, “Why is there something rather than nothing?,” shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If On the Origin of Species was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see A Universe From Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.

Columbia professor of philosophy, David Albert, couldn’t disagree more.  In his scathing review for the New York Times, Albert points out that Krauss has not answered the question at all.

(more…)

 

January 30, 2012

If Intelligent Design is Science, Why Do So Many Scientists and Scientific Institutions Denounce It?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Science
[97] Comments 

The Best Schools interviewed leading Intelligent Design theorist, Bill Dembski.  At one point he was asked, “You have stated that ‘design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds.’ But then why is the ID movement so heavily populated with religious believers? Could we not expect more of the scientific community to support ID if your statement were true? Why do the majority of the world’s leading scientific bodies oppose ID and claim that it does not qualify as science?”

This is a valid question, and I’m sure it is on the minds of many people who are interested in the debate.  I like Dembski’s answer:

As for why religious believers tend to be associated with design, I could turn the question around. If Darwinian evolution is strictly scientific, then why is that field so heavily populated with atheists? In one survey of around 150 prominent evolutionary biologists, only two were religious believers (as I recall, Will Provine was behind this survey). I see a scientific core to both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution. And I see no merit in questioning their scientific status by the company they keep. The character of the proposals that both approaches make is what really ought to count.

 

HT: Uncommon Descent

 

January 30, 2012

Demanding the Impossible: Empiricists Demand the Wrong Kind of Evidence for God’s Existence

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Philosophy, Science, Theistic Arguments
[30] Comments 

When dealing with an empiricist who wants evidence that God exists, and yet thinks evidence—for it to be considered evidence—must be empirical in nature, ask him the following question: “What kind of empirical evidence could possibly be given for an immaterial being such as God?”  If they say “none,” then point out that they are asking for the impossible.  What would it prove, then, if you cannot deliver?  Nothing.  It just proves that the wrong question is being asked.

Insisting on empirical evidence before one will believe in the existence of God is like insisting on chemical evidence of your wife’s love for you before you’ll believe she loves you.  One cannot supply chemical proof for love, and neither can one supply empirical proof of God’s existence, but that does not mean either is false.  The problem is not a lack of evidence for God’s existence, but an arbitrary restraint on the kind of evidence the atheist is willing to accept as evidence.  That is what needs to be challenged.  Empirical evidence is not the only kind of evidence one can appeal to in support of a claim.

(more…)

 

January 4, 2012

Stephen Hawking: God Could not Create the Universe Because There Was No Time for Him to Do So

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Cosmological Argument, Naturalism, Science, Theism, Theistic Arguments
[448] Comments 

Several months ago the Discovery Channel aired a television series featuring Stephen Hawking called Curiosity.  Whereas in his book The Grand Design Hawking claimed that God is not necessary to explain the origin of the universe given the existence of physical laws such as gravity, in Curiosity he argued that God could not have created the universe because there was no time in which God could have done so:

[D]o we need a God to set it all up so a Big Bang can bang? … Our everyday experience makes us convinced that everything that happens must be caused by something that occurred earlier in time.  So it’s natural for us to assume that something—perhaps God—must have caused the universe to come into existence.  But when we’re talking about the universe as a whole, that isn’t necessarily so.
(more…)

 

December 28, 2011

Why Think All Questions Have Scientific Answers?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Science
[28] Comments 

Scientists working in origin of life research are fairly candid that they do not know how life originated, but they are quick to point out that they are making progress and that science will eventually be able to provide an answer to this question.  I have always found this sort of faith in science a bit intriguing.  It is just assumed that there must be a naturalistic cause/explanation for the origin of life, and that we will eventually be able to discover it.  But why should we think this to be true?  Given what needs to be explained (the origin of biological information), and given our understanding of the causal powers of naturalistic processes, the origin of life does not appear to be the kind of thing for which natural causes are adequate to explain it even in principle (See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).

(more…)

 

November 16, 2011

Cosmologist George Ellis on the Multiverse

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Naturalism, Science
[7] Comments 

In the August 2011 edition of Scientific American, famed cosmologist, George Ellis, wrote an article titled “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?”  Here are some great excerpts from that article:

“Similar claims [about a multiverse] have been made since antiquity by many cultures.  What is new is the assertion that the multiverse is a scientific theory, with all that implies about being mathematically rigorous and experimentally testable.  I am skeptical about this claim.  I do not believe the existence of those other universes has been proved—or ever could be.  Proponents of the multiverse, as well as greatly enlarging our conception of physical reality, are implicitly redefining what is meant by ‘science.’”—pg 39

(more…)

 

September 2, 2011

“Evolution is Slower than We Think”

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Science
Leave a Comment 

Recently an article appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences[1] which concluded that observed changes in biological populations are usually short-lived, and typically fail to spread through the entire species.  According to lead author and zoologist Josef Uyeda (Oregon State University), “Rapid evolution is clearly a reality over fairly short time periods, sometimes just a few generations. But those rapid changes do not always persist and may be confined to small populations. For reasons that are not completely clear, the data show the long-term dynamics of evolution to be quite slow.”  He and his team concluded that it takes approximately one million years for a biological change to take root in a population.

(more…)

 

August 24, 2011

The (In)adequacy of Darwinian Evolution

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Naturalism, Science
[3] Comments 

Just up at the Institute for Biblical Studies: “The (In)adequacy of Darwinian Evolution.”

 

August 23, 2011

Life Got Older Again

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Science
Leave a Comment 

Back in March I blogged about new research which called into question whether life has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years.  A fossil believed to be a bacteria is now thought to be a hermatite (a mineral), making the oldest life form 2 billion years old.  Now a 3.4 billion year old extremophile fossil has been discovered inAustralia.  The organism is thought to have been sulfur-based rather than oxygen-based.

Such is the nature of science.  Life gets a 1.5 billion year age reduction in a single day, and then a few months later, it ages quickly to just 100 million years short of its original mark.

HT: Uncommon Descent

 

April 14, 2011

Ex-Global Warming Supporter Reveals Why He Changed His Mind, and Why Global Warming “Science” has Ceased to be Science

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Political Incorrectness, Science
Leave a Comment 

David Evans once believed in global warming, and even advised the Department of Climate Change in Australia.  He has since changed his mind because the empirical evidence has not confirmed the original predictions.  In fact, it has disproven them.  He admits that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet, but it is clear that humans are not solely responsible for the warming, and can do little to change it.  He ends the article by saying:

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler! … Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

I would highly recommend you read the article.  I’ve read a number of articles on this topic over the last few years, but few have broken the issue down as clearly and concisely as Mr. Evans has.

 

March 23, 2011

Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Naturalism, Science
Leave a Comment 

Those aren’t my words (although I concur with them).  Those are the words of John Horgan, a science journalist and former editor of Scientific American.  Horgan recently published an article in Scientific American discussing the dismal state of origin-of-life research.  He describes the research as being at an “impasse,” and resorting to “far out…speculation” as exemplified by the theory of panspermia (life originated in outer space and was brought to earth).

Just one week prior to the publication of Horgan’s article, science writer Dennis Overbye published an article in the New York Times on the same subject.  He reported on an origin-of-life conference at Arizona State University in which two dozen top-ranking scientists from a variety of disciplines converged to discuss the problem.  While Overbye touted the RNA World hypothesis, he noted that “one lesson of the meeting was how finicky are the chemical reactions needed for carrying out these simple-sounding functions,” and “even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small.”

It’s not often that the public is made aware of the fact that scientists have no adequate naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, so it’s refreshing to see this being discussed by ideological opponents in venues as important as the New York Times.

 

March 18, 2011

Life just got younger: Age of oldest life reconsidered

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Science
[3] Comments 

Ponce de Leon may not have discovered the fountain of youth, but life just got younger nonetheless.  Scientists have long held that life has existed on Earth for 3.5 billion years based on what was thought to be fossilized bacteria discovered in a rock in Australia.  That research has been called into serious question by new research.  Geologists at the University of Kansas have concluded that the structures in question are hematites (a mineral), not bacteria.  If their findings are confirmed, then life will be downgraded from 3.5 billion years old to 2 billion years old.

This is both good and bad for materialists.  (more…)

 

March 17, 2011

Science Cannot Prove the Universe is Eternal

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Epistemology, Science, Theistic Arguments
[17] Comments 

In an earlier post I argued that the nature of science is such that it cannot demonstrate an entity/event to be uncaused, and thus scientific discoveries can never inveigh against the causal premise (“whatever begins to exist has a cause”) of the kalam cosmological argument (KCA) for God’s existence.  Here I want to extend the discussion to the cosmological premise (“the universe began to exist”) of the KCA as well.

The contrapositive of the second premise is “the universe is eternal.”  The nature of science, however, renders it incapable of demonstrating the universe to be eternal even if the universe were eternal.  Why?  Science is an empirical discipline based on what can be observed and quantified.  For science to prove that the universe is eternal, it would have to do so empirically.  But this is impossible.  An eternal past cannot be observed or quantified.

(more…)

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »