Selfishness of genes is a tautological explanation of their behaviour in certain situations. Genes are not conscious and therefore not selfish. The analogy is useful because DNA appears to act in a selfish way in many occasions (I have mentioned some above).

I would like to make a few concluding remarks. Contrary to what Dawkins says (or indeed what I believe myself) the theory of evolution does not say anything about God or Christianity. There is no reason why the two cannot coexist.

I appreciate that many lay-people will not have been exposed to the kind of evidence that I have regarding evolution. I have tried to make my posts clear and not too technical and, most importantly, in the spirit of current opinion within the scientific community. I hope that if they have not persuaded you in the direction of evolution they have, at least, illustrated some of the fascinating things that exist beyond the reach of the naked eye.

One last point regarding evolution. The real power of the theory is in its application: evolution has been fundamental in our continuing understanding of genetic disease, sequential mutations in cancer tumorigenesis, the molecular basis of aging, the ‘struggle for existence’ or ‘molecular arms-race’ between humans and bacteria like MRSA and viruses like HIV. In computer science genetic algorithms have helped to ‘design’ highly complicated, evolved computer programs far beyond what could be produced by a human alone. There are too many examples to list.

I do enjoy a good debate but I am very serious about truth. I am very interested in philosophical ideas and shall research them when I can – thanks to those who have suggested readings.

I would also like to thank Bill for tolerating my posts on his website that clearly represents diametrically opposed views to my own.

Tom Roberts

I have at least one major problem here, which other readers keep kindly point out to me: We continue to violate one of my rules: keeping comments short! Of course this is hard to do with complex topics like this. But even though you do not want to fully declare your hand, I think we are getting your drift, and you are getting ours.

Thus we might have to wind things up a bit. We have offered you a number of things to peruse, if you have the time or inclination to do so. Science is only a small part of the overall debate. There are larger philosophical, and dare I say it, theological concerns that must be addressed as well.

As I said, you might try Stove’s book. The late Australian philosopher was quite interesting: an atheist who believed in evolution. But he did a terrific job of demolishing so much foolishness tied to evolution, such as evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. He also did a great job of dismantling the mistaken notion of “selfish” genes, or any other personal attributes we might try to affix to what is simply a chemical part of DNA.

It is getting personality out of the impersonal that we find so patently unhelpful here. Dawkins and Pinker and others can speak on the one hand of the biological determinism of genes, but on the other hand speak of how we can somehow override our genes, and determine our own fate. It seems hard to reconcile that. If we are simply gene-replicating machines, there is no “I” to override them. Stuff just happens, end of story.

But we have been down this path before. Again, space does not permit an endless back and forth on every point you raise. As I say, if you really are asking more than rhetorical questions here, then following up on some of these titles might be a helpful beginning.

And it may indeed be tough to make it down under for chats. But can I suggest you do that where you are? Why don’t you get in touch with someone like McGrath, the former atheist and Marxist, and pick his brain a bit? Another Oxford prof you should have a chat to is John Lennox. His book God’s Undertaker is well worth a read if you cannot do a face to face.

But I leave you with a final challenge. As I already asked, are you really seeking truth here, or are you just enjoying the argument? I suggest you take up a few of the pro-offered readings, or meet a few of these thinkers. Then come back to us and tell us what you think. Thanks again

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I sympathise Steve. I too have increasingly little time to think about these issues. As to your offer, I would love to come to Melbourne. I fear it is pretty unlikely though. Should you wish to continue this discussionin the future I give permission for Bill to disclose my email to you (by private communication).

I think that the idea of ‘truth’ is fascinating. I have some sympathy for your point of view (probably for the ‘wrong’ reasons) in that I do (sort of) believe in a form of transcendental truth. Mathematics is a scientific discipline (which, of course, provides a framework to all sciences) that is not based on the empiricism proper of the biological and physical sciences. Mathematical statements, if sound, are ‘true’ in themselves (I’m assuming that the labels we use are just socially constructed language tools to understand this ‘truth’). For example, a counting statement or a simple arithmetic statement (?number theory) would still be true in a hypothetical alternate universe (I’m not in any way implying that this exists) with differing physical (and/or natural) ‘laws’ (I am, of course, using ‘natural law’ in a different context to CS Lewis or Catholic theologians). Simple math(s) does not need to be discovered in the traditional sense – it can be readily inferred through logic. Complex maths is more ‘discoverable’ although still dependent on logical inferences.

You and Bill cover the same presuppositions for science and I will address Bill’s list as it is more extensive and includes all of your points.

1) the objective existence of an physical world (which is independent of the observer)

I think this is your strongest point. Do theists think differently?

2) the premise that we live in a rational universe

I don’t think we have to assume this. Much of the universe (at least seems) irrational and chaotic. This is no reason to give up the attempt to understand it.

3) the reliability of human reason (to understand the world)

I have stressed the fallibility of science and the falsifiable principle. I guess your statement is true to an extent. I should point out that the scientific community represents a spectrum of views on many issues.

4) the belief in the order and uniformity of nature; the principle of uniformity (thus it is capable of being studied and observed). That is, the assumption that the laws of nature remain constant.

I don’t think anyone need assume the uniformity of nature. I think we have discussed points of non-uniformity already (e.g. non-universality of genetic code). I don’t think something has to be uniform for it to be studied. The ‘laws’ are empirically derived so they are not a presupposition other than being ‘previous scientific work’ to be built upon. I see no reason why natural/physical laws cannot be broken or bent in theory. Some physicists may be on my back about thermodynamics which, as I understand it, presents a remarkably robust set of physical laws.

Not sure I have fully understood you’re point her Bill – might need some clarification.

-the reality of cause and effect, or the law of causality

I think you are correct here. Do theists think differently?

-the senses are reliable; the reliability of observation

The senses are totally unreliable in my experience. The genetics, and now genomics, revolution(s) that have transformed the biological sciences have been permitted by (less immediately exciting) advances in the technology of the physical sciences. We now have advanced laser excitation, resonance energy transfer techniques, CCD detection devices, nucleotide microarrays and these have helped to address this problem (that you very correctly identify). Reliability in data is achieved through repetition and analysed using statistics to ascertain significance. I have already mentioned the importance of reproducibility (by others) with respect to peer review publication.

-the laws of logic

I’ve tried to discuss the ‘transcendental truth’ of logic above. Do theists not accept logic as a presupposition?

-the adequacy of language to describe the world.

True. But language is not static. In principle I don’t think there is any problem so esoteric that it cannot be explained (or at least tackled) using language as a tool. The alternative to this seems to me to be, ‘things are just too complicated for us to explain’ which I again think is intellectually irresponsible and defeatist.

Tom Roberts

‘Most people know…’

‘…deny the obvious’

It’s interesting you refer to my ideas as ‘intellectually bankrupt’ when you use language like this.

‘All of this is ruled out by a naturalist paradigm.’

How? I have given repeated examples of how these concepts could arise as a result of natural processes. Incidentally, arguments that say nothing about the existence of God or the validity of Christianity.

It is true that ‘…selfish genes just are’. But, the ‘survival machine’ encoded by those genes can have gene-encoded consciousness and (probably acquire) rationality. This ultimately serves the tautological ‘purpose’ of selfish DNA to perpetuate itself but in an indirect manner, such that, the thoughts of an individual are not the direct result of a gene(s).

Rocks don’t have brains. There is no evidence for rock consciousness. The argument is massively straw man.

‘Common sense’ arguments are generally misleading and rhetorical in my opinion. So many complex phenomena have been found to have highly counter-intuitive scientific explanations (e.g. quantum theory) such that the everyday human perception of reality must be ‘suspended’ when thinking about quantum problems. Why should we assume that everyday common sense arguments will help us solve complex origins problems? You accuse me of having a presupposition here that I don’t necessarily have.

Multiverse and panspermia are fairly weak theories (very much so compared to evolution) in my opinion. However, they are not just concocted out of hand. For example, the basis of the multiverse hypothesis is grounded in the mathematics of quantum theory (as my understanding goes) and panspermia is suggested by amino acids and fatty acids found in meteorite fragments + possible bacterial-like fossils found on mars. There is insufficient evidence to make strongly worded statements regarding them.

As I stated already evolution is not just chance. No evolutionists believes that. You need to look at the theory again as it is a fundamental principle. Intelligent designer is not a logical inference from ‘appearance of design’ + evidence for evolution. It is not a truck-load of faith, it is a truck-load of evidence. ID has not come close to scientifically positing a designer. It may try to refute evolution and may use evidence to try and infer design but that’s all.

‘Not very up on the philosophy of science’ is an ad hominem cheap shot. Why do you suppose I am bothering to post here?

Your points on the presuppositions of science are quite interesting and helpful to this debate. I think they are something that requires constant re-evaluation. I’m going to have a think about them.

‘On and on goes the list’ is unnecessary rhetoric and possibly misleading.

It is true that Western science is to some extent founded in a Christian worldview. Other posters have acknowledged the influence of other cultures on science (see above). However, that worldview seems to me very different from your own. To use the words of Chris Mayer (posted above – although to be fair to Steve Frost I don’t think they teach this in ‘kindergarten’) you consistently present false dichotomies in your arguments. I don’t believe that your black-and-white thinking is sufficient to adequately deal with some of these issues and another reason why I refuse to define myself under your terms.

A deist is not the exact opposite of an atheist. Flew is a deist.

Tom Roberts

What non-scientific premises underpin science?

I’ll have a stab at that question too, if I may. Scientists must first have a set of beliefs that underpin their work. Simple beliefs like “My visual faculties are reliable” need to underpin their work with a microscope, and so on. These baseline beliefs are not themselves scientific. There’s a certain amount of argument about what science is and how it works … and this argument is not itself part of operational science … its part of philosophy of science. The main camps:

– rational realists (or scientific realism, the majority position)
– rational nonrealists (or instrumentalists)
—- sub-group phenomenalism
—- sub-group operationalism
—- sub-group pragmatism
—- sub-group constructive empiricism
– nonrational nonrealists

Now the funny thing is, I don’t think that any one group actually accurately describes how science really works. For most of the work of operational science is adequately described by the scientific realism viewpoint, yet nonrational nonrealists (Kuhn, I think?) do have some good points about some of the aspects of how science works (paradigms and so on).

So I am a fence-sitter on that front.

In order to “do science” you must have some underpinning beliefs about the possibility (and reliability) of observation, logic, rationality, and so on.

If the universe is the plaything of the “gods”, and storms are merely an indication that Poseidon is angry, then there’s not much science to be done. The history of science shows that it made some very big leaps forward on the back of Christian/theistic views about God’s nature … He is not capricious, He does not change, therefore we can expect the universe to also reflect some of those aspects of His nature.

Stephen Frost

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/plantinga_alvin.htm

There;s quite a lot of material there relating to either Naturalism and Evolution. In particular, the articles entitled:
– An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
– Darwin, Mind and Meaning
– Evolution, Neutrality, and Antecedent Probability
– Methodological Naturalism: Part 1
– Methodological Naturalism: Part 2
– Naturalism Defeated
– On Rejecting the Theory of Common Ancestry

There is also a rather good summary paper:
– Theism, Atheism, and Rationality

Now if you were ever in Melbourne (Australia), I would be very keen to sit down and chat with you at some length, to hear your questions/objections in some depth. Several of my good friends are out-and-out atheists. Some (like Bill) are Christians, as am I. Being an INTP, I tend to prefer asking leading questions, rather than giving answers … it just doesn’t suit my temperament to be overly sure of myself.

I think I agree with you that Flew is more in the deist category … but then again, all these philosophical categories make my eyes roll back in my head sometimes, as there are just so many subtle variations of position on various topics. Lets just say “He now believes in God in some form or other” and perhaps we can leave it at that.

Regarding your comments on the (rough) argument that Naturalism+Evolution=Incoherent … one important factor will presumably be your concept of “truth”.

I believe that there is some kind of objective or transcendental truth (things can be known as they really are), as opposed to just a perceived truth (things as you or I perceive them), or relative truth (things that might be more true than other things, but not absolutely true). Because of this foundational idea of truth, the argument carries significant weight for me. If matter+energy is all there is, then your thoughts/ideas/logic are fundamentally no different to my thoughts/ideas/logic … they are all just the stirrings of atoms in a brain. Truth is lost. At least, for me it is … your mileage may vary.

Stephen Frost, Melbourne

After reading your latest theoretical offerings, I am again convinced that I really don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. It always amazes me how they come up with such convoluted, far out and bizarre arguments, all because they simply do not want to posit God. Any ordinary human being knows exactly what the self is, or personality, or the’I’ or the soul is. Everyone knows we are more than just a slab of meat, except it seems for our unbelieving intellectuals. They have to go to such extreme lengths to deny the obvious. Sorry, I will never have that much faith to believe in such preposterous ideologies.

Most people know that we are both physical beings, as well as non-physical beings. We have physical brains, but non-physical mental states. We have so many other immaterial aspects to our being: volition, rationality, emotions, memory, insight, intuition, an aesthetic sense, and so on. The reductionists either have to deny all these non-material realities, or they have to come up with amazingly complex and far-fetched theories to deny the obvious.

For example materialism of necessity implies determinism. You do not get free will out of a purely material universe. Volition entails the capacity of rational reflection, the stuff of persons, not rocks. Rocks nether reflect nor choose. They just are. What makes humans unique is our ability to understand, to reflect, to make choices, to form conclusions, to weigh up options, to evaluate truth claims, and so on. All of this is ruled out in a naturalistic paradigm. Selfish genes do not reflect or ponder or choose anything: they just are.

Those who simply have decided ahead of time that only matter matters have to go to great lengths to explain the real world. Thus we have multiverse theories, and patent nonsense of ‘directed panspermia’, etc. Common sense realism requires far less faith, and much better fits the evidence.

The whole notion of “evolved intelligence” is really intellectually bankrupt. Sorry, but matter plus time plus chance do not being about intelligence or rationality. Dawkins goes on and on about all the “illusion of apparent design”. He sees design everywhere, yet denies the obvious inference: an intelligent designer. He has simply ruled that option out ahead of time, so all this design is only “apparent” design. Talk about needing a truck load of faith to believe something so foolish.

This is just where ID comes in. If we see examples of complex biological things exhibiting all the hallmarks of intelligent design, complexity and purposefulness, then one very plausible and rational explanation is an intelligent designer. Personhood begets personhood. Personality does not come out of non-personality. But those with materialist presuppositions simply refuse to see the obvious. Their faith in naturalism has blinded them to the real world.

And I am surprised that being such a great lover of science, you appear to be not very up on the philosophy of science. Modern science could never have taken off but for a number of critical assumptions, none of which are themselves provable by the scientific method. Direct observation will not come up with any of these assumptions:

-the objective existence of an physical world (which is independent of the observer)
-the premise that we live in a rational universe
-the reliability of human reason (to understand the world)
-the belief in the order and uniformity of nature; the principle of uniformity (thus it is capable of being studied and observed). That is, the assumption that the laws of nature remain constant.
-the reality of cause and effect, or the law of causality
-the senses are reliable; the reliability of observation
-the laws of logic
-the adequacy of language to describe the world.

On and on goes the list. That science is even possible needs to be explained. And the interesting thing, as so many non-Christian philosophers have pointed out, it was the Christian worldview that made modern science possible. All the above assumptions nicely cohere with the Biblical worldview.

And who said Flew was a Christian? He is a theist, which I remind you is the exact opposite of an atheist. He saw the absurdity of his reductionism, scientism and naturalism, because he was honest enough to follow the evidence where it leads. I wish all atheists were as ruthlessly honest.

By the way, the more I read Dawkins, and the more I read you, it is interesting how much you seem to defer to or rely upon Dawkins. So many atheists have absolutely trashed his latest book, whether Thomas Nagle or Terry Eagleton. Indeed, Michael Ruse said that he God Delusion “makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.” Perhaps you need to move beyond Dawkins et al here. Even fellow atheists find them too far out to be of much help.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

‘Out of nothing, nothing comes’

This is not what has been said. Evolution describes complexity arising from simple origins. Abiogenesis is a theory of how we got to these simple origins from just ‘chemistry’. Big bang (and related) theories attempt to describe how we got to ‘chemistry’. Then maybe there is nothing (or god?). Before this point no one has said that you get something from nothing. I consider the cosmological argument for God briefly below.

‘How do you get the personal from an impersonal beginning?’

By personal I presume you mean ‘self’ and perhaps ‘individuality’. The latter is a social construct but ‘self’ is more interesting. I see no reason why ‘self’ cannot be a by-product of evolved intelligence and capacity to reason. Prejudice and subjectivity are key facets of human consciousness and I believe these are probably important for our survival. By this I mean that science is socially constructed and in a hypothetical ‘struggle for existence’ (that doesn’t really exist now in most human cultures) being able to make a quick decision in the absence of all relevant information was/is probably advantageous. I think this is an important consideration when considering such concepts as ‘truth’ or ‘beauty’.

I am concerned that you use descriptors like ‘honest’, ‘consistent’ and ‘real’ only to scientists that accept your worldview. I think it’s a dangerous way of thinking and I recommend you don’t continue it as it detracts from your arguments.

I think the Stephen Jay Gould quote sort of describes what I have called ‘the value of human experience’.

I agree with Weinberg’s statement.

I believe in free will and don’t see a problem it coexisting with naturalism.

I’m surprised Haldane said that. The argument resembles a cruder form of the Plantinga argument I have discussed above (possibly predating Plantinga?).

What non-scientific premises underpin science?

In my experience, the work of creationists on these issues is poor. For example, I read an article on abiogeneis on http://creationontheweb.org. There were some very interesting arguments raised (e.g. concerning the origins of chirality) which I hadn’t thought about much. These are real issues that the scientific community must (and is) address(ing). However, the article did not even mention RNA catalysis. This is one of the most exciting ideas in this area of science and critical to the RNA world hypothesis. In fact, the empirical observation that RNA molecules can act as catalysts (ribozymes) and act as hereditary molecules is such a profound one that it has forced a (radical) theory change on the subject of the central dogma of biology (DNA->RNA->Protein). To omit this undermines the legitimacy of the work and exposes it as polemic.

I don’t agree with the statement by Scott Todd. Design is a testable hypothesis. It is not supported by evidence. I don’t think that statement should have been published in Nature.

I think you have misrepresented Flew. He has repeatedly stated that he is far from a Christian theist. Rather his beliefs (deist) seemed to be based on the cosmological first cause argument (i.e. like a harder version of Einstein’s ‘god’) coupled with an inability to understand the origins of heredity through DNA. He has since given up some ground on the latter point as new evidence has come to light although not really altered his deist position. I actually think this is totally reasonable. The cosmological argument is difficult to refute but has its own weaknesses. Personally, I think it is grounded in a misguided attempt to force our reality on to an event that is so far from the human experience for this way of thinking to be meaningful. It is also an infinite regress (those who disagree with me on this will probably do so because they arbitrarily define God in such a way that he is ‘unknowable’ or something of that sort – I actually think that this represents complete academic surrender). Either way if ‘god’ is the first cause I agree with Flew that Christianity does not logically follow. I’m surprised that you cite Flew as his views seem to be very distant from your own. Again I didn’t really want to bring my own opinions into this specific area of the debate as I don’t consider them especially important to the debate.

Tom Roberts

How convenient for you. You are allowed to have something uncaused as the base of your entire belief system, but nobody else is.

Reading back through the comments near the start of this discussion, I noticed this comment from Chris and thought it was worth further comment.

I’m curious to know what is at the base of your entire belief system. I can see two possibilities:

1. an uncaused cause (which theists call God); or
2. a caused cause

If you can see an alternative, I’m listening. In the absence of alternatives, its clear that “us theists” have decided that (1) is the best of the two alternatives.

If you don’t agree, and you choose (2), then what you’re saying is that there is an endless series of cause/effect. Now this series might be linear (i.e. infinitely unique events), or it could conceivably be a loop (i.e. infinitely repeating events).

The first thing I would ask is whether you have any actual evidence for (2)?

The second question I would ask is whether you have considered that, for any infinite series, the mathematical probability of eny event (e.g. your reading this) is indistinguishable from zero. If the universe is an infinite series of events, the probability of you reading this is excruciatingly minute.

The logical arguments to draw from that run as follows:

1. if the universe is an infinitely linear series of events, then the probability of me reading this argument is indistinguishable from zero
2. the universe is an infinitely linear series of events
3. therefore, I am not reading this argument

But since you know, on the evidence of your senses, that (3) is false, then since the argument is formally valid, one of the premises must be false. Since (1) is a straight piece of mathematical knowledge, it seems (2) is false.

Since the universe clearly does have the property of a “series of events”, the part of (2) which must be false is the phrase “infinitely linear”.

Theists ditch the infinite bit. That would leave you with the option of an infinitely repeating universe, yes?

Alternatively, you seemed to be complaining that “us theists” are permitted to have an uncaused cause, but nobody else is? What kind of uncaused cause would that be? Do you have a proposal for something of a non-material nature that would be a sufficient explanation for the universe, yet would not be “God”?

Stephen Frost, Melbourne.

Point 3 in your example, would be considered a kindergarden example of a false dichotomy so I am a little unsure as to why you are presenting it here.

Chris, I find your comment rather misleading. I specifically said, in the phrase immediately preceding the example argument:

Simplistically, the argument is like this:

n.b. emphasis now added. Did you miss this, or just ignore it? I have specifically directed readers (e.g. Tom) to go and look up Plantinga’s argument,criticisms, and his responses to criticisms. If you think that his argument suffers from, as you put it, a “kindergarden example of a false dichotomy”, then you’re badly misstaken. It has been published and discussed in various fora, including peer reviewed philosophical journals such as Faith and Philosophy. Plantinga is/was a tenured full professor of philosophy at Notre Dame.

Stephen Frost, Melbourne