Average Joe

“Gee, that’s complicated. God did it.”

This sentiment is representative of the many who are critical of anyone positing an intelligent designer. We’ve broached the subject repeatedly in this space, so it’s nothing new, but when theistic explanations for natural phenomena come in the form of testing, a similar complaint arises.

“Why do so many of you religious types think that you are sooooooo smart that you understand how God may have created the earth and life? Do you claim to understand everything he did? Seems pretty presumptuous to me.”

Both statements came from an online discussion on MSNBC in response to an article that was critical of EXPELLED. In considering the two comments, what’s a believer to do? If you simply say God did it, you get hammered, but if you lead with a model that attempts to explain the natural realm (and even naturalistically, as much as possible) you get hammered for that too. Yet critical statements such as these often come from people who trumpet the success of science but also advocate that religion (rightly practiced) is generally good.

It seems that those who want to keep religion and science in separate arenas offer only lip service to the notion that both are valuable and should occupy their place in educated society. Setting aside the ideas springing from the more rancorous new atheists, who unabashedly lay many of the world’s ills at the feet of religion, many atheists appear to respect religion as a valid intellectual pursuit. But are they merely mollifying what they consider a gullible group?

Skeptics know that Christians see the Bible as a God-breathed revelation, so wouldn’t it show respect for the religion to allow the Christian to see the harmony between his holy book and the record of nature? When a Christian sits in church and reads passages like, “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1), and then he gains a greater appreciation of the universe through an organization like Reasons To Believe, why would a skeptic complain?

And what’s the purpose of a model anyway? Aren’t scientists trying to plug holes in gaps of understanding? If RTB proposes a scientific model for creation, why is that presumptuous? Nobody’s claiming to understand everything God did (we’re his creatures after all), but believers are motivated by a God-given curiosity to learn as much as possible about the creation. That enhanced understanding should lead to more meaningful worship of the Creator, but also more-educated, well-rounded citizens. Is that a bad thing?

Reasons To Believe has long asserted that the universe seems designed specifically for the benefit of human beings. While not alone in this observation, RTB has certainly incurred the ire of some skeptics who charge that it is the height of arrogance to maintain that humans occupy the figurative center of such a vast cosmos.

Those critics might contend that, first of all, many scientists are not willing to concede that life does not exist on other planets. The explosive rate of extrasolar planetary discoveries alone provides hope and serves to check premature judgments, especially those based on religious texts. It’s better to hedge than risk embarrassment.

Second, nonreligious people wonder why a strictly human perspective of the universe is the correct one. It smacks of speciesism. Here again, the argument is that a religious holy book has provided justification for the abuse of not only other species but also of the planet itself. Fixation on an afterlife breeds contempt for other life.

Popular astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (host of NOVA scienceNOW), when asked the same question posed in the last post (Does the universe have a purpose?) answered in part:

To assert that the universe has a purpose implies the universe has intent. And intent implies a desired outcome. But who would do the desiring? And what would a desired outcome be? That carbon-based life is inevitable? Or that sentient primates are life’s neurological pinnacle? Are answers to these questions even possible without expressing a profound bias of human sentiment? Of course humans were not around to ask these questions for 99.9999% of cosmic history…

How about human life itself? If you are religious, you might declare that the purpose of life is to serve God. But if you’re one of the 100 billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of our lower intestine (rivaling, by the way, the total number of humans who have ever been born) you would give an entirely different answer. You might instead say that the purpose of human life is to provide you with a dark, but idyllic, anaerobic habitat of fecal matter.

Personally, I’ll take my existence over the intestinal bacterium’s any day, but is it mere human hubris borne of religious superiority to espouse that humans were in view during the formation of a 14-billion-year cosmos? Christianity affirms that the image of God separates humanity from the rest of creation, but that creation care (stewardship) remains a foremost human responsibility.

And what of humility? Doesn’t the Christian violate this biblical edict every time he raises his nose by proclaiming grand status on this tiny pale blue dot?

Cosmologist Michael Heller, winner of the 2008 Templeton Prize, in a statement after the announcement, seemed to captured the idea of the image of God when he said that the human brain was the most complex and sophisticated product of the universe, and that science was “but a collective effort of the human mind to read the mind of God.” As for humility, Heller concluded:

The true humility does not consist in pretending that we are feeble and insignificant, but in the audacious acknowledgement that we are an essential part of the Greatest Mystery of all—of the entanglement of the Human Mind with the Mind of God.

So, what do you think? Humility or hubris?

Why is it that believers in God see unmistakable evidence for a Creator’s involvement in the natural realm, while skeptics find no such warrant? Believers take it even a step further, asserting that the Creator has imbued the universe with purpose.

Well-known theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, when asked whether he thought the universe had a purpose, stated that it was “unlikely,” and added:

Of course, nothing would stop science from uncovering positive evidence of divine guidance and purpose if it were attainable. For example, tomorrow night if we look up at the stars and they have been rearranged into a pattern that reads, “I am here,” I think even the most hard-nosed scientific skeptic would suspect something was up.

But no such unambiguous signs have been uncovered among the millions and millions of pieces of data we have gleaned about the natural world over centuries of exploration. And this is precisely why a scientist can conclude that it is very unlikely that there is any divine purpose. If a creator had such a purpose, she could choose to demonstrate it a little more clearly to the inhabitants of her creation.

How about it? If God were to arrange the stellar pattern Krauss describes to announce “I am here,” would that do the trick? Christians might be quick to respond that the hard-nosed skeptic would find another way to explain the message—a prank, perhaps, or some other naturalistic explanation—so why bother?

After all, the Christian might reason, skeptics did the same thing 2,000 years ago when God (in the person of Christ) came and hung out for thirty years. In fact, he even used similar words (“before Abraham was born, I am!”) to what Krauss suggests when asked to identify himself.

Obviously, RTB scholars affirm that the “unambiguous signs” of “millions and millions of pieces of data” in fact exist, and the universe displays purpose. Hugh Ross has written a book (due to be released later this year) describing multiple purposes—even destiny—in detail.

Presumably, scientists of nontheistic and theistic stripes have access to the same data. And, barring unusual interpretations of the evidence stemming from immovable presuppositions, doesn’t the best science eventually emerge? But, unless one is willing to allow the “immovable presuppositions” to be put to the test, skeptics and believers alike will say that no amount of evidence will convince someone that God does/does not exist.

Is purpose in the eye of the beholder?

Time to move on. The probability discussion seems to have reached an impasse. Maybe by changing the question a bit we can make some progress.

Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has said (along with others), “You can’t put God in a test tube.” However, anyone familiar with Reasons To Believe knows that RTB scholars have carved out a niche in the apologetics landscape with a biblical and scientific creation model that answers the question in the title above in the affirmative.

In Origins of Life (page 33), authors Fuz Rana and Hugh Ross explore the idea of testing a biblical and scientific model. They note that scientists already are engaged in efforts to probe intelligent causation:

Science also possesses the capacity to investigate intelligent causes. Archaeologists study artifacts produced by human intelligence. Anthropologists study the bipedal primate fossil record to discriminate between stones intelligently shaped into tools and those formed by the forces of nature. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a search for signatures in the cosmos that reflect the existence of aliens living in another star system. Crick and Orgel’s directed panspermia appeals to intelligent activity to explain life’s first appearance on Earth—an idea they demonstrate to be testable. By extension, life’s appearance on Earth by a supernatural, extra-universal Intelligence should also be detectable and testable.

Prohibiting an appeal to the supernatural places a false restriction on science’s capability. By limiting available scientific explanations to material explanations alone, naturalists hinder science’s capacity to discover truth. The goal is no longer to discover the most plausible explanation but rather to identify a more or less naturalistic explanation. If a Creator exists and has intervened in the natural realm, His activity (in principle) should be detectable by inference from what a researcher can verify directly with his or her senses. Science, in that way, can probe the supernatural.

OK, but do the skeptics buy it? If not, why not?

Whew. This probability discussion has probed the depths of my average brain and revealed probably more than a few problems in my own thinking. Given the significance of the issue, and the length of the last thread, I decided to post a fresh entry here. The bulk of this post comes from Mike, and is a response to Bob’s claims.

Note that there may be some overlap between comments from the last thread and this post. And I’d like to remind everyone of the principle of charity in argumentation. Treat others’ arguments the way you’d like yours to be treated. The nature of apologetics can be combative, and that’s fine, but be careful (for example) in assigning motives. Thanks.

Quoting Mike, now:

Bob,

The statement on Lebesgue sets and zero probability is indeed correct, and I have to admit that I got a little sloppy in my explanation of real numbers and zero probability. But then again I finished Real Analysis class a long time ago (I still get nightmares sometimes!) and didn’t quite expect it to creep up on me here. Nevertheless I should have explained the zero-probability paradox straight up and not dumbed it down. Good catch there!

I’m glad to see that my earlier statement that your application of Bayes’ theorem cannot be used to give evidence for or against RTB’s conclusions is well received. It’s clear to me from your explanations that there is a legitimate attempt to show that the RTB use of probability is in need of correction, and that’s fair enough; good scientists try to rigorously test theories to see if they withstand cold, hard facts. I will try and show the same spirit of scientific pursuit in my discussion.

However, the reason that I posted the comment was to give a hint as to why you are using Dr. Ross’ applications of probability incorrectly. I thought it would be enough for you to catch the error, but I guess not.

So here I will show my take on your conditional probability argument. And not a moment too soon! I see that the use of Bayes’ theorem is the meat of your argument, and you are right to say that nobody really tried taking it on. But before I do that, I need to point out one critical thing:

Dr. Ross has never in his writings said that the probability of our existence is low. In fact, he argues that because the universe was made for humanity, the probability of our being here is actually quite high. He does argue, however, that if there were no God, then the probability of our being would be very, very tiny. Case in point: see the statement you quoted: Dr. Ross said that WITHOUT DIVINE MIRACLES, the probability is 10^-282, making this figure CONDITIONAL ON THERE BEING ONLY UNINTELLIGENT AND UNGUIDED PROCESSES AT WORK.

So with that in mind, I will create the setup of the problem along with some notation:
The setup is pretty much as you had it before.
-X is the event that humans are here (or would have arrived, it really doesn’t matter what time frame is used) -H is the event that God exists.
-Assume that if God exists, he would have rigged the universe to create humans (so P(X|H)=1, as before).
-Notation is same as before, except I will note the “ compliment of H ” to be H’.
-This setup will assume that the universe follows the standard laws of probability so as to avoid any discussion on their validity.

Before I start, I would like to iterate in probabilistic notation that Dr. Ross’ tiny figure of 10^-282 is not P(X), but P(X|H’) by the above argument.

Now, step by step, my result goes as follows:

Bayes’ theorem states:
P(X|H)*P(H) = P(H|X)*P(X) [equation 1]
An elementary result of conditional probability states that:
P(X) = P(X|H)*P(H) + P(X|H’)*P(H’)

But it is already agreed that P(X|H)=1, so
P(X) = P(H) + P(X|H’)*P(H’) [equation 2]

Plugging [equation 2] into [equation 1] and applying P(X|H)=1 to LHS gives:
P(H) = P(H|X)*[P(H) + P(X|H’)*P(H’)]

Using the result that P(H’)=1-P(H) gives:
P(H) = P(H|X)*[P(H) + P(X|H’)*(1-P(H))]

So now we have that:
P(H|X) = P(H)/ [P(H) + P(X|H’)*(1-P(H))]

As far as I’m concerned, this completes my result, since decreasing P(X|H’) must necessarily increase P(H|X). Note that every step here is done according to well known results of probability theory.

Intuitively speaking, this means that providing additional evidence that it is increasingly unlikely that we came about by random chance always increases the probability that God created us given that we are here.

So indeed, Dr. Ross and the scientists at RTB are perfectly justified in their use of probability to argue the case for a creator.

I hope this is the answer you were looking for.

Mike

A regular critic of Reasons To Believe recently sent a comment to the last post that I would like to quote here because of its significance and its focus. The critique centers on RTB’s use (or alleged misuse) of probability theory. The skeptic goes on to say that events with zero probability indeed happen every day.

Although this space is ostensibly a place where Average Joes can hang out, it’s perfectly fine to explore an issue in depth even if it leaves people like me scratching their heads. Here’s part of Bob’s argument:

RTB’s position certainly is “The probability of our existence occurring by chance is nearly zero. We see fine-tuning everywhere. These facts strongly imply God exists.” Here are a few quotes from Hugh Ross himself:

“Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^282 … exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.”

“In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine “fine tuning” seems incontrovertible.”

As to Hugh’s probability estimates … Just because he is trained in astronomy doesn’t mean he knows all things math, including probability. That is fallacious reasoning. Most physicists I know don’t understand probability theory.

Roger writes: “As to probabilities: essentially all scientists agree that, if an event has less than one chance in 10 to the 50th of happening, we can’t realistically expect that the event has ever occurred or will ever occur—unless totally unexpected or undetected factors are present or introduced.”

Essentially all scientists are wrong then. Here is one better. How about an event that has zero probability? It is clear from your comments that you would never expect an event with zero probability to ever occur — and I expect the same belief for every follower of RTB. But, hear ye hear ye, events with zero probability occur every single day, and these aren’t theoretical or pathological events. Did you know this? Does anyone at RTB know this? How can this be? If an event with zero probability can occur every single day, then can’t an event with non-zero probability occur every single day too? That really throws a monkey wrench into the probability-argument machine of RTB. Anyone who has taken an undergraduate class in probability theory can explain why, and point out the serious flaws in Hugh Ross’s multiplication of meaningless numbers.

Let’s go further with a simple example of hypothesis testing. RTB argues, while wearing the latest emperor’s fashions, for the hypothesis that the Christian God exists . Call this hypothesis H. RTB bases its argument for H on the evidence that we are here. Call this X. Using a fundamental and powerful law of probability called Bayes’ Theorem — who was actually a Presbyterian preacher — we can say the following:

• P(H | X) P(X) = P(X | H) P(H).

In words this means: the product of the probability that God exists given that we exist and the probability that we exist is equal to the product of the probability that we exist given God exists and the probability that God exists. RTB wants to show that P(H | X) is very high, and thus believable. In other words, that our very existence proves that the Christian God exists. So that means we have the following relation to compute:

• P(H | X) = P(X | H) P(H) / P(X).

Which of the numbers on the right-hand side can we actually quantify? We can all agree that the probability we exist given God exists is one: P(X | H) = 1. This leaves us with this expression:

• P(H | X) = P(H) / P(X).

Now, what is the probability that God exists P(H)? And what is the probability that we exist P(X)? Numbers cannot be assigned to these terms. RTB tries to calculate P(X), but in absolutely nonsensical ways . Making matters worse, since probability is a value between 0 and 1, P(H) must be less than or equal to the probability of our existence P(X). In other words, the probability of the existence of God must be less than the probability of our existence (with the assumption that P(X | H) = 1). This is a huge problem for RTB! Even bigger than the first one discussed above.

Does no one here or at RTB possess even a fundamental understanding of probability theory. Probability theory is the single most important scientific and mathematical advancement of the 20th century! Probability theory is the reason why computers and computer networks, cellular telephony, modern medicine, and many many more things actually work. It has paved the way for revolutions in science (quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, genetics), technology (digital electronics, the Internet), and economics (market theory, mutual funds, insurance), and many other areas. If the pharmaceutical industry did not properly apply the concepts of probability theory the consequences would be dire — lives would be devastated. I would think an organization that proclaims the value of scientific truth would understand the importance of properly and honestly applying probability theory.

OK, readers. There it is. Any responses?

An update on a chimp whose caretakers sought “personhood” status for the animal brought to mind some thoughts and questions about how humans view other creatures, specifically our pets. While Christians in particular make a clear distinction between humans and animals, at times that line appears blurred by our behavior.

In the case of the chimp named Matthew Hiasl Pan, an animal rights group had hoped an Austrian court would grant the chimp “personhood” status in order to save the animal from possible experimentation and exploitation, which he had been rescued from years earlier. The court denied personhood status. At this point I could envision a wary Christian response along the lines of “OK, they ruled properly. Animals are not humans and at least some aspect of our worldview has been validated.”

Maybe that’s easier said than done. I saw a Nature program on medical dogs not long ago that reminded me of how special dogs can be. The program featured an exasperated and frightened family trying to cope with a dangerously diabetic boy. The boy had suffered horrific seizures and the parents worried constantly. The mom learned on the Internet about dogs’ special abilities and they got a puppy and trained it to sense blood sugar level changes in the boy. Bottom line: the dog is a lifesaver. Mom, Dad, and the boy can sleep at night because the dog never leaves the boy. If there’s a problem the dog goes to the parents’ bedroom and alerts them (well before it’s critical). They can leisurely attend to the boy (shot of insulin) and everyone can go back to sleep with no fear of seizures.

Service dogs, therapy dogs, cats that dial the operator when an owner goes down—we’ve all known special pets. I’m sure readers of this column can regale us with stories of their own uncanny, devoted, and affectionate companions. The point here is that on the one hand we might read a story about some animal rights people trying to help a chimp and wonder why they keep pushing the line. On the other hand, haven’t we already crossed it in some ways? And is it good that we have done so?

Do we treat our pets as people already? You can go out to eat, get a massage, or check into a hotel with your dog. We give our pets human names and some people put them in their wills. Is that a bad thing? In the case of the diabetic boy above, let’s say the dog lives another 12 years and the (now) young man wants to have a full-on funeral with a minister, video memorials, eulogies, flowers, everything. Anyone gonna complain?

You might say, “Yeah, but it’s still a dog. We can love them like family but we still recognize they’re animals.”

Let’s press it one step further. A few years ago a popular radio host in Southern California asked listeners to respond to a dilemma. He asked that if “your pet” and [name of a high-profile murder suspect on trial in Los Angeles] were both drowning and you could save one, who would it be? During the time I listened in the car, every caller said they would save their pet and let the man drown.

What are your thoughts?

At the outset of 2008 it might be fun to speculate on what might seal the deal for either naturalism or RTB’s brand of creationism. What evidence from science in 2008 would really solidify the case? Is there one discovery that would validate one model but falsify another (assuming all parties think objectively and logically)?

Both sides will be tempted to say at least a couple of things about the other in this little exercise, so let’s acknowledge that up front. The naturalist and the Christian alike might say that no amount of evidence will convince the other side because both sides have made faith commitments to their positions. The Christian might add that only a work of God (the Holy Spirit working through the gospel) will change hearts and minds. The naturalist might add that the Christian’s “blind faith” simply reinterprets the evidence to fit god-of-the-gaps thinking.

Both sides might also assert that no piece of evidence is missing. Any new discovery is simply icing on the cake. The case has been strong enough for years, decades, even centuries (again, for minds open to the truth).

Given these caveats, what kind of discovery would do it for you? In addition to RTB fans, I hope to hear from those of you who hold to a naturalistic view. You really spice up the discussion. Just remember to write so I don’t have to withhold your comments from being posted (which you’ve been very good at thus far). 

A critic of Reasons To Believe recently sent this response to another post, but perhaps it’s worthwhile to highlight the comment here and see if we can generate some discussion. The skeptic’s concern centers on RTB’s creation model. Here’s the comment.

I still have yet to see what specifically this model is and how it is different from just a collection of the scientific models we have today (e.g., the origin of the diversity of species, the origin of the universe, the origin of the planets, etc.) with “The Bible.” RTB is quick to say “here is evidence that supports the Big Bang, and thus this supports our model!” I can make my own testable model of the universe by combining the Big Bang with the statement “The moon is made of cheese.” Then I can say, “Hey, background radiation. That supports the Big Bang, which is in my model. This lends further proof to the moon being made of cheese.” Is this how RTB’s model is built? That is how I see it.

Is the critic correct? How would you respond?

PBS’s two-hour NOVA documentary, Judgment Day:Intelligent Design on Trial (aired on November 13, 2007) demonstrated more than ever the necessity of Reasons To Believe’s presence in the marketplace of ideas. The program, which included a partial reenactment of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, effectively portrayed evolution as triumphant while demonstrating intelligent design (ID) to be unscientific. To be sure, RTB commented on the case when it first broke in 2005 (see here and here) and agreed with the judge’s decision.

However, the way in which the conflict was set up was maddening to watch. On the one hand you had bright, well-spoken, calm, and pleasant people explaining what real science was. Darwinian evolution was testable, attractive, and appeared unassailable. On the other hand you had a couple of less-well-spoken, shifty, Bible-thumping types who sought by any means possible (including deceit) to promote a religious agenda. Any neutral observer who was intelligent and concerned about discerning truth but was not a scientist would be compelled to side with evolution.

As they say, though, “the devil’s in the details.”

Here’s one example. The program built a case for an evolutionary “tree of life” based largely upon the Tiktaalik fossil find reported a couple of years ago. Presumably the specimen was a transitional intermediate between lobe-finned fish and four-footed land-dwelling creatures. As a viewer I found it provocative. To summarize:

Here’s what Darwinian evolution predicts, and here’s the data to confirm the prediction. That’s good science. ID, on the other hand is a “science show-stopper.” ID people invoke a creator and his magic; therefore, they’re not interested in investigation.

Well, as RTB biochemist Fuz Rana said at the time of the discovery:

If Tiktaalik is a transitional intermediate, it means that evolution from fish to land-dwelling animals must have happened in less than 10 million years. When evolutionary biologists claim that the transition from sea to land is that fast-paced, it raises very real questions about evolution as an explanation for life’s history, even if this fossil is regarded as the “holy grail” of paleontology. Evolution couldn’t have happened that rapidly given the extensive biological changes needed for a creature to move from the water to land.

NOVA went on to make sport of Michael Behe (played by an actor) and his irreducible complexity argument—another obvious place where a key witness from RTB might have helped—and made it clear that ID was not science, but merely recycled creationism.

Reasons To Believe has formulated a scientifically testable creation model that attempts to explain natural history, and boy was it sorely needed on this program. One brand of ID has failed miserably, but other expressions exist. It’s up to the Christian community to assume responsibility for specious science. Rather than resorting to name calling and threats and regrouping for the next battle, maybe it’s time for an actual scientific model.

What do you think?