Dyson in the Matrix
by MikeGeneFREEMAN DYSON:
First of all I wanted to talk a bit about origin of life. To me the most interesting question in biology has always been how it all got started. That has been a hobby of mine. We're all equally ignorant, as far as I can see.That's why somebody like me can pretend to be an expert.
A LITTLE BUNNY
The most significant unanswered question in biology is the origin of life. How did life first appear on this planet? Not only has this question escaped a non-teleological explanation for decades, it is the most crucial question in biology. The origin of life speaks to the essence of life, and that, in turn, builds context for the rest of biology, including evolution. All else follows from the initial states provided by the original cells and the context they set for subsequent evolution. In comparison, the rest of biology is a footnote.
January 27th, 2008 at 9:51 am
ID can be dated back to the ancient Greeks, so we could also say this question has escaped a teleological explanation for thousands of years.
Comment by The Pixie — January 27, 2008 @ 9:51 am
January 27th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Those ancient Greeks were remarkable achievers.:smile:
Comment by Bradford — January 27, 2008 @ 10:23 am
January 27th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hi Pixie,
But I thought ID was dated back to the late 80s, when sneaky creationists came up with nothing more than a marketing ploy for socio-political reasons? Did someone forget the talking points?
Seriously, you are correct when noting that ID can be dated back to the ancient Greeks (as explained in my book). But I'm not trying to be competitive here. Dyson's point is simply worth noting: "We're all equally ignorant, as far as I can see. That's why somebody like me can pretend to be an expert." But why is this worth noting:
On the internet, non-teleologists often like to posture as if we're inches away from coming up with some Theory of Abiogenesis and often treat skepticism about abiogenesis is if it is analogous to skepticism about evolution. It's one thing to deny evolution, which is supported by massive evidence and a track record of success. But denying abiogenesis does not entail the denial of massive evidence and a track record of success. There is no solid justification with being upset with people who don't embrace non-teleological abiogenesis and ponder alternatives.
Now, as for your point about having thousands of years, this is addressed in my book. A good place to start would be pp. 128-129. I'll try to cut-n-paste it later.
[BTW, the quote from my book above is part of an explanation for beginning the investigation at the OOL that refutes the rhetorical claim that IDists are simply doing this to seek refuge in areas of ignorance.]
Comment by MikeGene — January 27, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
January 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
For once, we largely agree. Evolving networks always build on decision nodes from earlier epochs. Once established, a node can only rarely be eliminated (short of extinction, of course); and the older an established node, the harder it is to modify it. Even multicellular communication gets a toehold in this epoch, and may be a simple consequence of how individual cells interact.
That would make the diversity of birds, bees, flowers, and humanity, just footnotes. I suppose you could write the Book of Life that way, but I think you would be leaving a lot out of the story.
Ponder away! (But the evidence tends to indicate a spontaneous origin.)
Comment by Zachriel — January 27, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
January 27th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Hi Zachriel,
In your mind, this may be true. But you are under the impression that I am rationally obligated to agree with you?
Comment by MikeGene — January 27, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
January 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Hi Mike
I know, I am reading it.
It sure sounds like you are when you specify non-teleological explanation. You could have missed out that word and thesentence would have the same meaning, without it being competitive.
Comment by The Pixie — January 27, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
January 27th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
How would that indicate the absence of teleology?
Comment by Bradford — January 27, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
January 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Hi Mike:
So, if life is the result of an intelligent, purposeful cause (like a group of Harvard biologists 10000 years from now trying to seed life on other planets with some proto-life form, or the Christian God, or FSM, …) then there is the possibility that information and or mechanisms needed to drive the evolutionary process are part of that original design and plan.
Is that what you are saying?
If so, do you assume or believe that life as we know it today descended from a single, original organism? Or do you allow for the possibility that there could have been multiple original organisms?
It seems to me that once you allow for design, you have to allow for all the permutations (that we can imagine) regarding designed systems. For example, consider computers, software, and cars where a forensic investigation of these artifacts over time would look an awful lot like the history of life (e.g., change over time, common descent, descent with modification). Yet, we "know" that each model of car, release of software and model of computer were explicitly designed, no matter how small the difference between models.
Comment by David — January 27, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
January 28th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Hi Pixie,
If I had sent the manuscript out for pre-pub reviews, and someone pointed this out, I would have likely taken this advice.
Comment by MikeGene — January 28, 2008 @ 12:54 am
January 28th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Hi David,
Yes.
I envision the planet being seeded with a consortium of cells. And it was a consortium that could communicate with each other. Such communication would impose constraints on the permutations.
Comment by MikeGene — January 28, 2008 @ 1:00 am
January 28th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Hi Gene,
Do you think the intelligence that seeded earth with life, is the god of the bible?
Comment by Intrested — January 28, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
January 28th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Hi interested,
Could be. Or, it could be stranger than that. Or perhaps even more weird.
In my book, I write:
I think this is a very important point. In fact, if either the ID proponent or the ID critic equates the designer with God, I'm not sure how one could keep an open mind or have much success in striving to remain as unbiased as possible. The moment someone makes the ID = God equation in their own mind, then, IMHO, the whole debate simply becomes a proxy for metaphysical posturing. There is a place for such things, but as part of an open-ended investigation? I think not.
So how would a theist, such as myself, get by with exploring design and life in a truly open-ened manner, and without being dragged down by metaphysics and theology? If there is interest, perhaps I should write an essay.
Comment by MikeGene — January 28, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
January 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Zachriel:
Zachriel, you're a hoot!
Comment by Eric Anderson — January 29, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 7:42 am
The whole concept of the debate is confusing look at it this way they say Darwinism cant hold up But neither can Genisis in either senario the Biodiversity of the world can not be explained even ID either The nature of how life began on Earth can only be explained through thorough research of the facts and a quest for knowledge of those facts in time we may find the answer but not in our lifetime. Darwinism says there is no God.Life began by the right circumstances and evolved through natural selection.
Genisis says all was created in 6 days but yet it also says that God destroyed the World in the Great Flood.
So if this is so then how do we explain Biodiversity around the world?
ID says that life was created then evolved.
But then ID would have to recognize both Genisis and Darwinism but under ID's convictions it cancels both out so ID cant be Plausible
so in my view Science and Theology shouldn't mix
Comment by amsweitzer — February 1, 2008 @ 7:42 am