Laws of Thought

Logic is the tool of philosophy which forms the foundational assumptions for the scientific method. These assumptions form the “laws of thought" that are essential to science and intuitively known by everyone. They are:

1. Law of identity: An object can not have two identities; a tree is not a telephone pole, a dog is not a cat.

2. Law of non-contradiction: A premise can not be both true and false at the same time.

3. Law of excluded middle: Something is or it is not; God either exists or he does not.

I am a Christian, not because someone told me it was true, but because it is a rational system that describes reality. For a system to be rational, it needs to be coherent. Christianity is certainly coherent even if it's premises are disputed. It offers a consistent description of why the Universe exists, its purpose and destinty.

For proof, I offer not only that which can be empirically validated (using the scientific method), but also that which can be logically inferred (using inductive and deductive reasoning) beyond a reasonable doubt. And, while I don't require a belief to be absolutely certain in order to accept it, still, it must be very close. In order for my faith to develop, it must do so on the rock of rationality.

For example, I may not be absolutely certain about my fate after death, but I am so confident (98%) in my belief in the afterlife that the difference is negligible and faith fills in the rest.

And, proof for me is not so much the positive affirmation of a belief but also how it stands up to negative attacks. Or, put another way, my beliefs are not formed by merely finding positive support for them - that's usually very easy - but, they must also withstand attacks to destroy them. In fact, my experience is that beliefs are made stronger by attempts to refute them (or discarded if they fail to measure up).

In the final analysis, when choosing between competing beliefs, the one that offers the most complete description of reality is most often the one that is more reasonable to believe. It is extremely important to understand there are meaningful aspects of the human experience and significant questions that science is not equipped to directly answer. Therefore, one must look to logic to validate or reject a potential belief.

So, the proofs that convinced me of the rationality for God's existence are not solely based on empirical evidence, but also on logical reasoning based on the “laws of thought.”

What is Logic?

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. Author of several books on logic and mathematics, Irving M. Copi wrote, "The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which logic deals."

Put more simply, logic is the science of reasoning.

What is reasoning? Reasoning can be defined as a type of thinking in which an inference occurs.

What is an inference? An inference is the process of drawing a conclusion from a one or more propositions which are either true or false.

What is a proposition? A proposition is merely a sentence that is either true or false.

Propositions are grouped to form arguments. An argument is a group of propositions, one leading to the next, that results in a conclusion.

Arguments, then, are structured forms of reasoning.

Arguments can be deductive or inductive. In a deductive argument, the conclusion necessarily follows from the propositions. For example:

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Deductive arguments are evaluted as either valid or invalid. This is important to understand because deductive argument can be valid but untrue. For example:

All humans have 3 legs.
Roy is a human.
Therefore, Roy has 3 legs.

The argument above has a valid form but its untrue premises render it invalid.

An inductive argument proceeds from specific observations to a general conclusion. For example:

All cows are mammals and have lungs.
All dogs are mammals and have lungs.
All cats are mammals and have lungs.
Therefore, all mammals (probably) have lungs.

Unlike the deductive argument, in an inductive argument, the propositions provide support for the conclusion, but the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Inductive arguments are evaluted as better or worse based on the strength of their propositions.

So, in conjunction with the Laws of Thought, the task of the logician is to:
1. Identify the form of the argument
2. Determine the validity of the deductive argument
3. Evaluate the strength of an inductive argument.

References:
Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, 7th ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1986)
Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 1300 Crescent St., Wheaton IL 60187, ©2004.

The Cosmological Argument - Part 1

In order to keep these posts small and intellectually digestible I'm going to present the argument and the proof for its first proposition in this post and follow-up with the proof for the subsequent proposition in a later post. This approach will also help to keep the comments tightly focused.

The first argument is called the Cosmological Argument. There are several forms to this argument, but I will offer two of them. The first is has the following form:

Proposition 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Proposition 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Since argument is deductive, if I can prove both propositions to be true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. To render it invalid, only one of its propositions needs to be falsified.

Proposition 1 is supported by one of the strongest and universally maintained laws in existence; the Law of Causality. It's been expressed in various ways, but simply put it means that for every effect, there is a cause.

Without the Law of Causality, science would nearly be impossible since scientists seek causes in their experiments. Moreover, the law is universal because, while the law can't be proven, everyone intuitively understands that events have causes.

In fact, it's hard to imagine life any other way. Medical doctors search for the causes of diseases; lawyers seek to determine motives (cause) for a crime; software developers seek the causes of misbehaving programs.

But, perhaps most compelling of all, even denying the law proves it truthfulness because one can not deny the law without using the law in the process. For example, if someone were to say, "I deny the Law of Causality", simply ask, "What caused you to draw that conclusion?"

Therefore, since the Law of Causality is unquestionably accepted to be true, the first proposition of the Commological Argument has been proven to be true.

The Cosmological Argument - Part 2

I'm cutting to the chase, as the saying goes, and get right to the point. The comments are available for questions and feedback.

Einstein's General Relativity predicted a expanding universe that has been verified by the Big Bang Theory which postulates the Universe had a beginning. Scientists may argue over the details, but, ultimately, long ago, before time 0, there was no Universe, then suddenly, it sprang into existence.

Some thing caused the event or events that resulted in the Universe - the Universe did not appear on it's own and there's no definitive reason to believe that it did. Moreoever, in 1965 scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered cosmic background radiation from the initial Big Bang explosion that confirmed its occurrence. They won a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Next, in 1989, the NASA Satellite COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) detected primordial "Galactic Seeds" that formed the galaxies of the Universe. From these seeds, the Universe was formed and structured.

Either the Universe began to exist or it has always existed. The evidence provided by Galactic Seeds, the Big Bang, and the Laws of Thermodynamics more than prove the Universe had a beginning.

Are they absolute proof? No, but certainly, they are more experimentally verfiable than the alternative that the Universe had no beginning.

Thus, the weight of the evidence establishes the truth of my second proposition. Since both premises have been shown to be verificably true, it is certainly reasonable to believe the Universe was caused by some thing.

What was that some thing? In the next post, I'll connect that thing with God.

see:
Big Bang Theory
COBE
Galactic Seeds

An Layman's Primer on Thermodynamics

To setup the proof for the second proposition, a brief explanation of three foundational precepts to the study of Cosmology is necessary. These precepts are known as Thermodynamics, or the Laws of Energy, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which describes gravity, and a model of the Universe predicted by General Relativity known as the "Big Bang."

These scientific laws and theories will provide the proof for the second proposition of the Cosmological Argument.

We can all agree, I hope, that the Universe is filled with energy. Scientists recognize several forms of energy. Some of the more familiar forms are: chemical, nuclear, electrical, and mechanical. Still, regardless of its form, energy is transfered though heat flow, i.e., when heat is transfered from a warmer place to a cooler place.

Why? Because differences in temperature causes heat to flow. The bigger the difference in temperature, the faster heat flows until a uniform temperature is achieved. When temperatures are the same there is no heat flow and, thus, no change in energy.

The study of energy and its characteristics is described by the science and mathematics of Thermodynamics which posits four "laws". Everything scientists know about the operation of the entire Universe, even at the smallest subatomic level, is described by the flow of energy because nothing occurs without an exchange, or transfer, of energy.

Even at the beginning of the Universe, before time began, energy transfers occurred. One might even say the Universe is the result of, and continues to be, the transfer of energy. That's why some scientists consider Thermodynamics to be the ultimate science.

Through experimentation, scientists can mathematically describe 4 laws that govern energy transfer.

The zero law, so named becaused it was discovered after the first law, states there is no heat flow between objects that are the same temperature. We see this in the operation of thermometers. The temperature of a thermometer stops rising when it reaches the temperature of the object under measurement.

Therefore, energy, as heat, flows from a higher temperature to a lower temperature.

The next law, the first law, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be transfered from one form to another. Thus, in any closed system, (like the Universe!!), the amount of energy is constant.

The second law describes the distribution of energy. When energy (or heat) is transfered, it becomes more dispersed, less organized. An unlit candle, for example, contains potential energy that is organized in one place - the candle. When lit, the energy from the candle is released in the form of heat and moves from a hot place - the candle - to a cooler place - the air. After the candle has been extinguished, the amount of energy once tightly organized in the candle as potential energy, has been dispersed into the air.

No new energy has been created or destroyed in the burning of the candle. Rather, the amount of energy contained in the candle medium has been transfered into another medium, the air.

Scientists describe the tendency of energy to become more disorganized as "entropy." The second law states that entropy always increases in a closed systems (like the Universe!!!) and, because the amount of energy is constant (first law), the exact distribution of energy can be calculated.

Theoretically, it's possible for energy in a closed system to remain the same or even be reversed (energy flowing from cooler to hotter) if the temperature of a system is reduced to absolute zero (–273.15 degreess) where all molecular motion ceases.

However, this is practically impossible to achieve as stated by the third law. If it were possible, for entropy to be reversed, cause and effect would be reversed and we'd experience really strange things, like time flowing backwards; broken objects reassembling themselves and cold objects becoming increasingly hotter.

In summary, the Laws regarding energy are:

1. Energy (heat) flows from hotter place to cooler place.
2. There is a fixed amount of energy in the universe.
3. Energy always moves from a state of organization to state of uniform, but disorganized distribution (entropy).
4. There is no known natural way to reverse entropy.

Because of these laws, it is far more reasonable, in my opinion, to believe that cause and effect has always occurred because some cause must have initiated a transfer of energy to cause the Universe to explode into existence. That's why I maintain that - even at 10 to the minus 43 seconds of the Universe's existence - cause and effect still appy.

Moreover, the law of cause and effect will continue until the Universe no longer exists. According to astrophysicists Fred Adams and Gregory Laughlin, unless some inconceivable event that launched the original Big Bang should recur, the universe will eventually decay, leaving a featureless, infinitely large void.

See the following links for additonal information:

What is Thermodynamics
Answers.com
The Engineering Toolbox
Physics4Kids
The Future of the Universe

God as First Cause

Establishing God as the instigator of the Big Bang, and thus, the Universe, requires an inductive approach. The evidence may indicate the Universe had a beginning but not what caused it. And, positing God as the instigator must also address his origin.

In other words, what caused God?

The bottom line is that a thing that exists either:

a. had a beginning and is caused, or
b. has always existed and is uncaused

The inductive approach starts with the conclusion from the Cosmological argument that the Universe had a beginning. However, the cause of the Universe can not be another thing that had a beginning because that would lead to an infinite number of causes.

Therefore, reason requires a First Cause that is uncreated and eternal (exists outside of time). Keep in mind that the Cosmological argument doesn't state “every thing that exists has a cause”, but rather, "everything that begins to exist has a cause”.

Since the First Cause never began to exist, it does not require a cause. Thus, no one created the First Cause - it has always existed. This means the First Cause is:

1. self-existent
2. exists outside of time
3. inconceivably powerful to birth the Universe

Since, these qualities are the same qualities theists attribute to God, therefore, the First Cause is God.

The Leibniz Cosmological Argument

Gottfried Leibniz, philospher, scientist, mathematician and all round genius asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Think about it. If nothing existed, then no answer is required because nothing needs no explanation. But, if something does exist, then some explanation of why it exists is needed.

In response, Leibniz developed a logical principal called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) which states that all things have an explanation or cause for their existence.

Thus:
For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.

Using the PSR, Leibniz posited the following argument for the existence of God:

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Since the universe clearly exists, there must be reason for its existence. Self-causation to explain the Universe's existence is unsupported by the evidence of the Cosmological argument. The cause for the universe, then, must be something other than the universe itself - something external to it.

When used in conjunction with the Comological Argument, Leibniz's argument provides good reason to believe that God is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe.

The Anthropic Principle: Evidence from the Big Bang

Another strong argument for the existence of God is known as the Anthropic Principle which argues the fundamental constants observed in the Universe are finely-tuned to allow the Universe and life as we know it to exist.

Dr. William Lane Craig puts it this way:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Since the evidence for this argument is so numerous and powerful, I'll present each in a separate post. In fact, Antony Flew, former champion of atheistic philosophy, was convinced by these arguments (see comments).

Consider:

If the Big Bang was slightly too weak, the expanding matter would have collapsed back in on itself preventing the formation or stars and planets - much less planets suitable for life. The density of the Universe necessary to prevent a recollapse of the Universe is known as critical density.

On the other hand, if the enregy of the Big Bang was slightly too strong, the expanding volume of space would have been to fast preventing the formation of stars and planets.

Thus, the expanding matter from the energy of the Big Bang compared to the expanding volume of space must have been extremely balanced or the Universe would not have formed at all. Physicist John Polkinghorne determined this extremely fine balance must have been within one in 10^60 - equivalent to hitting an inch-wide target at the farthest reaches of the observable universe from Earth.

From this, it seems far more reasonable to believe this balance was achieved not by chance, but by intent (design).

The Anthropic Principle: Evidence from Gravity

Consider gravity. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of the Standard Model of Physics. What is the nature of gravity? Is it caused by the mass of an astrological object bending spacetime as General Relativity claims? Or is it a theoretical particle having no mass and no charge that carries a gravitational force as Quantum Physics suggests?

Currently, the only theory experimentally verified is the model proposed by General Relativity. Physicists would very much like to unify General Relativity and Quantum Theory, but as of today, this has not been accomplished.

What we do know about gravity is that if it were too strong, stars would burn too quickly and collapse under their own weight. Additionally, Black Holes would form too often and, essentially, devour all the matter of the Universe before life could form.

On the other hand, if gravity were too weak, the stars would not have compacted enough to the to produce nuclear fusion. Without fusion, heavier elements (such as carbon!!!) would not have formed preventing life as we know it from forming.

The fact that we exists proves that gravity is tuned just right to support life. The question that begs an answer is why does gravity seem so finely tuned to support the existence of a Universe capable of sustaining life?

The anwers seem to boil down to three:

1. The existence of an infinite number of physically real universes (a “multiverse”, if you please) guarantees that at least one of them will support life.

2. A designer hypothesis that created the Universe for life.

3. Pure coincidence. The fine tuning of gravity is in appearance only and implies nothing.

Number 3 can be immediately rejected, I think, because leaving fine-tuning unexplained leads to the acceptance of complicated, inelegant theories without good reason to do so. If a more elegant theory can account for the available data, then it is to be preferred as the more reasonable theory. I am, after all, appealing to reason from the available experimental data.

The problem with number 2 is that the existence of multiple Universes has not been empirically verified. Sure, proponents point to the inflation of the Universe and a non-zero Cosmological Constant, but at best, these provide the foundation for speculation - not hard evidence.

That puts miltiverse supporters on very shaky ground. Moreover, since the theory hasn't been verified, multiverse proponents are actually in a weaker position than their Intelligent Design opponents (although I don't think the existence of multiverse reality prevents the existence of a Designer).

Intelligent Designers, at the very least, have the weight of emperical evidence to support their reasoning and why I believe number 2 offers the most reasonable case. Multiverse proponents have no hard evidence to support their theory. Until they do, it is not incorrect to suggest the multiverse theory be regarded as metaphysical, and therefore, unfalsifiable.

The Anthropic Principle: Evidence from the Strong Nuclear Force

When two like poles of a magnet are brought together, they repel each other. In a similar way, a force known as the Coulomb Force repels the positively charged protons within the nucleus of an atom.

What keeps the protons from flying apart?

A stronger force called the Strong Nuclear Force (SNF). The SNF overcomes the Coulomb Force and binds together positively charged protons and neutrally charged neutrons.

If the SNF were slightly weaker, perhaps a little as 2% weaker, the protons would repel each other due to the Coulomb force leaving behind a single, lone proton for the nucleus. Thus, the entire Universe would consist solely of the element hydrogen which has but one proton.

Conversely, if the SNF were slightly stronger, just 0.3% stronger, only elements with more than one proton would exist, thus preventing hydrogen from forming. Since hydrogen is key to life sustaining molecules (like water!), life could not form.

In both cases, life as we know it, would not, could not exist!

Since the SNF must fall within a very precise range for life to exist, it is far more reasonable to postulate a designer established the finely tuned SNF than to believe in random chance. The odds are just too great for random chance to explain.

The Anthropic Principle: Evidence from the Weak Nuclear Force

An atom's atomic count is determined by the number of positively charged protons present in its nucleus. But an atom's nucleus also has neutrally charged particles called neutrons. Together, the protons and neutrons determine the atom's mass number.

It's been posited that the only significant elements produced in the Big Bang were hydrogen (atomic count: 1) and helium (atomic count:2). If true, what is the source of all the other elements?

The answer is explained by the presence of a force called the Weak Nuclear Force (WNF). The WNF is so named because it is 1o million times weaker than the Strong Nuclear Force. However, the WNF is not insignificant to the nucleus of an atom.

The WNF controls the rate of the transformation of protons into neutrons by a process called beta decay (specifically, beta minus decay)

If the WNF were slightly stronger, lighter elements with smaller atomic numbers would decay into heavier elements (with larger atomic numbers) more quickly because their neutrons would be transformed into protons. This would prevent simple, life sustaining molecules (like water!!!) from forming.

If the WNF were slightly weaker, there would be an abundance of lighter elements in the Universe (hydrogren and helium), but, little, if any, of the life forming heavier elements - like oxygen, nitrogen and carbon!

Therefore, the WNF must be tuned just right so life as we know it can form. Which is more rational to believe based solely on the scientific data...random chance tuning or tuning by an intelligent designer?

Clearly, the evidence is weighted for the intelligent designer.

The Anthropic Principle: Evidence from the Electromagnetic Force

Previous posts described the strong and weak nuclear forces that operate on the nucleus of an atom. But, in addition to the nucleus, an atom is comprised of tiny, negatively charged particles called electrons.

Electrons are very peculiar. In one sense, they behave like tiny particles with position and momentum, but at the same time, they have properties similar to an ocean wave. And, because they are so tiny and have virtually no mass, their exact location around the nucleus can not be precisely determined. The best we can do is calculate their probable locations.

So, it's more accurate to say that electrons surround the nucleus of an atom, much like a dense fog bank surrounds, say, a house.

Thus, an electron cloud, coined by one of my favorite physicists, Richard Feynman, represents the locations where electrons are most likely to be.

Now, here's an interesting question: what binds the electrons to the nucleus and prevents them from all flying off into space?

The answer is the electromagnetic force (EF). Not only does the EF bind the electrons to the nucleus to form atoms, but the EF also makes it possible for atoms to bond to other atoms to form molecules. In fact, the EF is responsible for all electrical and magnetic interactions in the Universe including light and color.

Now, here's the thing. If the EF were a little stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other preventing chemical bonding and the formation of live sustaining molecules (like water, hello!).

However, if the EF were a little weaker, electrons would not bind to the nucleus preventing the formation of atoms and life forming compounds like nucleic acids and proteins (yikes!).

Therefore, the EF must be finely and precisely tuned or the Cosmos as we know would not have formed, much less sustain life.

Together, with (1)gravity and the (2)strong and (3)weak forces, the EF make up the four fundamental forces from which all other forces in the Cosmos, ultimately, derive and provide powerful evidence for the existence of a Tuner. Their precise tuning is best explained not by randomness, but by an intentional Designer.

The Impossibility of the Infinite

Despite claims by well-meaning scientists, the Universe must have had a beginning. This is not only supported by the current testable data, but also for the following logical reasons.

p1: An actually infinite number of things can not exist because an infinite number of things can not be traversed.
P2: An infinite universe would require an actually infinite number of days to have been traversed to arrive at today. Thus, today would never arrive.
p3: However, since today has arrived, an infinite number of days has not been traversed.

Therefore, an infinite universe can not exist.

Theoretically, the concept of infinity is interesting, but to actualize the concept in the real world leads to absurd results. Consider the absurdity of an infinite number of actual books. Where would a new book be added? Where would a new book be removed? Remember, there's no beginning or end. Yet, in both cases, removing or adding a book would not change the quantity - the number of books would remain infinite.

For a more thorough treatment of this argument, see Dr. William Lane Craig's article that describes the absurdity of an actual number of things using David Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

The Chirality Argument

Chirality is a term used in geometry to describe the asymmetric properties of geometric figures. Put more practically, look in a mirror. The reflected image is said to be chiral because it is the reverse image of your physical characteristics.

Even better, look at your hands. Each is an asymmetric image of the other and thus chiral. Moreover, they are said to be non-superimposable meaning one can not be superimposed over the other. For example, the fingers of a left handed glove are non-superimposable with the right hand.

Chirality is also important to science. Virtually all molecules necessary for life exist in two non-superimposable forms. In other words, they are mirror images of each other and related like our left and right hands and like our hands, they are non-superimposable with their mirror images.

In theory, chemical reactions should combine amino acids and sugars to produce equal amounts of right and left hand images of molecules essential to life, but this is not the case at all - at least on Earth where right hand sugars combine almost exclusively with left hand amino acids.

This is important because molecules of the wrong handedness would be indigestible by our digestive systems. The food we enjoy would be poison to us - goodbye steak and baked potatoes! Life, then, depends on a specific molecular handedness.

Scientists don't know the why the Earth prefers a specific molecular right-handedness. Like everything they don't yet understand, scientists assume random chance. Ok, maybe that was a bit of a cheap shot, still, it's frustrating that well-educated, smart scientists are so closed minded and wooden in their biases. Take Biochemist David Dreamer who says the following regarding life's right-handedness, "The most plausible idea is that it was an accident."

As the English say, "Riggght".

The showstopper for evolution is that complex life would not have formed at all in an environment that is chirally opposed to it. Why? Because DNA would not stabilize and store hereditary information in its double helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present.

What are the chances that a specific handedness would have been randomly produced? Can anyone say with any precision? The answer is no!

The following theories have been proposed to explain the right-handedness of Earth life - all are weak and closer to speculation than verified by repeatable experimentation:

• Circularly polarized ultraviolet light
• Beta decay and the weak force
• Optically active quartz powders
• Clay Minerals
• Fluke seeding
• Magnetic fields

Part of the problem is finding a suitable environment for scientific study. Martin Quack, a physical chemist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich says, "It's almost impossible to find a chirally neutral environment on Earth because life's chiral excesses infect everything."

Therefore, since the chemical compounds needed to sustain life depend on a environment with a specific chirally handedness and the theories to explain the origins of the handedness are so weak...why do so many people state that macro-evolution is a "fact"?

I don't get it. Since when did an "accident" become a plausible, testable hypothesis? It's far more plausible to me to believe an intelligent force designed and created an environment with a specific chirally handedness so life would form and thrive than to assume it was by accident.

The Goal-Driven Argument

In the creationist-evolutionist debate, often overlooked is the argument that living matter possesses an inherent goal oriented nature that is not present in the non-living matter that preceded it. As Antony Flew asks in his book, There is a God, "How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'?"

The absence of a satisfying answer from evolutionists poses a significant problem and one that must be answered by any origin of life theroem.

All living matter strives to reproduce. The fatal blow thus far to mainstream evolution is the failure to adequately demonstrate the means by which reproduction arose, naturally, from non-reproducing matter.

How did self-directed, reproductive purposes emerge from inert matter? Biologists have no answers, yet, in no other area would the absence of such a fundamental and necessary requisite be tolerated. Why is it tolerated for evolution?

In the absence of a natural explanation, its reasonable to assert that living matter could not have emerged from non-living matter.

What makes more sense? Goal-oriented, purpose-driven life emerging from an intelligently guided source or from inert matter which has no potential for producing goal oriented purposes?

In summary:

P1. Goal oriented behavior is an inherent attribute of all living matter.

P2. Inert matter does not live, is not goal-driven and possess no capability to produce goal oriented behavior.

Therefore, living matter could not have originated from inert matter.

A Very Short and Simple Genetics Primer

Perhaps, the strongest evidence for the existence of God originates in our genetics. This area of research presents a conundrum for atheists and skeptics. Why? Because there is not a single, repeatable experiment that comes close to demonstrating the origin of cells, chromosomes, genes and DNA. Yet, this is precisely the area of research, in my opinion, where natural theories must prove fruitful in order to be taken seriously.

It's one thing to assert that similar, physical structures imply a common ancestor, but, it's quite another to assert it at the cellular level.

For these reasons and others, the next series of arguments will make the case that belief in God as the originator of life is far more rational than the alternatives. To prepare for these arguments, a genetics primer is necessary to establish a foundation to build on.

Cells are the building blocks of life. They form colonies, they grow, and they reproduce. The human body is composed of approximately 200 different types of specialized cells like brain cells, skin cells, liver cells, and stomach cells. All total, they number around 100 trillion!

Regardless of their type, all cells share common traits:

• They have an outer protective membrane that surrounds and protects the cell's interior and which regulates the intake and outake of nutrients and waste products.
• The interior of all cells is filled with a watery substance called cytoplasm which contains the nutrients and machinery that carry on the functions of life.
• All cells contain DNA, the instructions that direct the cell and orchestrate its replication. Without DNA, cells would not know how to carry on the functions of life or reproduce. Some cells have a nucleus in which the DNA resides. Other cells don't. In these cells, the DNA resides in the cytoplasm. Humans have both kinds of cells.

Bacteria are single celled organisms that have no nucleus.

DNA is composed of a chain of molecules that contain all the information necessary for the life functions of a cell. The individual molecules that make up DNA are called nucleotides. There are only four: Adenine (A), Thymidine (T), Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C).

A nucleotide is a molecule containing nitrogen.

The nucleotides bond together in pairs using specific rules. Adenine and Thymine always bond together and are represented as AT; Cystosine and Guanine always bond together and are represented as CG.

The resulting pairs are called "base pairs."

Why these rules - why not AC or GT pairs? Because the hydrogen bonds necessary for their pairing only exist with AT and GC.

To use the analogy of a sentence, the base pairs are grouped to form words, for example:
ATT CTG TAA.

The words form sentences:
ATT CGA CAC. ATG GAA TAA TCA TA.

The sentences are called genes.

DNA has two strands of sentences (genes) each complementing the other to form a unified whole. In other words, if one strand of the DNA sequence is ATTCGAC, then the complementary strand must be TAAGCTG.

A->T
T->A
T->A
C->G
G->C
A->T
C->G

Since they are complementary, the sequence of one strand determines the other.

The hydrogen bonds between the letters twist the two strands so that it looks like a twisted ladder called a double helix with the base pairs as the rungs, bonded to a sugar-phosphate backbone as the ladder frame.

The sentences inside the double helix are referred to as the genetic code.

The DNA double helix strand is partitioned into packages called chromosomes. Humans have 46 chromosomes. 44 of them are paired together because of their similarities and two, called the XY pair determine gender. Two X chromosomes (XX) specifies female and one X, one Y (XY) specify male.

Chromosomes are the basic units of heredity.

Chromosomes contain genes. Genes are short segments of DNA that instruct the cell to make proteins. How? Proteins are made of chains of amino acids and and genes provide the instructions for making the amino acid chains.

Proteins are the basic biochemical units that drive all biological processes.

In every cell, human beings have approximately 30,000-35,000 genes providing instructions for 100,000 proteins!

Incidentally, for awhile, scientists thought much of our DNA was 'junk' for which no function had been identified. Recent research, however, has been completely refuted their assertion. See below.

Regarding reproduction, cells reproduce by splitting. When this occurs, the DNA double helix splits breaking the hydrogen bonds between the base pairs. As the DNA strands unwind, new hydrogen bonds form on each single strand from the cytoplasm in the cell ultimately resulting in two identical, double helix strands, one for each cell.

So, in summary: Cells, the smallest unit of life, are fundamental to living systems and manage the biochemical processes of life. Some cells have a nucleus, and some don't, however, all receive their instructions from DNA which is segmented into chromosomes. When cells reproduce, they split forming identical cells with identical DNA strands.

The following links provide additional information:

What is a Cell?
A Tour of the Basics
DNA for Dummies
Junk DNA

The Problem of Life's Origins

The origin of life poses a huge problem for mainstream scientists. When the origins of life are considered, the distinction between living organisms and non-living matter must be distinguished, and, once accomplished, the progression from non-living matter to living cells must be demonstrated.

Mainstream scientists posit living organisms spontaneously arose from non-living matter in a process called abiogenesis. However, abiogenesis has not been experimentally proven in any laboratory experiment and there exists many conflicting theories explaining the origins of life.

Because mainstream science has failed to produce a standard model for the origins of life, their assertion that life arose from non-life is a belief system much like religious belief systems. Evolutionary scientists have faith that, one day, experimentation will prove naturalism true.

In order to accomplish this feat experiments must clearly link, at the genetic level, non-living with living matter. Personally, I don't this will ever be done.

Part of the problem is the definition scientists have given for life, or specifically, living things. In the fourth edition of her text, Biology, Helena Curtis assigns 7 characteristics that distinguish living things from inanimate matter. These are:

1. Living things are highly organized and possess complex structures. Inanimate objects do not.
2. Living organisms are homeostatic meaning they remain internally consistent (temperature, chemistry, blood pressure etc.) despite their changing environment. This is untrue for inanimate matter. A fragile water flea, for example, maintains its internal chemical composition that differs from its constantly changing environment.
3. Living organisms reproduce...inanimate matter does not.
4. Living organisms grow and develop - a single living cell into a human being, for example. Inanimate matter does not grow and develop.
5. Living organisms convert energy from their environment into different forms of energy. Inanimate matter can not convert energy.
6. Living organisms respond to stimuli. Inanimate matter can't respond to any stimuli.
7. Living things adapt to their environment, inanimate does not.

All of these life-defining characteristics have their origin in DNA. It's at this level that mainstream scientists need to demonstrate, clearly, the transition from inert, lifeless, matter to living, reproducing cells. Until they do, abiogenesis can not be considered science.

Moreover, since evolution from one species to another has its foundation in abiogenesis, ultimately, evolution must be regarded as faith and not science.

In order to silence creationists, mainstream scientists must conclusively demonstrate through repeatable experimentation that life, at the DNA level, arose from inanimate matter that contains no DNA. Everything else is educated speculation, at best.

In the next few posts, I'll explore the various abiogenesis models as posited by mainstream scientists, show their inadequacies and why it's more reasonable to believe life arose from a creator.

The Problem of Complexity

One of the most famous, and often referenced, experiments for the natural origin of life is known as the Miller-Urey Experiment. Essentially, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey attempted to recreate the chemical conditions they believed existed on the early Earth by generating a spark (simulating lightening) into a sealed array of glass tubes filled with methane, ammonia, and hydrogen (simulating the atmosphere) and water (simulating the ocean).

After a week or so, the scientists discovered several types of amino acids - the building blocks of proteins - including most of those needed for life. Additonally, sugars, lipids, and some of the other building blocks cells and nucleic acids were formed, however, DNA and RNA were not.

A few years later, John Oro discovered amino acids could be made from a solution of hydrogen cyanide, ammonia and water. His experiment also produced a large amount of adenine - a DNA base nucletoide.

Although proponents claim these and other experiments like them prove life originated on the early earth under natural conditions - without intelligence - in reality, the experiments provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion: that life is far too complex to evolve naturally.

For example, equal quantities of both right-and left-handed organic molecules (Chirlaity) were consistently produced by the Urey/Miller experient. In reality, nearly all amino acids found in left handed and almost carbohydrates are right handed.

If the handedness is incorrect, cells will not form because DNA will not stabilize and store hereditary information in its double helix.

Additonally, while scientists believe lightning storms were common on the early Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed.

Thus, while amino acids and other organic compounds were formed, in the prebiotic Earth, they would not have been formed in the amounts produced by these experiments.

Scientist Paul Davies in a 1999 article in New Scientist sums it up nicely: "Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function." (Davies, Paul. 1999. Life force. New Scientist. 163(2204): 27–30.)

Next: The key to life is information.

The Problem of Mutations

When it comes to explaining the origins and diversity of life, there is no room for God or any other supernatural explanation in mainstream science. Period. No, buts, no ifs, no exceptions.

As the late astronomer Carl Sagan said, "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

The implications of this naturalistic worldview are clear. One can not, with integrity, maintain a belief in the supernatural as a causal effect and at the same time embrace the scientific worldview. They are mutually exclusive.

Make no mistake. Mainstream science, as practiced today, is only and solely concerned with natural explanations. That's because scientific theories must be refutable and scientific experiments must be repeatable. Supernatural explanations, as of today, have not lead to refutable, repeatable theories.

Therefore, when it comes to explaining the origins of life, scientists restrict themselves to natural explanations. Even if the message "God was here" was found inscribed in a cell membrane, scientists would insist the origins of the message were natural.

One has to understand the strength of mainstream bias against supernatural explanations to understand the modern scientific worldview. I believe scientists today have willingly forced themselves into a logical corner from which there's no escape.

Consider that evolution teaches that over a span of millions of years, nonliving chemicals spontaneously gave rise to simple living cells that mutated into more advanced life forms resulting in all the variations of life that exist today.

Mutations are changes that occur in the DNA, specifically, to the order of the base pairs that form DNA.

Science describes two kinds of mutations in genes: those that alter amino acids and and those that do not. Recall that proteins are made of chains of amino acid chains and that genes provide the instructions for making the amino acid chains.

Mutations that do not alter amino acid chains are called silent mutations. These mutations don't affect genetic functionality and are considered evolutionary neutral.

Mutations that alter amino acid chains are either beneficial or harmful. Mainstream scientists argue that random, beneficial mutations, over a long span of time, changed the DNA of simple celled creatures which increased their survivability. These beneficial mutations were then passed to their descendants through inheritance leading to increasingly complex life forms.

In other words, without beneficial mutations, life would not have become increasingly more complex. Evolution, therefore, requires beneficial mutations because this is the only natural way, scientists argue, that new genetic variations, or alleles, are produced. Without alleles, everyone would look exactly the same.

The problem with this scenario is that mutations rarely result in a beneficial change that would increase the survivability of a population of simple cell creatures. It sounds good, but, experimentation doesn't justify the theory.

For mutations to occur at all, a cell, complete with DNA, must have formed first, somehow, someway. In my mind, the utter failure of mainstream science to offer a refutable theory with repeatable experiments that explains the or gins of cells and DNA undermines the theory's credibility.

Mainstream scientists simply assume, by faith, that an explanation is one day, forthcoming.

Nevertheless, for mutations to beneficial, a gain in new information within an organism’s genetic material is required. For example, for a population of amoebas, single celled creatures, to evolve into, say, fish, new information and new genetic segments would have to develop that would provide the basis for gills, scales, fins, etc. The DNA strand would increase as more functionality evolves.

But, experiments and research have overwhelmingly shown that mutations result in a loss of information, not a gain. Mutations are the reason we have diseases like cancer, mental retardation, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia.

Granted, there have been a few cases of beneficial mutations when information was gained, However, for evolution to be true, billions of beneficial mutations are required. The fact is, beneficial mutations of this magnitude have not been observed in nature. Instead, we observe the opposite: organisms losing information. How can a loss add up to a gain?

The notion that random, beneficial mutations occurred for millions of years is simply not a viable scientific theory, at this time, because the experimental evidence doesn't justify it.

Tell that to a mainstream scientist and prepare yourself for a vitriolic reaction. But, the truth is, the bias of mainstream science that restricts all explanations to natural ones is a recent phenomenon. Historically, the greatest scientific minds have believed in a creative, supernatural power because it simply better explained what they observed and experienced.

Skeptics will counter, "Then, why do mutations exist at all? Why would a wise, benevolent, powerful God design DNA in such a way that mutations are inevitable?"

The traditional Christian response is that harmful mutations exist because of Humanity's rebellion to God's perfect order. The original humans were created genetically perfect, without harmful mutations. It was only after they disobeyed God and received the "death sentence" for their actions that harmful mutations were introduced.

Nevertheless, traditional Christians believe a day will come when harmful mutations will cease, death will not occur and all disease will be disappear. Humans, once again, will possess perfect bodies with perfect DNA.

And here's the thing. Everyone can possess this perfect body. It's not restricted to an elite group of people or membership into an exlusive club. The grace of God, offered through Jesus, has been extended to all of Humanity and just as Jesus was resurrected with a perfect body, so, too, will those who have placed their trust in him as their savior.

Such a simple thing, yet so hard for many.

The Problem of Protein Folding

For any natural origin of life model to be credible, it must explain the development of the chemical interactions that transformed dead, inert matter into to living, goal-oriented, reproducing cells containing complex DNA. It's not enough to assume all living species evolved from common processes simply because they share common physical traits. One must show the transition from inert matter to living cells. Otherwise, claims regarding the model can only be based on speculation - not facts as evolutionists like to claim.

To better appreciate the problem consider the problem of protein folding. Proteins are the primary components of cells and execute nearly all cell functions. They supply skeletal structure and muscular growth and movement, they control our senses, they defend against disease and digest food. Examples of the protein types found in the human body:

1. Physiological: controlling such things as sight, smell, and hearing.

2. Structural: controlling the expansion and contraction of muscles and giving elasticity to connective tissues (collagen in bones, cartilages and tissues).

3. Transportive: moving materials such as oxygen (hemoglobin in blood) from the lungs to tissues.

4. Chemical: enzymes function to digest food and catalyze biochemical reactions that control and coordinate cell division. Receptor proteins receive stimulants and initiate responses in cells.

Because of the critical role they play, proteins are the most important molecules in living organisms. Without proteins cells can not live.

So, one question to ask proponents of natural origins is, "How did proteins originate?"

Regarding the composition of proteins, they are composed of amino acids. Human proteins, specifically, are composed of 20 different kinds of amino acids, 10 of which our body can produce by itself (non-essential amino acids) and 10 that must be obtained through food (essential amino acids). The human body contains approximately 100,000 proteins and every one of them are constructed from only 20 amino acids.

Moreover, excess amino acids are not stored like fats and starches so they must be constantly manufactured by the body and obtained from food. Failure to obtain even one of the essential amino acids severely compromises the body's ability to repair itself and sustain life.

Now, here's where things get especially interesting. Amino acids form the structure, or the shape - 3D shapes, actually - of proteins. More precisely, it's the amino acid sequence that determines the shape. The amino acid sequence is determined by the gene sequences in the cell's DNA. The gene sequences provide the code (known as codons) to link amino acids into proteins. More on this in a later post, but for now, suffice it to say that cells contain protein making mechanisms that link amino acids at a rate of almost 300 a minute.

Why so fast? Perhaps the rate is necessary to make the proteins functional. Proteins become functional only when they transform from their linear sequence of amino acid chains into 3-D structures. The process is called protein folding and is not understood by scientists.

In other words, the mechanisms that cause a linear chain of amino acids - that are functionally inert - to fold into 3-D structures - that are functionally active - in fractions of a second, is an issue that must be answered for a credible origin of life theory.

The problem is that protein folding is not explained by chemical reactions. Moreover, why do they form shapes at all? And why is it that only some shapes are beneficial for life and others are destructive? It's believed, for example, that malformed shapes are the cause for diseases like Alzheimer's, Cystic Fibrosis and Parkinson's disease. These questions are not answered by random chance.

In 1969, a scientist, Cyrus Levinthal calculated that a protein consisting of only 100 amino acids could theoretically form into as many as 10^30 possible shapes - that's 1 followed by 30 zeros. Even if a protein could change shapes 100 billion times per second, it take 100 billion years to try all the possibilities - longer than the Universe's age. Imagine the improbability of the largest protein, Titin, which consists of almost 27,000 amino acids!

Because of these issues, many scientists believe that discovering and explaining protein folding is the most important task in biochemistry.

Indeed, from my perspective, the complexities of the celluar mechanisms involved and the unlikeliness that proteins form beneficial shapes lead me to believe they originated from a Designer.

For additional information, see: The Importance of Protein Folding.