We had supper on Sunday with a couple who moved from Russia a number of years ago. They had a friend over who had just moved from Russia last Sept. We got talking about religion in the former Soviet Union. They talked about the new religious freedom in that country and the increase in church goers. I looked up a couple of surveys on religion in Russia and they both listed people who don't believe in God as less than 20 % of the population. I spend a month in the Soviet Union in 1986 when Gorbachev was just beginning to thaw the cold war and it was a very different situation, at least on the surface. The church buildings we saw in public places had either been turned into museums, been boarded up, or had been turned into warehouses and factories. The ethnic group to which I belong lived in the Ukraine and they told stories of the Stalin purges where anyone with a leadership role in a church was hauled off to Siberia, never to be seen again. Those who professed religion were denied promotions, ridiculed, and sometimes imprisoned. Religion was the opiate of the masses and the communist government did what they could to see that it was eradicated. Schools taught scientific atheism and evolution as fact with no other alternative. For 70 years the communists were in power which equates to about three generations of school children being indoctrinated with its teachings. Why are the vast majority now turning to religion?
One possibility is that it is a backlash against authority. People tend to push the other way when someone is forcing them down a certain path. It would seem odd that a back lash would last this long since it's been about 15 years since the collapse of the communist regime. Another possibility is that people search for meaning in their life and when they did not find it in scientific atheism, they turned elsewhere. A third possibility is that people tend to go with what makes sense. Looking at the universe with its trillions of solar systems and complex life forms and saying that it just happened is a hard sell. They often turn to other explanations that better fit with their view of logic.
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Welcome to Thunder Bay
We learn the laws of the universe by experience and observation. The laws become so ingrained in us that we may not even realize we are reacting to them. It's like the disease of leprosy. Leprosy can cause damage to the peripheral nerves resulting in the person who has the disease to have a decreased ability to register pain. Because of this, lepers can cause permanent damage to their fingers and toes because they damage them in an accident without realizing it and then do not protect them. When a healthy person hurts him/herself, (s)he favours and protects the injury so that it has a chance to heal. We do this often without even realizing it. We have the laws of the universe ingrained into us in much the same way.
If I was driving along the road and came upon a hill that had white rocks that spelled out "Welcome to Thunder Bay," what would I think about the rocks' existence. My first thought would not be, "Oh, isn't that interesting that a number of white rocks rolled down that hill and stopped in the exact place to spell out those words. What a weird coincidence." No, my first thought would be, "Someone came out here and put those rocks into place to spell out those words." Wherever we see organization and structure, we invariably assume that a being of intelligence was responsible for it. We wonder about crop circles and Stonehenge for the same reason. They are still being talked about and studied because we don't accept that it happened by chance. It seems to me that the creation of the universe should be no different. There is organization and structure. It is not logical to begin with the assumption that it happened by chance.
If I was driving along the road and came upon a hill that had white rocks that spelled out "Welcome to Thunder Bay," what would I think about the rocks' existence. My first thought would not be, "Oh, isn't that interesting that a number of white rocks rolled down that hill and stopped in the exact place to spell out those words. What a weird coincidence." No, my first thought would be, "Someone came out here and put those rocks into place to spell out those words." Wherever we see organization and structure, we invariably assume that a being of intelligence was responsible for it. We wonder about crop circles and Stonehenge for the same reason. They are still being talked about and studied because we don't accept that it happened by chance. It seems to me that the creation of the universe should be no different. There is organization and structure. It is not logical to begin with the assumption that it happened by chance.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
The Minimum Requirements for Life
One assignment I received during a graduate course in microbiology was to find a candidate for the first living cell. The first cell would have needed to metabolize and replicate. We (the other graduate students and I) began by looking for the simplest possible living cell. We narrowed it down to the archaeon and viruses. Simple viruses only need about 10 000 base pairs but we disqualified them because they absolutely must have another cell to be able to reproduce. Some archaeon need only 30 000 base pairs in their DNA molecule and so the archaeon became our candidate for the simplest life form and possibly a relative of the first living cell on earth. The largest human DNA molecule by contrast has 220 million base pairs. Then we gathered a list of everything the cell needed to be able to be considered a living thing. Now, I'm going from memory here so forgive me if I omit something or get numbers wrong. Here is what the simplest living things needs to be a living thing;
- a minimum of 30 000 base pairs in the correct order with phosphate and sugars to provide the backbone
- a minimum of 12 proteins with the amino acids in the correct order
- a number of molecules of ATP
- a number of molecules of NADPH
- a semi-permeable cell wall that completely engulfs these substances
There were other things on the list but I forget them. If any one of these components was missing or a tiny percentage of the nucleotides or amino acids are out of order, the cell would not be able to function and there would be no life. It was astounding to me how complex the simplest living cell was. I cannot imagine this set of circumstances happening by chance. First of all, where did all these components come from? The experiment of Miller and Urey in 1953 has been more or less discarded as a viable example of the early earth's environment. Even if there were amino acids, what is the probability of them lining up in the correct order for not one but 12 different proteins. It's been a while since I've taken statistics but the probability of the amino acids of just one protein lining up in the correct order is so infinitesimally small, it is hardly worth considering, let alone a DNA molecule of 30 000 base pairs. It is not logical for the first cell to have happened by chance. There must be another explanation. I have read of a theory that postulates that the components for the first cell were "seeded" on earth by meteorites. I find this unlikely also. What is the probability of all these components being in close enough proximity to each other and then engulfed by a semi-permeable cell wall? What kind of environment could have formed these components somewhere out in space? How could these components have remained viable in the harsh environment of space and the traumatic trip to earth? I have yet to see a reasonable model for the first living cell. This aspect of the origin of life debate pulls me toward the intelligent design side.
- a minimum of 30 000 base pairs in the correct order with phosphate and sugars to provide the backbone
- a minimum of 12 proteins with the amino acids in the correct order
- a number of molecules of ATP
- a number of molecules of NADPH
- a semi-permeable cell wall that completely engulfs these substances
There were other things on the list but I forget them. If any one of these components was missing or a tiny percentage of the nucleotides or amino acids are out of order, the cell would not be able to function and there would be no life. It was astounding to me how complex the simplest living cell was. I cannot imagine this set of circumstances happening by chance. First of all, where did all these components come from? The experiment of Miller and Urey in 1953 has been more or less discarded as a viable example of the early earth's environment. Even if there were amino acids, what is the probability of them lining up in the correct order for not one but 12 different proteins. It's been a while since I've taken statistics but the probability of the amino acids of just one protein lining up in the correct order is so infinitesimally small, it is hardly worth considering, let alone a DNA molecule of 30 000 base pairs. It is not logical for the first cell to have happened by chance. There must be another explanation. I have read of a theory that postulates that the components for the first cell were "seeded" on earth by meteorites. I find this unlikely also. What is the probability of all these components being in close enough proximity to each other and then engulfed by a semi-permeable cell wall? What kind of environment could have formed these components somewhere out in space? How could these components have remained viable in the harsh environment of space and the traumatic trip to earth? I have yet to see a reasonable model for the first living cell. This aspect of the origin of life debate pulls me toward the intelligent design side.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Determining Truth
I once had the opportunity of observing a trial. The trial was between two individuals who had gotten into a fight. According to the witnesses, there had been drinking involved, threats, and fists thrown. I had a chance to talk to the judge afterwards and what he said amazed me. He said that the human mind is unreliable. In his experience, witnesses to crimes frequently do not tell the truth. He came to this conclusion because witnesses to the same incident will often contradict each other. He also said that these errors are generally not made on purpose. The witnesses truly believe what they are telling the judge is the truth but perspective, emotion, faulty memory, and human frailty cause their view on reality to be skewed. It was his job to sift through the testimony and try and determine what the actual truth was.
We human beings decide on what is truth by receiving input from our senses and using our brains to come to logical conclusions. Let's suppose that a adult was knocked on the head and lost all her/his memory so that (s)he had to start determining truth all over again. (S)He picks up a stone and lets go of it and notices that it falls down to the ground. His/Her mind creates a theory that things fall toward the ground. (S)He tries it again and the same thing happens. The theory becomes more solid in her/his mind. After numerous tries, (s)he decides that the truth of the matter is that when something is dropped, it falls toward the ground.
Science decides on truth in much the same way except that there are no facts in science. To be an absolute fact, there has to be zero chance for the theory to be broken. The only way to know for absolute certain that the stone will fall toward the ground every time would be to perform this experiment every time possible. Since we cannot perform experiments infinity times, we cannot say with absolute certainty that it is truth. We call things "facts" when there is an extremely high likelihood of it being true. The only certainty is a reasonable probability in the scientific world. Thus it all comes down to percentages. Determining truth is like a big poker game. If there are extremely high odds for a theory to be true, it is considered truth. It is our job then to calculate the probabilities, taking into account that our senses are fallible and the truth may have to be adjusted if we receive new input.
We human beings decide on what is truth by receiving input from our senses and using our brains to come to logical conclusions. Let's suppose that a adult was knocked on the head and lost all her/his memory so that (s)he had to start determining truth all over again. (S)He picks up a stone and lets go of it and notices that it falls down to the ground. His/Her mind creates a theory that things fall toward the ground. (S)He tries it again and the same thing happens. The theory becomes more solid in her/his mind. After numerous tries, (s)he decides that the truth of the matter is that when something is dropped, it falls toward the ground.
Science decides on truth in much the same way except that there are no facts in science. To be an absolute fact, there has to be zero chance for the theory to be broken. The only way to know for absolute certain that the stone will fall toward the ground every time would be to perform this experiment every time possible. Since we cannot perform experiments infinity times, we cannot say with absolute certainty that it is truth. We call things "facts" when there is an extremely high likelihood of it being true. The only certainty is a reasonable probability in the scientific world. Thus it all comes down to percentages. Determining truth is like a big poker game. If there are extremely high odds for a theory to be true, it is considered truth. It is our job then to calculate the probabilities, taking into account that our senses are fallible and the truth may have to be adjusted if we receive new input.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Rhetoric Overload
Parts of the web are platforms for rhetoric.
The existence of the universe is a puzzle to me and my brain is continually looking for pieces to help me to understand it. There are two major camps when it comes to promoting theories about how we got here, the creationists and the evolutionists. Both sides are evident on the Internet and both sides use much the same tactics and tone. They adamantly submit their ideas and often deride those who belong to the other camp. I get the feeling that these two camps have decided in their minds what they believe and do not easily consider other ideas.
I consider myself a scientist. I am not working in a science field, don't have a PhD., and do not perform experiments. I consider myself a scientist because my mind loves logic. I try to make sense of things and feel vaguely uncomfortable when things don't make sense. I have tried searching for sense in the Big Question on the web but often find discrepancies and illogical statements. In future blogs I will post musings that make sense to me and would greatly welcome logical input. Please, leave the rhetoric at the door when you check in.
The existence of the universe is a puzzle to me and my brain is continually looking for pieces to help me to understand it. There are two major camps when it comes to promoting theories about how we got here, the creationists and the evolutionists. Both sides are evident on the Internet and both sides use much the same tactics and tone. They adamantly submit their ideas and often deride those who belong to the other camp. I get the feeling that these two camps have decided in their minds what they believe and do not easily consider other ideas.
I consider myself a scientist. I am not working in a science field, don't have a PhD., and do not perform experiments. I consider myself a scientist because my mind loves logic. I try to make sense of things and feel vaguely uncomfortable when things don't make sense. I have tried searching for sense in the Big Question on the web but often find discrepancies and illogical statements. In future blogs I will post musings that make sense to me and would greatly welcome logical input. Please, leave the rhetoric at the door when you check in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)