Tool Marks and Time

Time.

Among all things, nothing seems so poignant a mark of intelligence as the time it takes for an intelligent agent to effect something compared to the time it takes for non-directed actors. Consider a hundred coins all dropped out of a bag onto the floor, repeat the drop enough times and eventually you will get one case where all one hundred coins are either heads or all tails. However, give the bag to a person and ask them to take the hundred coins and choose either heads or tails and lay all one hundred coins on the floor with the same side up and the time it takes that person will be far less than the time it takes using the random method.

This example seems obvious, but how do we define the obvious? How do we scientifically categorize that the difference is due to the acting will and intelligence of the person? Time seems to be the tool mark, certainly.

Beyond that, though, I'm stumped. Ideas?

The focus of my Search

Actually, that is the question, not the answer. I have started with the double assumption that there is a thing called "intelligence" and that the actions driven by "intelligent" agents should be distinguishable from those of undirected processes.

Based on this assumption, archeologist identify "tool marks" when discriminating an arrow head from a uniquely worn stone in order to conclude that humans inhabited a site. In the same fashion, I propose we should be looking for "tool marks" on creation, left by God which indicate that the universe, life and mankind were created by an intelligent God, not by undirected processes.

Now is where things get complicated.

What would God's tool marks look like? Certainly, if He created the natural processes by which the universe functions, it may be incredibly difficult, or even impossible to distinguish a tool mark from a natural process. The first question we must ask is actually whether such a search is even feasible. Many, both Christians and non, may say it's not, because religion is religion and science is science and you can't use one to inform the other. While I whole-heartily disagree with this position, I will leave the details of that argument for another time. I believe we can glorify God through our search into the wonders of His creation, but more importantly, I believe that He has not abandoned us here. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." It has always been God's way to use the natural world to point the way to Himself, so that men are able (if intellectually honest) to know there is a creator and to seek Him. It is not in God's character to become more difficult to recognize because we have studied His creation through the lens of the telescope or the microscope. Rather, we should find him all the more. What complicates our study are our own philosophies and theories which we bring to the lab, denying God before we have even looked into His wonders.

So, then, for what tool marks should we be searching? What are the ways in which the creation itself testifies that it was created? How can we, scientifically, pursue the origins of the universe and discern between that which occurred from a directed, intelligent process and that which has resulted from undirected, natural laws? This is my quest.

Emergence

I have been reading a good essay regarding the definition of life and of emergence, "Defining Life, Explaining Emergence" by Claus Emmeche. The article is somewhat technical, but definitely worth reading. I gleaned a couple things from the article. First, there are two types of emergence. The first is known as "deducible/computable" emergence and is the kind where the apparently complex phenomenon that arise from the interactions of simpler phenomemon can be deduced or computed, if you know the rules and enough information about the simpler phenomena. The second, more interesting, type is "observational" emergence. In this type, the phenomenon that appears from the interactions of complex systems cannot be predicted in any way from the lower level phenomenona, but only observed once the system has integrated and the emergent phenomenon has occurred and been seen.

I would posit that intelligence and consciousness are phenomena of the latter type; and that exploration of the possibility of emergent phenomena without an intelligent agent is a principal direction in which creation research should proceed.

Oversimplification - STOP IT!!!

Romans 1:18-23
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

We too often sit back on this verse, look at evolutionary scientists and say (to ourselves at least) "He chooses to reject God and embrace evolution as his god. He will get what he deserves."

We need to look at what else the Apostle Paul said, "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." If we want to engage the men and women in the scientific community we have to be able to speak at their level. If Paul had not been schooled in oration and liberally educated, he could never have gained the attention of the men of Athens. If we cannot speak to evolutionary biologist in without inflammatory terms and with scientific research they will respect, then we cannot reach them at all.

I have been searching the internet to find creation focused research on the platypus genetic code. The gene code of the platypus has been revealed and there are a number of interesting findings. The platypus shares features in its code which are similar in nature to the genetic codes of mammals, birds and reptiles. The internet is replete with articles concerning the discovery and its meaning to biology and our understanding of evolution. However, I cannot find a single creation focused article that has anywhere near the scientific rigor or even level of writing that would allow me to challenge the basic conclusion that the platypus DNA has provided further evidence of how mammals, reptiles and birds branched from common ancestors millions of years ago. WHY?

Instead, I find creation focused articles written at the eighth grade level that simplify the issue and blithely point to the Biblical God of creation and say what a beautiful thing His creation is. Although I agree with their points, where is the research? Where is the argument? WHERE IS THE SCIENCE? Articles are filled with inflammatory terms assigning evolutionary biologists to the realm of false teachers. I find it hard to believe that this is the intent of the authors of these articles and I certainly hope it is not. But the result is we are only reaching those who believe. Creation science preaches to the choir, which is why we are losing court cases and frankly, by my estimation, losing the scientific argument.

If we are to engage the scientific world, then we have to enter it, and like Paul, we have to speak their language. So, stop making it so simple, it's not. The issues and facts that matter in modern science are complex and intellectually challenging. The platypus is a "hodgepodge" animal, having several traits of different classes of animals. Evolutionists say this is prima facia evidence of evolution at work. Creationists, say, no, such a mix would never result from evolutionary processes. Who's comparing the paleontological record to the genetic record? Where is the study of why mammals need IgG and IgE, but birds need IgY to handle certain enzyme functions and why does the platypus have the mammalian set, when it's sex determining genetics are so much more like a bird. When you get into the details, the facts get a lot more confusing and the conclusion regarding a Creation versus Evolution is not so clear cut. I don't know if it's possible to have a truly unbiased approach to details like platypus DNA, but we have to at least start dealing with it at a post-graduate level if we ever hope to converse with the scientific community about it.

Will the details of biology, genetics and origin research challenge your beliefs? I hope so. If they don't then you aren't looking deep enough.

Evolution is a Scientific Fact

To my evangelical brothers, don't throw your stones yet. I have not abandoned God's word and subscribed to belief in darwinism or theistic evolution. However, I am tired of hearing how "Evolution" is not a scientific fact, that it's only a "theory". If you are still buying that argument, then you haven't been reading the scientific articles or talking to the biologists lately. Evolution has become so accepted by the scientific community that it is considered a fundamental property of living things. In the Wikipedia definition, "Adaptation" is listed above "Reproduction" in the properties of living things. The eBook, PhysicalGeography.net, Chapter 9(a) "Origin and Definition of Life" uses an essay from molecular biologist Daniel E. Koshland Jr. who lists the ability to evolve as life's second highest characteristic (after reproduction).

These are not isolated examples. Any serious reading of biology texts and articles will quickly reveal that evolution has become a foundational principle to the entire science. What the creation community needs is to wake up to this fact and meet it with scientific inquiry that is above reproach. We can't simply rely on the statement "God did it". Trusting that God created the world is what we are called to by faith, I know; and I will be the first to tell you that the Biblical account is true. However, if I am going to argue the creation account in the halls of science, then I need scientific arguments. If God has chosen to hide this evidence, then so be it. But I don't believe He has. I believe he has called me to and you to do our part and through us show the world His glory. "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." ...

Some things must be assumed

I have spent a lot of time considering the various issues concerning God's "tool marks" on the universe. Essentially, if you are entirely constrained within the system as well as being a part of the system, there are really no objective means by which the system can be analyzed for evidence of an external creator. Essentially, any behavior I attribute to a creator, can just as easily be attributed to the fundamental aspects of the system. Without a view from outside the system, there is no way to know.

Thankfully for us, we have a creator God who has chosen to communicate with mankind through His word, the Bible. In as much as we can know and understand an infinite God with finite minds, God has revealed Himself to us through His word. Now, this answers the question for the theologian who finds truth through supernatural revelation. For the scientist, who requires knowledge derived from observable criteria, this is not very helpful.

For the scientist to make some headway in the issue, we have to make an assumption. Without it, we are left to flail in circles within the constraints of a closed, inescapable system. So, here is what I propose as the fundamental assumption for our discourse:

All actors are either intelligent or non-intelligent.

To get to this, I need to lay some groundwork. (Mostly because I suspect, my terminology is not correct.) All things which happen in the universe are referred to as phenomena. A single thing is a phenomenon. The vast majority (99.999%) of things that happen have causes. (Newton's First Law of Motion covers these. Quantum Mechanics handles the other 0.001%.) Each cause represents an "Actor". If this were an English Grammar class, we would say, the "Actor" is the Subject to the "Cause" Verb acting on the Object "Phenomenon". For example, The Earth's Gravity (Actor) pulls (causing verb) on the Moon, making it change direction and stay in orbit around the Earth. Simply stated, the Actor is the thing that causes the phenomenon.

So, what is the difference between an "intelligent" and "non-intelligent" actor? An IQ over 110? A vocabulary of 50,000 words? No, the difference is purpose. The Earth's gravity acts on the Moon because that is how gravity works. Gravity is a basic property of matter and it behaves according to definable rules. Even Quantum Mechanic events which may act without "Actors" still operates according to definable probabilities. A "non-intelligent" actor always acts according to rules, regardless of the outcome. An "intelligent" actor intends an outcome when it undertakes an action. That is not to say, the Actor always achieves the intended outcome, but rather that some result was intended. A pitcher desiring to strike out the batter on a 3-2 count chooses a curve ball following two fast-balls, in hopes the batter is expecting the fast ball. The baseball follows a curved path on its way from the pitchers mound to the catcher's mitt because of the physics of spin on the ball, but the spin is on the ball, because the pitcher intended the ball to curve. Whether or not the pitcher succeeds depends as much on the batter's ability as on the pitcher's. But an intelligent actor need not be human, even a worker bee can act with intelligence. The bee leaves the hive with the intent of finding pollen and returning with the pollen to the hive. It is the intentionality of the act that makes it "intelligent".

As we proceed to examine the universe for God's "tool marks", we will be exploring along this line. What is the evidence left on something that is the result of intentional action, versus something that is the phenomenon of non-intelligent action?

Where to Begin

It seems to me that if God created the universe, then there should be evidence that the universe was created by an intelligent builder, rather than by random events. In the same way that an archeologist can separate a true arrowhead from a uniquely shaped rock by detailed inspection of the tool marks, we should be able to find God's "tool marks" left on the creation.

My quest begins by trying to understand how we can truly differentiate between that which has occurred through physical processes, unguided by any intelligent force and those things that are the result of directed, intelligent effort.

Christians often cite the appearance of two similar cars and point out that the similarities are due to the creator using the same parts to accomplish the same purpose. And that this is as good an explanation as evolution for the similarities we find in the fossil record. But, if you buried the car for several thousand years and then dug up the remaining rusted hulk, would there be enough left to discern that the structure was the result of a design and not a random collection of iron oxide? Does the very fact that we live inside the system make it impossible for us to actually evaluate it?

Thoughts?

Value #5: Biblical Bias

My last value, is my Biblical Bias and this is what I mean by it. Since God created the universe, inspired the Bible and the Bible is His inerrant word, then wherever the Bible speaks to issues of science the Bible and science should agree.

So, when two or more scientific theories exist, which explain the same set of observable data, I am biased towards those that are reconciled to the Bible using the most straightforward interpretation of God's Word.

"Biblical Bias" applies to choosing between competing scientific theories, not choosing between science and the Bible. Given the choice between a theory devised by men and the Bible, written by God, there is no competition. I will choose God's Word every time. But given a simple scientific theory reconciled to the Bible through complex theology and interpretation and a complicated theory reconciled to the Bible through historically consistent theology and straightforward interpretation, I choose the complicated scientific theory first. Does this mean I have chosen the right theory to explain the given facts? Not necessarily. In fact, both may be entirely wrong. But everyone needs a way to prioritize competing theories, if only to decide which to investigate first. Some apply a version of Ockham's Razor and choose the simpler, some choose the one that is most in line with current thinking, some the most radical. For me, I apply Biblical Bias.

Value #4: Don't be afraid of the Data

Like tools, inventions and firearms, data are not inherently evil or good. Data simply are. Some data are correct, some data are incorrect, but unless the data were produced illegitimately, we should not be afraid of the data.

How we use the data, the conclusion we draw, the actions we take based on our conclusions, the philosophies we build on those conclusions, those may be judged good or evil, but the underlying data can only be judged correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate, perhaps even mostly accurate, but not quite. But under no circumstances are the data themselves subject to moral judgements.

We don't have to like the data, we don't have to agree with the data, but we cannot alter it, dismiss it or ignore it without reason. If it is in error, then we must expose the error; if it is incomplete, we must complete it; if it is anomalous, we must explain the anomaly, not ignore it. To ignore the data only exposes our own ignorance and irrationality. I much prefer the man who admits "I believe contrary to the evidence presented, but I do consider the evidence. Would you like to present it differently?", for this man will listen. More importantly, this man has things to teach me, because there is reason to his belief, not just blind adherence to a doctrine he little understands.

Not everything you know agrees with what you believe. Science is not nearly as neat and clear-cut as we would like to believe. There is much disagreement over what the data mean. Don't fear the conflict. Relish it. Enter the fray and dig deeper into the data that contradict your beliefs.

Value #3: People First

As much as I desire to foster a lively debate, I so much more desire that all people be respected. Each human life is endowed with immeasurable value. No person, regardless of her opionion, should be the subject of ridicule. No person, regardless of his position in life should be at the mercy of another's whim.

So no matter how much we may argue; or how fundamental the basis of our disagreement may be; we must always recognize the right of each person to hold her opinions and arrive at her own conclusions. Coercion, whether by force, ridicule or "public opinion", is the last resort of one too ignorant to sway another by intelligent argument and too insecure to allow others to hold beliefs that disagree with one's own.

Value #2: The Bible

The Bible is the directly inspired, inerrant word of God. The same God who created the world and who sent His Son to die on a Roman Cross to pay for the sins of all mankind.

By inspired, I mean that in the original, the exact words that God wanted written were transcribed onto the pages by over 40 authors on three continents in three different languages over a period of nearly 1,500 years.

By inerrant, I mean that the original text contains not a single mistake or contains anything that is incorrect or false. That which is historical is historically accurate. That which is prophetic can be trusted to occur. Those claims which it makes concerning the condition of mankind and spiritual matters are trustworthy.

I intentionally caveat my statements by referring to the original, because only in the original did God direct the writing. Transcriptions, translations and the passage of manuscripts through time and various owners all are subject to the inconsistencies which plague any ancient text.

Additionally, only in the original language in the form it was used at the time of the writing is the text perfectly accurate. Changes in connotation and usage can vastly alter the inferred meaning of a text long after it has been written. Consider how many American high school students struggle to understand the comedy and subtleties of Shakespeare, simply because the language is unfamiliar. And Shakespeare is written in English, supposedly the native tongue of the readers.

However, as to the reliability of the existing manuscripts consistency with the original, there are few if any ancient documents which are as well evidenced to support the conclusion that we have reliable copies of the original text. And to the veracity of the translations, no translation is perfect, but there are several decent and practically useful versions in modern languages. I would not split hairs, theologically without studying the original texts, but for the basics, any commonly accepted translation is sufficient for a person to understand.

Value #1: Truth is Absolute

Those things that are true are always true. Often we confuse this because what is true is complicated, difficult to understand, subject to a myriad of conditions, and most often, because the truth is not what we want. So, we prefer to live in a world where truth is relative, where our own opinion can actually alter the veracity of a given statement. But some things are true no matter what we want to believe. If you add a single unit integer to another single unit integer you get a value of two units. It doesn't matter if you express it as 1+1=2 (decimal system) or 1+1=10 (binary) or if you insist that it equals three units with all your heart, mind and soul. You cannot alter the underlying truth of the statement.

Not all truth is knowable. Some things because the knowledge is beyond our ability to obtain, such as the conditions on planets beyond our galaxy's local group. Some items are not knowable because they are beyond our capacity to understand. Such as the mind of God. According to the Bible, His thoughts are above our thoughts, in such a way that we don't even have a frame of reference.

Not everything we know is the truth. 1800 years ago, we knew the earth was flat. 500 years ago, we knew that the sun, the moon and the planets rotated around the earth. What we knew didn't change the truth. But as science progressed, we have corrected our knowledge and filled in gaps. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that our understanding now is the final perfected understanding of all truth. Even to assume that all we know to be "Scientific Law" is true is a claim of extreme arrogance.

But whether we want we can know the truth, whether what we know is true, the truth is still truth.

My Vision

Why do I write this Blog? It's hard to tell, since, to date, no one has read it. But I have a vision:

To glorify God by learning everything I can about the origins of the universe, Earth, life and mankind and teaching others to do the same.

I am going to recommit myself to posting, so if you have just found me, please take a look and drop me a line, even if you disagree. In fact, especially if you disagree.

Over the next set of posts, I plan to lay out my values and my goals for this blog and for my personal growth in the study of origins.

Excitement!

Passion
Excitement
Energy

When you think of these words, events like rock concerts and football games come to mind. These are words for sports, for movies, for entertainment. But we don't often associate church or learning with these words. Why?

Whenever I get started on the intricacies of origins or the elegant complexity revealed in the DNA molecule, I get incredulous stares. People look at me as if I've grown a third head. And I've seen the same stare across enough topics to know that it is my energy, my excitement that motivates their stares. The depths and richness of the Bible, the complexity of DNA/RNA replication, the vastness and beauty of the cosmos elicit a level of awe and excitement for me reminiscent of people when they witnessed the "immaculate reception" or the Chicago Bulls NBA championship "Three-peat".

This is my passion, this is my calling. I cant' help but get excited! My hope is that a little of the wonder and awe I have found wears off on others. I hope others find the thing that they are passionate about and pursue it with all the energy and excitement (if not more) that is normally associated with a NFL team in pursuit of a "Perfect Season".