Reflectorites
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 23:51:38 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>SB>Design is religion not part of science and Darwin knew it. So did Gray. The
>>>fact that "design" is not a part of science does NOT make it "atheistic."
>SJ>No. At the time design was still part of science.
CC>No, it wasn't. It may have been believed by some scientists, but it was not
>therefore part of science. Without empirically testable implications, it
>was not science.
This is wrong on two counts. First, design *was* a part of science at least
up to the mid 19th century. Paley's "Natural Theology" was in Darwin's
day, part of the curiculum in university science and other courses. The very fact
that Darwin was still debating design with Asa Gray on the question up till 1868
shows that design was then still part of science.
Second, design *does* have "empirically testable implications". That's why
science journals *are* testing ID's scientific claims like those made in
Thaxton, et al's "The Mystery of Life's Origin" and Behe's "Darwin's Black
Box." Chris cannot coherently claim that ID is untestable and then claim
to have tested it!
[...]
>>>SJ>Well, if that's the case, then maybe Susan could explain what an atheist
>>>>could believe in other than "some form of evolution"?
>>
>>SB>panspermia? aliens did it?
>>
>SJ>Then who or what created the "aliens"?
CC>In an *infinite* and sufficiently varied universe, intelligent life would
>arise by pure chance, no matter *how* improbable that it would arise in any
>*finite* space and time. Suppose the probability is x, where x is
>represented by a decimal point followed by some huge but finite number of
>zeroes, and those zeroes are followed by a one. A number of zeroes equal to
>a googolplex raised to the googolplex power, perhaps. Divide the resulting
>number in to one, and you will get a number of similar space-and-time
>combinations that would give a good probability of intelligent life arising
>by pure chance. Multiply *that* number by a sufficiently large number, and
>you get almost a perfect *certainty* that intelligent life will arise
>spontaneously *somewhere* at *sometime*. If the universe contains an
>*infinite* number of such space-and-time combinations, the probability that
>intelligent life will not arise spontaneously goes to a literally
>infinitesimally small number, one that cannot be represented as a decimal
>expansion of a finite number of zeroes between the decimal point and a one
>at all.
First, I note that Chris, as an atheist, does not take up my invitation to
Susan "explain what an atheist could believe in other than `some form of
evolution'"?
Second, I am amused that in the past I have been taken to task by
evolutionists like Brian Harper, for claiming that some evolutionists rely on
chance to explain the origin of life. I was told that, following Gould, no
evolutionist in the last 20 years has argued for a chance origin of life:
"...Johnson raises the old chestnut against a natural origin of earthly- life by
arguing: `the possibility that such a complex entity could assemble itself by
chance is fantastically unlikely.' Sure, and no scientist has used that
argument for 20 years..." (Gould S.J. "Impeaching a Self-Appointed
Judge". Book Review of "Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson, Scientific
American, July 1992, p.93)
Yet here is Chris arguing for just that!
Third, there is just one slight problem for Chris. The "universe" we inhabit
is not "*infinite*". It has existed for a large but finite numbers of years
(~12 billion) and therefore has a large, but finite radius of ~12 billion light
years, and contains a large, but finite number of elementary particles
(estimated to be about 10^80).
Fourth, there are logical problems with any actual infinite material entity.
For example, if the "universe" was "infinite", it would have originated,
expanded, and dissipated an infinitely long time ago!
CC>If this life exists or existed, it could have seeded our local part of the
>Universe with life or with life-generating components.
If Chris is arguing for an infinite number of universes, he is going way
beyond the empirical scientific evidence. Since Chris claims that to be
scientific, a position must be "empirically testable", perhaps he would
explain how one would set up an experiment to empirically test for an
*infinite* number of universes?
And if Chris is claiming that this universe was seeded from another
universe, he has two further problems: 1) most multiverse theories
assume that there can be no connection between them ; and 2) they
usually assume different laws of physics, so matter from another
universe (let alone life), is unlikely to be able to survive in this
one.
CC>*Further*, and more easily understood, proving that naturalistic evolution
>is not possible on *Earth* would not be sufficient to prove that it is
>impossible *elsewhere*, so that, even in a decidedly *finite* universe life
>might arise by evolution somewhere *other* than Earth, and then gone on to
>"seed" Earth.
If Chris believes that "naturalistic evolution is not possible on *Earth*"
then of course he has no option but to believe it must have happened
"*elsewhere*". And maybe it did. But then, if it was outside our Solar
System, it would be permanently outside the range of empirical science:
"Assuming away the difficult points is one way to solve an intractable
problem; another is to send the problem off into space. That was the
strategy of one of the world's most famous scientists, Francis Crick, co-
discoverer of the structure of DNA. Crick is thoroughly aware of the
awesome complexity of cellular life and the extreme difficulty of explaining
how such life could have evolved in the time available on earth. So he
speculated that conditions might have been more favorable on some distant
planet. That move leaves the problem of getting life from the planet of
origin to earth. First in a paper with Leslie Orgel, and then in a book of his
own, Crick advanced a theory he called "directed panspermia." The basic
idea is that an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, possibly facing
extinction, sent primitive life forms to earth in a spaceship. The spaceship
builders couldn't come themselves because of the enormous time required
for interstellar travel; so they sent bacteria capable of surviving the voyage
and the severe conditions that would have greeted them upon arrival on the
early earth.... Crick would be scornful of any scientist who gave up on
scientific research and ascribed the origin of life to a supernatural Creator.
But directed panspermia amounts to the same thing. The same limitations
that made it impossible for the extraterrestrials to journey to earth will
make it impossible for scientists ever to inspect their planet. Scientific
investigation of the origin of life is as effectively closed off as if God had
reserved the subject for Himself." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993,
pp.110-111).
I was interested to see that my atheist Biology lecturer rejected Panspermia,
on the following grounds:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Panspermia
* Life came from space
- Evidence for
- chondritic meteorites
- amino acids, sugars, guanine, fatty acids
* Against
- moves question-does not answer how life originated
- amino acids not in same configuration
- size of organisms required, radiation small enough to
escape and yet large enough to arrive on earth
- difficult to cross space
- numbers of organisms required,for one or more to land
on earth
- not mainstream
----------------------------------------------------------------
CC>If you wish to prove that life cannot evolve *at all*, under *any*
>conceivable naturalistic conditions, go ahead and give it a shot, but, so
>far, you have not even managed to show that it is implausible that it
>occurred right here on Earth.
Yet another attempt by Chris to reverse the burden of proof! I don't "wish
to prove that life cannot evolve *at all*, under *any* conceivable
naturalistic conditions." If Chris is proposing the theory it is up to him to
show that it *did*. It is not up to the critic to prove that it *didn't*!
CC>Further still, given the two extreme alternatives of purely spontaneous
>(non-evolutionary) but naturalistic occurrence of life that "seeded" the
>Universe with life, and a non-naturalistic "Intelligent Designer," the
>non-naturalistic designer alternative has the heavier burden of proof,
>because either the non-naturalistic designer itself arose purely
>spontaneously or it always existed. If you claim that *it* arose
>spontaneously, the probability argument against the spontaneous arising of
>naturalistic life becomes an even-stronger argument against the spontaneous
>occurrence of such a designer. If you claim that this designer *always*
>existed, then you would also have to prove that *naturalistic* life did not
>*always* exist.
First, *generic* ID (hereinafter "gID") theory does not need to show how
the Designer originated, to be scientific, any more than Panspermia
advocates have to show that how the aliens originated for it to be scientific.
All generic ID theory has to show is that some features of the natural world
probably arose by intelligent causes. Those intelligent causes could include:
1) aliens; 2) time-travellers; 3) an intelligent universe; 4) non-Christian
god(s); and 5) the Judeo-Christian God.
Second, within gID theory, those who argue that the Designer was "the
Christian God" (Christian ID, hereinafter CID) do maintain that the
"designer... always existed". But they do *not* "have to prove that
*naturalistic* life did not *always* exist". This is just Chris trying to shift
the burden of proof so his own position is true by default. It is up to Chris
to support his position for either: 1. "the spontaneous arising of naturalistic
life" or 2. "*naturalistic* life did ... *always* exist" with evidence and
arguments. CIDers have evidence and arguments *against* Chris' position
and for their own position.
CC>In *all* cases, the burden of proof of a non-naturalistic designer is
>*radically* more severe than the burden of proof of naturalistically
>occurring life, because of the radical metaphysical claims that must be
>supported in such a theory.
Again Chris tries to make his position the default one. This is to my mind
the mark of someone who (perhaps unconsciously) fears the evidence is
against his position. Otherwise, why not compare his positions against all
comers on a level playing field?
[...]
>>SB>Atheists,
>>>like everyone else, can believe in any damn thing they want to--and often
>>>do!
>SJ>Clearly "atheists" cannot believe in God, because then they wouldn't be
>>atheists!
CC>True, but do you think you have really answered Susan's *point* by this
>remark? Her point is that atheism does not require much else in the way of
>belief. Atheists can even believe in an afterlife complete with a kind of
>Heaven, for example. They just can't believe that there is currently any
>non-naturalistic supreme being that we'd normally designate by the word "God."
I was not debating that point with Susan. My point was simply that
atheists: 1) have no option to believe in some form of evolution; because:
2) atheists cannot believe in God and still be atheists.
>>SJ>The fact that Susan cannot show what else an atheist can believe in except
>>some form of evolution proves my point that "atheists have no option but
>>to believe in some form of evolution".
>CC>The hypothesis I proposed above I have also proposed before on this list,
>and you had no answer for it *then,* either. Spontaneous occurrence of
>full-fledged life without evolution cannot be trivially refuted by simply
>ignoring it. I personally don't have any idea whether the spontaneous
>occurrence of (intelligent) life in a non-evolutionary way ever occurs, but
>it is a naturalistic alternative to both the evolution of life and a
>non-naturalistic designer (though I'd still bet *heavily* on naturalistic
>evolution for life on Earth rather than any such hypothesis).
The "Spontaneous occurrence of full-fledged life" would be regarded as
some form of prebiotic "evolution". That is in fact what prebiotic or
chemical evolution *is*.
CC>Further, I assume that Susan assumed that *you* meant evolution on Earth,
>so that, I'd guess, she meant aliens as an alternative to *your*
>non-naturalistic view that purely naturalistic evolution did not occur on
>Earth.
Susan and I were not even debating "that purely naturalistic evolution did
not occur on Earth." We were debating whether an atheist has no option
but to believe in some form of evolution.
CC>In any case, as I point out above, *all* non-naturalistic theories
>are less supportable than their naturalistic equivalents because they make
>*claims* that require less to prove or validate them scientifically. No
>matter *what* non-naturalistic designer theory you propose, a simpler and
>*naturalistic* alternative can be created from it that requires *less*
>proof, less evidence. This can be done by nothing more difficult than
>changing the *wording* of the non-naturalistic theory to the wording of a
>*naturalistic* theory. Wherever the non-naturalistic theory must use a
>non-naturalistic term, that term can simply be replaced by a naturalistic
>equivalent.
Sure, a CIDer can claim that the universe was created from out of nothing
by a eternal, all powerful Creator. Then Chris can always imagine
something apparently simpler like the universe popping into existence out
of nothing at all. But an uncaused universe is, as Swinburne argues, a more
complex argument than the claim that a Creator caused it:
"It is interesting that recently Bayes' theorem has been used to give
quantitative substance to the Occam's razor type of choice among
competing physical theories. A chief feature of Swinburne's (Swinburne R.,
"The Existence of God", 1991) argument is his application of just such an
Occam's razor type test to the hypothesis that God exists uncaused. He
regards this as the simplest of hypotheses and therefore of higher prior
probability than other hypotheses, such as the existence of an uncaused
universe. By God, Swinburne means a being who has omnipotence and
omniscience among his qualities. A being with infinite power and
knowledge is simpler than one with a finite limited quantity of power or
knowledge, because in the latter case one would have to ask, 'Why is the
limit just what it is?' Similarly the existence of an uncaused universe is a
complex hypothesis compared with the existence of an infinite being: it just
cries out for an explanation." (Holder R.D., "Nothing but Atoms and
Molecules?" 1993, pp.163-164)
It is noteworthy of those who maintain the universe just popped into
existence, usually have to ad further claims that there are an infinite number
of universes (as Chris does here) to get over the problem of the fine-
tunedness for life of this universe.
CC>Thus, whatever the characteristics of life on Earth are that lead you to
>posit a non-naturalistic designer, they would *better* be used to lead you
>to posit a functionally and empirically equivalent *naturalistic* designer,
>one that does not need to have any non-naturalistic characteristics.
>
>In short, until you can find some magical way to overcome the relative
>burden of proof for a non-naturalistic theory as opposed to an equivalent
>naturalistic one, you *cannot* have a rationally plausible case, because
>the rational person will always say, "Well, okay, but we can just replace
>that with a naturalistic equivalent?"
More of Chris trying to tilt the playing field so his argument wins
by default. This is the mark of a *weak* position, not a strong one!
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 06:34:53 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
Subject: Re: Argument from elimination
[...]
>SJ>The fact that Susan cannot show what else an atheist can
>>believe in except some form of evolution proves my point that
>>"atheists have no option but to believe in some form of
>>evolution".
[...]
WE>Just because Susan didn't mention Raelianism doesn't mean that
>it doesn't exist.
I note that Wesley also does not "show what else an atheist can
believe in except some form of evolution"!
Thus Wesley as well, confirms my point that "atheists have no
option but to believe in some form of evolution":
"One can be a theistic `Darwinian,' but no one can be an
atheistic "Creationist." (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds.,
"Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" 1994, p.215.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13b.html)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Panchronic species [i.e. `living fossils'], which like other species are
subject to the assaults of mutations remain unchanged. Their variants are
eliminated except possibly for neutral mutants. In any event, their stability
is an observed fact and not a theoretical concept. ... What is the use of their
unceasing mutations, if they do not changed In sum, the mutations of
bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median
position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary
effect. ... It is important to note that relict species mutate as much as others
do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to
change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations)."
(Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977,
p.87)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 17:22:48 EDT