The Return of the Infinite Monkeys
There is a fascinating debate on You Tube between a well known scientist, Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig, a well known philosopher and theologian. Once you get past the complex language of their individual disciplines, which is simplified for the sake of their audience, the arguments really aren't that difficult to grasp.
Krauss, throughout, comes across as condescending and arrogant towards Craig, in spite of the fact that Craig has kicked the crap out of most of Krauss's fellow travelers in similar debates. He then sets out to make a case based on modern scientific theory for a self starting universe. One that needs no god to aid in it's creation. "Theory" is the operative word here. Krauss frequently begins his examples with that little two letter word "If." Meaning; that "If" the universe has a particular set of properties, then, his arguments might be true. This is supposed to completely negate Craig's argument for god as a transcendent cause. It should be obvious, however, that if Krauss can use the word "If" to show that something might be true, he hasn't really proven anything, he's only demonstrated that it's possible. That is if his initial assumptions accurately reflect reality, and that, of course, is a very big "If."
Krauss acknowledges that he isn't trying to be dogmatic regarding a range of scientific theories, only that dogmatic statements of any kind tend to be inherently unscientific. So, what is Krauss's real argument? It appears to be an argument against religious fundamentalism as he understands it. And, because he isn't a theologian, most of his arguments are about as theologically shallow as one might expect from someone who deems it appropriate to openly condescend to religious folk. His real argument at it's core seems to be against American, right wing, fundamentalist, thereby lumping all religious faith into a very narrowly defined category to be conveniently dispensed with.
Krauss continues to argue that the word “nothing” doesn't really mean nothing. This is foundational to his overall hypothesis. Meaning; that the universe didn't really spring from nothing, because nothing is really something. I would contend, that from his point of view, he is correct. But, just because the universe appears to be filled with invisible building blocks that aren't actually nothing, but, are really something—and, that these invisible things could make the universe possible, doesn't actually explain much. In other words, beneath every layer of complexity, there is another layer of complexity, and another, and another. This doesn't simplify the argument that Krauss is making, it merely makes it even less probable from a Darwinian point of view.
For instance, Darwin thought that a living cell was just a blob of flesh. He not only turned out to be wrong, he turned out to be completely wrong. In fact a cell is improbably complex, well beyond anything Darwin ever imagined. Krauss then makes the extraordinary argument that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection could, more or less, explain everything else. Including; weasels, trees, rocks, matter, time, space, energy, bats, fungus, cars, atoms, gravity, the nuclear strong and weak forces, badgers, peanut butter, need I go on.
There is no evidence that Natural Selection has any such creative power, whether we throw random mutation into the mix or not. Random mutation is simply random events or mutations that may eventually produce something of value that aids in the survival of a species; wings to fly, feet to run, gills to extract air from water, etc. etc. etc... The one variable that allegedly makes this possible is time. Using a mathematical equation similar to Einstein's e = mc2, I offer t + c = s. This remarkable theory simply translates into Time + Chance = SHIT HAPPENS! I've written about this remarkable theory previously, and, it is absolutely essential to Darwinian theory, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
So, why does this "Shit" happen? Because it does! That's why! What proof do we have to sustain such a theory? There is none! But it's the only game in town, at least it's the only “scientific” game available. Everything else is considered heresy.
Time is necessary because, given enough time everything, supposedly, becomes possible; infinite monkey's typing on typewriters can produce the complete works of William Shakespeare or the encyclopedia Britannica, you name it, if it's big and wordy, these randomly acting, immortal monkey's are on the job. There is no way to test this hypothesis, though, so we have to simply except it as reasonable. Why? Because allegedly reasonable men say so. That's why!
None of this means that William Lane Craig is correct, or that the Bible is true, or any other religion, for that matter. But, it should at least, demand some humility from us. It should also make us a skeptics of just about everything said by anybody, except maybe a few simple things; love is better than hate, mercy is better than cruelty; to protect the weak is better than having no regard for life. That justice is better than injustice. That true justice is only true, when it is justice for all.
About these things we should all agree, but often, we don't. Why? Because human beings can be extraordinarily narcissistic and self centered; me, mine, I—these words are at the heart of our language, and vanity, above all else, is our great failure. That is a primary story that the Bible intends to tell. Einstein understood this, his followers might do themselves and us a world of good and do the same and eliminate the petty banter. Possibly, even the petty banter of this article, for the time being, however, I'll let it stand.
Mark Magula
Krauss, throughout, comes across as condescending and arrogant towards Craig, in spite of the fact that Craig has kicked the crap out of most of Krauss's fellow travelers in similar debates. He then sets out to make a case based on modern scientific theory for a self starting universe. One that needs no god to aid in it's creation. "Theory" is the operative word here. Krauss frequently begins his examples with that little two letter word "If." Meaning; that "If" the universe has a particular set of properties, then, his arguments might be true. This is supposed to completely negate Craig's argument for god as a transcendent cause. It should be obvious, however, that if Krauss can use the word "If" to show that something might be true, he hasn't really proven anything, he's only demonstrated that it's possible. That is if his initial assumptions accurately reflect reality, and that, of course, is a very big "If."
Krauss acknowledges that he isn't trying to be dogmatic regarding a range of scientific theories, only that dogmatic statements of any kind tend to be inherently unscientific. So, what is Krauss's real argument? It appears to be an argument against religious fundamentalism as he understands it. And, because he isn't a theologian, most of his arguments are about as theologically shallow as one might expect from someone who deems it appropriate to openly condescend to religious folk. His real argument at it's core seems to be against American, right wing, fundamentalist, thereby lumping all religious faith into a very narrowly defined category to be conveniently dispensed with.
Krauss continues to argue that the word “nothing” doesn't really mean nothing. This is foundational to his overall hypothesis. Meaning; that the universe didn't really spring from nothing, because nothing is really something. I would contend, that from his point of view, he is correct. But, just because the universe appears to be filled with invisible building blocks that aren't actually nothing, but, are really something—and, that these invisible things could make the universe possible, doesn't actually explain much. In other words, beneath every layer of complexity, there is another layer of complexity, and another, and another. This doesn't simplify the argument that Krauss is making, it merely makes it even less probable from a Darwinian point of view.
For instance, Darwin thought that a living cell was just a blob of flesh. He not only turned out to be wrong, he turned out to be completely wrong. In fact a cell is improbably complex, well beyond anything Darwin ever imagined. Krauss then makes the extraordinary argument that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection could, more or less, explain everything else. Including; weasels, trees, rocks, matter, time, space, energy, bats, fungus, cars, atoms, gravity, the nuclear strong and weak forces, badgers, peanut butter, need I go on.
There is no evidence that Natural Selection has any such creative power, whether we throw random mutation into the mix or not. Random mutation is simply random events or mutations that may eventually produce something of value that aids in the survival of a species; wings to fly, feet to run, gills to extract air from water, etc. etc. etc... The one variable that allegedly makes this possible is time. Using a mathematical equation similar to Einstein's e = mc2, I offer t + c = s. This remarkable theory simply translates into Time + Chance = SHIT HAPPENS! I've written about this remarkable theory previously, and, it is absolutely essential to Darwinian theory, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
So, why does this "Shit" happen? Because it does! That's why! What proof do we have to sustain such a theory? There is none! But it's the only game in town, at least it's the only “scientific” game available. Everything else is considered heresy.
Time is necessary because, given enough time everything, supposedly, becomes possible; infinite monkey's typing on typewriters can produce the complete works of William Shakespeare or the encyclopedia Britannica, you name it, if it's big and wordy, these randomly acting, immortal monkey's are on the job. There is no way to test this hypothesis, though, so we have to simply except it as reasonable. Why? Because allegedly reasonable men say so. That's why!
None of this means that William Lane Craig is correct, or that the Bible is true, or any other religion, for that matter. But, it should at least, demand some humility from us. It should also make us a skeptics of just about everything said by anybody, except maybe a few simple things; love is better than hate, mercy is better than cruelty; to protect the weak is better than having no regard for life. That justice is better than injustice. That true justice is only true, when it is justice for all.
About these things we should all agree, but often, we don't. Why? Because human beings can be extraordinarily narcissistic and self centered; me, mine, I—these words are at the heart of our language, and vanity, above all else, is our great failure. That is a primary story that the Bible intends to tell. Einstein understood this, his followers might do themselves and us a world of good and do the same and eliminate the petty banter. Possibly, even the petty banter of this article, for the time being, however, I'll let it stand.
Mark Magula