ET: Phone Home
by JoyThis week some new high-res photographs of Saturn were released as part of JPL's ongoing Cassini Mission to the ringed planet, along with some strange revelations about the tiny moon Enceladus' anomalous manipulations of the huge planet's magnetic system, which apparently make our previous hypotheses about Saturn's rotational period obsolete. These findings were mentioned in passing on the What am I supposed to tell the kids? open thread.
One series of infrared photos shows the north polar region of Saturn, which is shrouded in darkness during this mission. There at the top of the enigmatic planet there is a startling hexagon shaped cloud formation nearly 4 times the size of Earth, which extends at least 60 miles below the cloud tops. This formation was seen during the Voyager 1 and 2 missions more than two decades ago, but the anomaly was not reported in the popular press. It is still there, so they reported it yesterday.
Because I recalled the hexagon cloud shapes from material about weather control from Richard C. Hoagland's cluttered website, the first thing I thought of was his "Hyperdimensional Physics." Hoagland, a 'conspiracy theorist' of Cydonia fame, is one of many scientists (many of them at NASA and JPL) who believes life on earth was 'seeded' or designed by aliens. Another list of scientists believe life came to earth by means of comets or asteroids in a process called "Panspermia." Then there are the outlier ET-buffs (such as the Raelians and Scientologists) who believe humans are designed or descended from high-tech cowboy aliens who have visited our planet and left us a legacy of beliefs in gods.
All of the above tend to reject the NDS as explanation for life and humanity, so could be considered to be under the "big tent" of ID. We have hosted several discussions lately of various theological beliefs as related to ID, so it's only fair to host a thread about ET and the plausibility of panspermia or intelligent design by aliens.
How plausible are these views? Why do DarwinDefenders ignore them so pointedly when painting ID supporters with their mile-wide ID=Creationism brush? Where is the teeming universal life we would expect if life is ubiquitous, even here in our own corner of the galaxy? If evolution is involved in shaping life's adaptations to local conditions, why isn't there life on all the planets? And finally, how reasonable is it for expensive government agencies to spend so much time and money trying to find it, if life spontaneously generated from mud and chemicals here on planet earth, as the NDS insists?
And, finally, what do theistically-motivated ID supporters think about the ET possibility?
March 28th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Joy, I think you bring up an intriguing topic of discussion. I admit to being theistically motivated, though I think that I am fully prepared to abandon any theistic committment when faced with solid evidence — solid evidence I have not seen for the chance+necessity position.
The ET hypothesis has a certain plausibility to it. It is wholely conceivable that, in a few thousand years, man would choose to take on a project of seeding a planet with life. Possibly we would do so for no other reason than as a laboratory experiment to see if we could observe evolution happening. The first logical objection to the ET argument, of course, is "how did ET come to exist?" Let us consider that we came to exist through the natural processes proposed by evolutionary sciences. That would not preclude us from seeding another planet. By the same token, another intelligent agent may have arisen by natural processes only to seed earth. That intelligent agent may have meddled in this "creation". That agent, for instance, may have orchistrated the cambrian explosion.
As this is a plausibility, it certainly fits within the framework of scientific discovery. Which brings me to the real value of the ET position — it validates a scientific grounds, even within extreme philosophical naturalism, to consider that we are intelligently designed.
That said, I also need not put on my theological hat to seriously challenge the ET hypothesis, or at least modify it in a major way. The best positive case I have seen so far for ID is the strong anthropic principle. Our universe itself seems to have been tweaked with phenominal precision, where any other universe configuration simply would not be compatible with any form of life that we have considered. Obviously, the ET hypothesis — aliens that developed through natural causes on other planets — could not account for the big bang itself. Therefore the only realistic ET model would be an ET that exists in a paralell universe which made the universe itself.
Bottom line, I find ET to be useful in rhetoric, but not particularly useful for anything else.
Comment by bFast — March 28, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
March 28th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
bFast:
There are enough confirmed metaphysical materialists in the ranks of scientists who believe in panspermia (including one of the discoverers of DNA's structure) to demonstrate that the idea is "scientific" in science's terms. Almost every big press release from NASA/JPL on exploratory missions is about the possibility of finding life on some other planet or moon in our system. There seems to be two different takes on the particulars…
First, the NDS-affiliated assumption that life spontaneously generates from inanimate matter because it can, even in extreme conditions (like earth, ~4 billion years ago). This would offer the "expectation" that life spontaneously generates from inanimate matter wherever it can, and then evolves by natural selection according to the conditions it inhabits. So there should be life forms - possibly intelligent - even in extreme hot or cold or chemically inhospitable (to us) environments. Life on Jupiter would be evolved to thrive in Jupiter's conditions, the same for Neptune, Saturn, Venus… IOW, life should be everywhere.
Second, the panspermia hypothesis claims comets and asteroids 'seed' microbial or pre-life everywhere, so we should see life everywhere even if it didn't spontaneously generate. SETI isn't a government project, but it hasn't managed a hit in the entirety of its existence. It assumes some things about intelligent life elsewhere that may be completely bogus and earth-centered, but they have put forth a good effort. They haven't found anything. We are intrigued by some of our extrapanetary explorations, but so far not a microbe one, much less a whole ET telling us to phone home.
Life - and intelligent life - appears by all evidence to be so rare as to be exclusive to our planet. Unless we count the anecdotal evidence of humans who claim to have actually met ET. And if one were inclined to contextualize that reported experience to the reporters' time and place, such accounts may go back reliably for thousands of years (Google 'Ezekiel's Wheels').
If life - and intelligent life of some form - does exist and interfere in earth's business, why isn't it common knowledge? Is Brookings really the reason governments aren't telling what they know, or don't they know anything to tell?
How do you think theology would view First Contact? Even some long-time UFO buffs have started thinking maybe there's something psychological going on with this whole class of phenomena. Would that hold true if we took that phenomena back in time to consider how earlier people might translate the experience?
Comment by Joy — March 28, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
March 28th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
"How do you think theology would view First Contact?"
Depends. I am not aware of any mainstream theology that holds, as a principle of doctrine, that there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos. It seems that most mainstream theological positions would be agnostic on this point, while a few might even hold to the view that there positively is other intelligent life in the cosmos.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that life on Earth was created by a being such as the God of the Old Testament. Is there any reason to believe that with a 14+ billion year old canvas stretching for millions of light years that this Artist would not create another masterpiece in some other part of the universe? No. This of course does not speak to whether the Artist did in fact create another masterpiece; but there is no reason to think such an Artist couldn't or wouldn't. Theology, it seems, should have no qualms about the idea of life elsewhere in the universe.
Further, from a theological perspective one might even take the view that there is likely to be life elsewhere, not because of some ubiquitious natural process that transforms inanimate matter into living orgnisms, but because that is what creators, by definition, tend to do — they create.
Comment by Eric Anderson — March 28, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
March 28th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Eric Anderson:
I don't think theology would have much of a problem, depending on what ET has to say about his/her own cultural history and beliefs about existential things. And if ET turned out to be atheist or pagan (we could hardly expect someone from Alpha Centauri to worship Jesus), they'd just be another demographic in the "unbeliever" column.
So why do you think the Brookings Report went to such lengths to advocate massive secrecy on the subject, if contact were indeed made? Judging from the supermarket tabloids (circulation in the tens of millions), as many people believe in ETs as in angels, astrology, crystal healing, channeled dead guys from Mu and a dottering old Elvis. I don't see whole associations of scientists up in arms or writing books about any of that.
A certain significant minority of human beings in any given time period appear to have some kind of "overactive" spiritual contact modules such as those that have been discussed in other threads here over the last couple of couple of weeks. If there is a large degree of sociocultural impact on how people's brains interpret such experiences, then of course people will report culturally and personally relevant descriptions and meanings. So while a lot of Americans report encounters with angels (or some other spiritual being), a minority is reporting encounters with aliens that have many of the same types of experiential features, but with a 'depth' one might more readily assign to the level of 'Vision'. In most reported alien encounters, spiritual messages and sociopolitical advice is passed along, and whole new religions (Raelians, for instance) have resulted.
I've been sort of wondering if there's some overlap, suffering from culturally-based interpretive peculiarities.
Comment by Joy — March 28, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
March 28th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I'm one of the few creationists who think we should not dismiss it outright. YEC Walt Brown correctly predicted existence of biotic material in meteorites, but those ET's were of Earth-borne origin.
Some YECs speculate the Nephilim in the Bible could be associated with ETs.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 28, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
March 28th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Based on his writings, friedn of UD, Andras Pellionisz seems sympathetic to ET based ID.
See One believer's Junk is Another Believer's Treasure:
Pellionisz is no small name in DNA research.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 28, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:27 am
Joy, you asked a good question, to which I have devoted some thought, but the detailed answer to which I don't know, though I suspect Theology would not speak with One Voice. I mean, it never has before, has it? Why break such a longstanding habit?
This question did remind me of a dialogue in which I participated the other day concerning the Argument from Babies. This is an argument purporting to prove theism false on the basis that no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would have created babies:
Naturally I suggested a Sexodicy: God permits babies for the sake of a higher good—fu, ehmm, lovemaking, and invited atheists to challenge me on this.
I had one taker:
I replied:
The atheist challenger came back, saying: "Now you are again trying to show that my idea of a spawning pool is logically inconsistent, without actually showing that it is."
I replied as follows (pay particular attention to the last paragraph):
[emphasis added]
At this the atheist challenger said:
Comment by stunney — March 29, 2007 @ 3:27 am
March 29th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Eric Anderson,
Interesting. I just recently attended a conference at Goshen College (Goshen, IN) on "Religion and Science", with Dr. Ted Peters as speaker. One of the main topics that was addressed was whether ETI's exist, and what Christian theology would have to say about their possible existence. Ted Peters is a liberal theologian, and claimed there is nothing in the Christian religion that would preclude there being ETI's. I am not a liberal theologian, nor am I liberal, nor a theologian, and I pointed out that, yes, Christian theology, Biblically based, would preclude there being ETI's - I asked Dr. Peters if it was necessary for Jesus to have been born of a woman in order to effect the salvation of fallen mankind, and he replied that he hadn't thought about that aspect, so couldn't say. Well, I myself have thought about that aspect, and it is clear from the Bible that, yes, it was necessary for Jesus to have been born of a woman in order to save mankind - Jesus needed to share in the blood lineage of fallen mankind, but could not have a human father, in order to avoid being tainted by "original sin", which apparently is passed down from the father ("whatsoever you sow, that will you also reap"). Given this, if other beings were ever created, physically, on other worlds, they would have to be immortal, never having sinned, else they would have no hope of salvation, Jesus already having died for mankind, never to die again. Even if they were another "strain" of human beings, still they would have to be imoortal, never having sinned, or they would have no hope of salvation, since, if they had fallen into sin, Jesus could not be born into their lineage, His having already been born once.
Furthermore, the Bible is clear that God's focus is the Earth, and mankind. He's already created the angels in Heaven, and man on Earth - there's no reason He would have created other intelligent beings on other planets. There is no reason to think that, given that the two "orders" of created intelligent beings (angels and humans) both fell into sin, other "orders" (in this hypothetical case, we are assuming physical beings) of created intelligences would not as well fall into sin. But in that case, they would have no opportunity for salvation (their descendants born into their sin, particularly, which is different than angels, who apparently do not reproduce). And that would be contrary to God's character of love of mercy, as revealed in Jesus Christ.
Comment by Douglas — March 29, 2007 @ 4:48 am
March 29th, 2007 at 9:24 am
stunney,
Your argument amounts to this:
stunney:
This is the best of all possible worlds.
challenger:
It could be better.
stunney:
The burden of proof is on you. Unless you can supply a complete set of mathematical equations describing the physics of a feasible alternative world in which total well-being is improved, I'll assume that such a world is logically impossible.
First of all, it should be obvious that the argument can be inverted:
challenger:
This is not the best of all possible worlds.
stunney:
I say it is.
challenger:
The burden of proof is on you. Unless you can supply a complete set of mathematical equations describing the physics of our world, proving that well-being is optimal in it, I'll assume you're wrong.
Stunney, if you can't meet your own standard of proof, it's probably best not to attempt this argument.
Second, notice that you are making the extraordinary claim here: that this world, out of the trillions and trillions of possible worlds, is the best. Why should the burden of proof be on your opponent?
Comment by keiths — March 29, 2007 @ 9:24 am
March 29th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Douglas wrote:
If that's true, then we'll be able to produce a line of perfect, unfallen babies once we figure out how to use the genes from two eggs to produce a human embryo. Exciting!
Comment by keiths — March 29, 2007 @ 9:32 am
March 29th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Keiths
Not if the lesson of identical twins is understood. Ever notice how two identical twins can greatly differ in personality and character?
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2007 @ 10:11 am
March 29th, 2007 at 10:18 am
keiths to stunney:
I don't think it's difficult at all, you've just framed it so by coming at the argument sideways. I, not being particularly troubled by what Douglas posits as this Man-Sin thing (sperm are… eeeeevil!), would do away with the argument by attacking it head-on.
Babies are miraculous and infinitely endearing, both temporarily helpless and potentially powerful, eliciting strong bonds of love and care and very quickly becoming The Most Important considerations in every aspect of one's life. Meaning-givers, Mercy-demanders, Love-enrichers, Life-expanders. Thus the charge…
…must be demonstrated to me FIRST to be rational before it would require consideration from me. I do not think it possible to convince me that a world without babies is preferable to a world with babies.
Now, said challenger may then say my opinion doesn't count as much as his because I am a woman (disqualified because I can actually produce and nurture these disgusting babies). In which case he's a misogynist bigot (and psychologically a potential child abuser unfit to breed) and I can dismiss his argument as blatantly irrational with a mere lady-like wave of my hand. §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2007 @ 10:18 am
March 29th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Douglas:
I don't think there are too many Christian theologians who would flatly deny the earth/human-centricity of books produced by humans on earth, Douglas. But I do not see that it addresses the possible existence of Vulcankind or Romulankind or Clingonkind. Any arguments to the God-man relationship and dynamics here on planet earth pertain solely to planet earth. And say nothing of the 'Great Scientist's' laboratory or what other experiments he's got cooking in there.
So. What happens to your invested beliefs if ET lands on the White House lawn tomorrow, in front of CNN and everybody? Do you go back and reconsider the exclusivity you've assigned per your literalism, or do you just squeeze your eyes shut and put fingers in your ears and pretend it's not real?
That's a hypothetical, btw. Although ET could land on the WH lawn any time s/he decides to do so, it has not happened and that in itself is suspicious considering how much havoc s/he's been fomenting across the globe for so long, kidnapping regular folks and mutilating cattle all over the place. And what's with the anal probes???!!!
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2007 @ 10:52 am
March 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Douglas, "Furthermore, the Bible is clear that God's focus is the Earth, and mankind."
I think that Christianity would be shaken less by the discovery of ETI than it was by the discovery that the earth is round. At this forum we are discussing the ID theory. Many of us discussing this theory are fairly conservative Christians who are not young earthers determined to fit the science into the theology. ID is, very simply, a poor fit for literal Biblical theology, whether one interprets Genesis 1 days as literal or ages.
However, there is lots of room for ETI (especially if we have flexibility in defining the I) even within a tight conservative Biblical interpretation. Consider the following:
1 - It would be quite acceptable, and reasonable, for God to have planets populated creatures similar to dogs, monkeys, parrots, and porpoises. Though these animals are not seen to have a soul, though these animals do not practice religion, they certainly have a certain level of smarts.
2 - I think you dismiss the possibility of sin-free soulful creatures on other planets. I see no Biblical reason why not.
3 - The Bible says very little about angels, could it be that angels are born with bodies, and grow on a planet, only to become angels as we know them after their death?
4 - Could another planet have soulful, sinful beings with their own plan of salvation? I am reminded of one of Larry Norman's songs which states, "and if there's life on other planets, and I'm sure that he must know, then he's been there once already and has died to save their souls." (I am well aware that Larry Norman is hardly famous as a theologian.)
I personally would be very puzzled if the God of life, limited his life-making to this one rock when he put a hundred gazillion other rocks out there.
Comment by bFast — March 29, 2007 @ 11:06 am
March 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
A few weeks ago I posted this on 'The Proper View of a Teleologist Thread'. I'm quoting myself here because it is so obviously relevant to the topic under discussion here.
I call this version of directed panspermia, Ultimate Directed Panspermia, because it avoids the apparent dead ends in the Crick-Orgel hypothesis. Of course there are a number of problems it leaves unanswered; how for example do you get a space probe from the original universe to this one? Wormholes? Blackholes? Obviously one quickly begins to multiply speculations on top of speculations. However, technically there is nothing logically impossible about this idea so at least it can be a subject for theoretical philosophy and theology.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 29, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I've spent a fair amount of time at the panspermia site, and a few years ago read through a number of books in the alien genre. I find the arguments quite good, and there seems to be a tremendous amount of anecdotal and even physical evidence from ancient history, including Greece and the Old Testament, not to mention Egypt, Sumeria, India and the Maya among many others, all of whom attribute the origin of their civilization to various gods, often specifying that they came from outside earth. In fact, some of them contain detailed accounts of how these gods worked by trial and error to bring forth humans (let us make him in our image) using their DNA(not specified as such). It WAS common knowledge. The Maya, for example, were very matter-of-fact about who taught them their calendar.
That this may have confused humankind spiritually is a possibility that warrants serious scrutiny, IMO. It wasn't necessarily always so, but as the memory fades the difference between God "“ the Source, the Absolute, the All in All, the Great Spirit the Pure Mind, the Ever Living - and the alien gods becomes ever more blurred.
As to why this possibility is pointedly ignored, that would be because it would mess with people's world view quite a lot. We would have to rewrite and rethink a lot of things. The Darwinists wouldn't like it one bit. Not only would it mean they were wrong, but it would complicate things. If you read what they say, you can discern the emotional content of their worldview. They find it beautiful, in a stark kind of way. So aside from it meaning they don't have the answers after all, I am pretty sure they rather like the shallowness of it. No deep mystery here, no major surprises, just a few more quarks maybe. They like it that way.
Certainly ET would mess with religion at least a bit, especially if I am right that ETI is mixed right up in the Old Testament from the git-go. I don't really think it's insurmountable - but it would require a reformation.
I don't see why we can't consider both the possibility that life was seeded here, and also that some ETs came here in more recent times, ETs rather like us, and worked with what they found here.
Although I provisionally accept the alien interference on earth scenario as true, it doesn't change my theism at all. I don't see why it should. I don't doubt that many people living on islands may have thought theirs was the only place with people. A planet is like an island, too. I find the idea that life exists only here terribly dismal, but I don't see why life should be on every planet, either.
It worries me when someone has a theology that is central in importance to them, but which can be so easily shaken (Douglas) by possible new facts.
Bfast, your final paragraph on the first post didn't quite come together for me. I think you're saying that if there are ET, then it means the entire universe must be rethought. But why?
I actually wrote to one of the authors of the ET hypothesis (he calls it Intervention) and asked him what his opinion was on the origin of life, since he had written some nice little essays against NDE. He said he doesn't know. He tends to think life was seeded here by races far in advance of us, for whom millions of years projects are doable.
So for me, ET is not an answer to ultimate origins, it is just an interesting possibility for us earth humans; if it is part of our actual history, we should come to terms with it.
Oh, and by the way, after reading Denton's Nature's Destiny, I think people may use too much imagination in assuming that life can exist anywhere in any form on any planet.
As to the recent abductions and so forth, I suspect a strong psychic component, although I really haven't paid much attention to it.
Comment by onething — March 29, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Joy wrote:
Joy,
I think you're missing the point, which is that the "Argument from Babies" is simply a proxy for the "Argument from Evil." Stunney has made exactly the same "show me the equations" argument against the latter, elsewhere on this blog.
Comment by keiths — March 29, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
Apparently you missed the "If that's true" qualifier at the beginning of my statement. If we accept Douglas's theology, then any child not born of a father is free of original sin.
Comment by keiths — March 29, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Good thoughts, bFast.
Douglas writes: "Furthermore, the Bible is clear that God's focus is the Earth, and mankind."
Isn't it just as likely that the Bible is Earth-centric because it deals with and is prepared for/delivered to/revealed to Earth-bound individuals? I still haven't seen anything, even assuming a conservative reading of the Bible, that would suggest Earth is exclusive.
Do I think that the universe is literally teeming with life, because life inevitably arises through some naturalistic process like the Carl Sagan's of the world used to preach? No. OOL research has shown this enthusiasm to be misplaced. Do I think that planets with higher order intelligent beings are a regular occurrence? Unlikely. Fine tuning requirements and habitability factors throw a cold shower on that idea. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that life on this planet was created by an intelligent being, is it possible that this intelligent being also acted or is still acting elsewhere in the universe? Certainly. And is there any reason to think such a being couldn't or wouldn't? I don't think so.
I typically try to steer away from theological discussions, but just for fun, allow me to pose the following:
Assume, for a moment, that the Earth and life on the Earth were created by the God of the Bible.
If God is an eternal, unchangeable being, then why would God no longer be in the business of creating? Isn't it reasonable that a creator (particularly one who is suggested to be the same yesterday, today and forever) would keep on creating?
Comment by Eric Anderson — March 29, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
keiths writes:
"I think you're missing the point, which is that the "Argument from Babies" is simply a proxy for the 'Argument from Evil.'"
Agreed. Or a proxy for the 'Argument from Bad Design.'
In either case, the argument is impotent.
Comment by Eric Anderson — March 29, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Biblical theology doesn't exclude life on other planets. Douglas, C.S. Lewis wrote a couple of very good essays on this. I'll try to find the title of the books, so you can look them up.
Comment by Bilbo — March 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
keiths:
And I admit to not carefully following stunney's arguments. But then again, I do not see the "argument from evil" to be applicable to anything other than the demonstrated proclivities of human beings to be evil. Everything is just luck of the draw against physical abilities and presence of mind out in the 'real world' where you're bound to die just as sure as you're born. Mortality is universal in all generations. The only thing that really matters is whether or not a responsible agent intended the 'evil' result.
IOW, the broadly defined 'problem of evil' depends upon a deterministic, Calvinistic worldview which holds predestination ('known' by responsible agency) to be the only true truth about life and death on planet earth. I don't believe that, thus do not see death itself as being the least bit unnatural or 'evil'. Only a morally responsible, intentional agent can be 'evil', and 'evil' includes a lot more than just death.
An "argument from babies" is destined from conception to utter failure so long as females of the species are allowed to participate in the discussion. Any man worth his man-salt knows this, thus the misogynist charge against this ridiculous argument. You can't pretend to argue for the supremacy of nature over god-concepts by denying the supremacy of nature out of the starting gate. Completely irrational.
Best I can say about this stupid argument is that it's a darned good thing nature's god gave the primary responsibility for the continuance of life to females, or human beings would have gone extinct a long time ago! [sheesh!]
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I don't think that's what Douglas meant and if he did his theology is mistaken.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
One other thought:
The real Argument from Babies is this:
Why would an evolutionary process (which, after all, is supposed to be driven incessantly toward greater reproductive success) lead to a situation where two separate beings have to come together to create life, followed by a long and painful gestation and birthing process, resulting in a creature that needs significant additional care and nurturing for several years just to survive? Can this possibly represent an advancement, in terms of reproductive success, over the bacteria?
There is, of course, no evolutionary explanation for this state of affairs, despite any hand waving and evolution-of-the-gaps just-so stories. In contrast, one might very well see a theological basis for such a family.
Comment by Eric Anderson — March 29, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Eric Anderson:
Of course there's an evolutionary explanation. Evolution.
Evolution requires that life be mortal (microbes only dimly suggest this, and it's certainly arguable). Sexual reproduction affords life the ability to reshape itself and adapt in real-time to challenges to its existence. Mortality is the only excuse for reproduction of any kind.
However, if the evolutionary explanation is evolution itself, then it begs the question of 'why' life and evolution in the first place. Looks like 'someone/something' who thinks life has a reason and could progressively attain its purpose might have intended such a thing.
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Most contemporary philosophers of religion agree that the notion of 'the best of all possible worlds' is logically incoherent. If they're right, it's not a logically possible world. Hence even God couldn't instantiate it.
And even if it is logically possible, it needs to be shown that God must create it, rather than just some other possible world which is valuable in net terms.
The argument from babies or evil purports to prove that theism is false on the ground that there are babies, or evil. Theists don't proffer this argument. Atheists do. Hence the onus of proving the argument is theirs. Until such times, believers can happily go around believing in God while observing babies.
It rests on a modal intuition. The modal intuition is unfounded in the absence of a coherent science of an alternative and superior world. The theist doesn't have to do this science for the atheist, because the theist isn't making the argument from babies. The atheist is.
The theist doesn't have to prove this is the best possible world. The theist believes that it isn't, for at least two reasons:
1) the notion of the best of all possible worlds is either incoherent, or of doubtful coherence
2) a better world would be one in which there was one less sin, and the theist believes that better world would have materialized had Erica Nincompoop not freely chosen to spit in anger on Maximilian Nincompoop's face.
As mentioned, determining the value of this universe for comparative purposes, requires knowing whether it contains trillions of deliriously happy beings elsewhere in the universe. As a practical matter, this is not knowledge we're ever likely to have.
And, as mentioned, the theist can maintain that God is only obliged to create a net valuable world, since by definition that would be better than no world. I.e. God is only bound to create net value, since maximum, unsurpassable value already exists and cannot be duplicated; namely , God.
Comment by stunney — March 29, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Here is a comment posted by "Amy" on another forum in relation to the Argument from Babies:
Comment by stunney — March 29, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
stunney:
Hear, hear! My argument, but prettier!
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I wrote:
Bradford objected:
Here are his own words:
Comment by keiths — March 29, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Eric Anderson asks:
Considering that there are six and a half billion of us on the planet, I'd say it's a pretty successful reproductive strategy.
Comment by keiths — March 29, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
onething wrote:
It's not ignored. There are at least three good reasons for rejecting the possibility, i.e., treating it as merely a bare logical possibility rather than a really actualized possibility. Here they are:
1. In the absence of scientific evidence that other universes exist or are needed to seed life in this universe, it offends egregiously against Billy Ockham's injunction not to multiply entities beyond necessity.
2. Fermi's Paradox.
3. Scientific evidence that favors the Rare Earth hypothesis.
Comment by stunney — March 29, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
"Considering that there are six and a half billion of us on the planet, I'd say it's a pretty successful reproductive strategy."
And, pray tell, how many bacteria are there? Does the reproductive strategy work? Sure. But is it slow, painful and inefficient? Yes again. If we are being objective, surely the form and timeframe involved in human reproduction actually limits the amount of reproduction. Whether this is good or bad can be argued, but the idea that humans have come about because of greater reproductive success (which is what Darwinism demands be true) is ludicrous.
Comment by Eric Anderson — March 29, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Why did you bring up other other universes? I do not particularly recognize the idea of other universes. If they are in any way connected to ours, it is one universe, and if they are not connected in any way, they don't exist for us. Utterly unconnected universes shouldn't be possibe because there can be only one cause to existence, and if there is one source then we cannot speak of more than one universe. It may be that there are bubble 'universes' but in that case we need a new name for those bubbles, as the word 'universe' has a particular meaning, what with the prefix 'uni' which means 'one.'
Perhaps Fermi's conclusions are premature. There is someone out there who thinks advanced civilizations are using quasars to communicate to us, and that we haven't figured it out yet. So far as I understand, Seti has only perused a small portion of the sky. There could be worlds where people are not yet technologically advanced enough to pick up on it, although I certainly think there should be people far in advance of us as well.
The alien idea doesn't come from its being logically possible, but rather some people think there is quite a lot of evidence right here on earth that there have been alien visits and/or that human civiliization goes back a good deal further than has been supposed, that the earth experienced a very big cataclysm which erased all but remnants of their knowledge.
The panspermia and seeding ideas are a bit different from that.
As to rare earth, it is certainly an interesting line of inquiry, but I think we really dont' know enough yet. Most likely it is largely true, but I think and hope not to the extent that life is actually rare in the universe. There are a lot of ideas in science which are provisional and unproved or incomplete. I happen to think Big Bang is one. I think we are going to learn and discard plenty. I see it all the time. Some new little discovery comes along, and suddenly it's "Oh, well, we thought ABC, but now we have this new fact, and it is DEF, or at least we aren't too sure any more about ABC."
One thing the critique said which puzzled me was that supernovae become more rare as the universe ages. I thought supernovae were caused by aging stars.
Comment by onething — March 29, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
March 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I think the idea is that life forms slowly move into new niches. So if they have to get more complicated to take advantage of some niche, they will do so, while their parent species goes right on as before, within the niche it already has. So the new one doesn't have to reproduce more efficiently than its parent species so long as it reproduces in its new niche.
Comment by onething — March 29, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
March 30th, 2007 at 12:23 am
"I think the idea is that life forms slowly move into new niches. So if they have to get more complicated to take advantage of some niche, they will do so . . ."
Right. And if they don't have to they won't.
And the only evidence we have for all of this is that we gaze about in nature and see some creatures that did and some that didn't. In other words there isn't any explanation at all, only an observation that things happened to turn out the way they did for some unknown historical reason because, hey, if we observe high reproductivity rates then the niche must have required it, if we don't observe high reproductivity rates then the niche must not have required it. I'm not saying this is your position, as I don't believe you've said it is. I'm just singularly unimpressed with this circular Darwinian claptrap.
Comment by Eric Anderson — March 30, 2007 @ 12:23 am
March 30th, 2007 at 2:15 am
onething wrote:
Because I confused your post with someone else's in the editing process. My apologies.
I agree.
Billy Ockham certainly would counsel that we adopt theories with the minimum number of originating causes, which is one, and divine, in Billy's opinion.
Yeah, there's a lot of deliberately obfuscating ontological extravagance by the 'brights' about this. Cosmic Landscape my jacksie.
Maybe. Who knows? Our lifetimes are so short by comic, sorry, cosmic standards that we'll probably both be dead before Fermi's Paradox is resolved.
Many years ago I read a couple of books about this idea.
Yes.
I often feel it's best just to conclude that it's all a load of claptrap and that one should just let Jeeeeeeeeeeesus be the Lord of one's heart.
But then I wake up from my reverie and see that this is just American Protestant evangelical claptrap which, generally speaking, beats out all competition in the claptrap sweepstakes.
Well, here's a wild and completely uninformed speculation on my part: as the universe ages, there are fewer stars that have not been supernova-ed already.
Comment by stunney — March 30, 2007 @ 2:15 am
March 30th, 2007 at 4:30 am
I'm still here. Sort of. I might be able to find the time to respond to certain posts in this thread sometime this weeken, as long as this thread doesn't multiply exponentially.
Comment by Douglas — March 30, 2007 @ 4:30 am
March 30th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Funny that you consider the slowness, painfulness and inefficieny as evidence against darwinism rather than evidence against design.
You seem to imply that according to darwinism reproductive success is maximized in a global sense. This is a strawman. According to darwinism organisms only need to outcompete their direct competitors. In other words, (very) local maximization. This may lead to very ineffcient reproductive tactics. And not just on the part of the females. In many species males posses extravagant ornaments to attract females, but which at the same time endanger their lives. How this kind of ineffiency can evolve is fairly well understood. Indeed, Darwin himself introduced the notion of sexual selection.
Comment by Raevmo — March 30, 2007 @ 7:04 am
March 30th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Eric,
But sometimes the Darwinian claptrap is common sense, to which they gloss an explanation (prediction) after the fact. In this case, it does make sense to me that a niche will be exploited. Life always seems to want to thrive wherever it can.
Stunney,
Well darn, we agree then.
Ha, well, I was raised up in the Russian church, with occasional forays over to the Greeks.
Comment by onething — March 30, 2007 @ 9:25 am
March 30th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I earlier wrote:
Let me try and flesh this out a bit more.
Suppose drug 1 treats pain type A. Suppose drug 2 treats pain type B. John has both A and B.
Now suppose the interaction of drugs 1 and 2 creates pain type C.
Hence making drugs 1 and 2 natural products of John's body is problematic for a creator.
Drugs work because they have certain physical properties which have a causal impact on the physical properties of certain kinds of living organisms. They only have this impact because of the actual laws of nature which specify the full range of possible causal interactions of all kinds of physical properties.
To get different physical properties and/or different causal interactions between physical properties, one needs to have different laws governing physical nature. But instantiating any law necessitates its own consequences and rules out contradictory consequences. For example, the law of gravity necessitates unsecured mountaineers falling off a mountain in certain circumstances and rules out their being able float in mid-air. But the law of gravity also prevents mountaineers from floating off into airless space.
A complex world will require a complex nature. And as the simple painful John and mountaineer examples above suggest, it is not at all easy, once one starts to think about it in earnest, how to design natural laws and natural property interactions in a logically coherent way while avoiding the possibility of great harm to finite physical living beings.
I doubt an omnipotent being could make cyanide nutritious for babies, given the properties of cyanide and babies. So that's one limitation.
It's important to be really clear as to what's being said here.
What's being said is that, for any X, and for any Y, if X has the properties that cyanide has and Y has the properties that human babies have, then there is no possible world W in which X is nutritious for Y.
What about gold bars being nutritous for, snakes?
The problem is evident, and comprehensive,
If an omnipotent being can only do what is logically possible, then it is no lessening of its omnipotence that it can't actualize Ws like these.
Now let's consider brains. Suppose the only way for a physical being to be conscious and intelligent is to have a brain. That is, for any X, there is no possible world W in which X is a conscious physical being and X has no brain.
Then, an omnipotent being could not actualize W. And it's worth noting that many materialist philosophers accept the thesis that it's impossible to be a brainless conscious physical thing. In fact I'd say this the majority, though far from universal, view among contemporary philosophers of mind.
Now, what kind of physical universe might be necessary for the existence of brains?
This requires rational thinking about physical things, which is what we call science. Science tells us that not just any kind of universe is compatible with the existence of brains. As noted in previous posts of mine, the cosmological constant has to be very finely tuned. Ditto the phase space of the initial conditions at the Big Bang. And I presume many other things have to be fine-tuned too, otherwise your universe will turn out brainless (given the defining and essential physical properties of brains).
The law of energy conservation logically implies that physical laws do not change over time. In a world where the conservation law did not hold, the physical laws of that world might well change over time. It is a very serious question as to whether stable brain-based rationality would even be possible in such a world.
The problem of natural pain and harm is philosophically unresolvable because we don't have the requisite knowledge of what is, and what isn't, logically (or metaphysically) possible when it comes to mental states in relation to physical entities. In other words the problem of natural harm, is really an aspect of the general mind-body problem. Philosophers like McGinn maintain that it's intrinsically beyond our capacity to solve.
My intuition also says that it might well be impossible for any physical things to be conscious unless they're endowed with brains like those of humans or animals, and it might well be impossible for such brains to exist unless the laws of nature are as they are in our world.
Electrons can't understand quantum mechanics, and pieces of glass can't be in love because they don't have brains. I think that's plausibly a necessary truth. And if so, it's possibly because it's also a necessary truth that all brainless matter can't, and only living brain matter can, possess mental states. And it's possible that living brain matter cannot exist unless the physical laws of our universe obtain.
If non-brain matter can be conscious, then this is a) something that no-one has ever shown, and b) far from obvious.
Similarly, if living brain matter can exist with different physical laws in place, then this is a) something that no-one has ever shown, and b) far from obvious.
Given that we really don't know what is the case about this modal landscape, appeals to omnipotence by the Argument from Evil proponent are beside the point.
What is always left conveniently unspecified in the better worlds imagined by atheists to show that God is not wholly good, is precisely how, in the case one recommends, say, creating beings who are designed in such a way that they cannot experience severe pain, the imagined alternative nature design actually works to ensure the preferred outcome. It is simply assumed that it can work, somehow. But that is a key issue—the availability to the creator of a genuinely possible and preferable alternative. This availability cannot simply be imagined or assumed.
Materialist philosophers of mind think that each type of animal conscious state is a necessary concomitant of the relevant animal brain states. They think, in short, that it's logically impossible to have one without the other. Hence, on their view, necessarily (that is, in every possible world in which it exists), a rat-brained creature, say, caught in a rat-trap will experience, well, whatever it's like to be a rat caught in a rat-trap.
If this materialist thesis is true and generalizes to cover the whole animal kingdom (including humans), it suggests that it might well be impossible both to have animals exist and to ensure the avoidance of significant animal suffering.
We simply don't know what is, and what isn't, logically (or metaphysically) possible when it comes to mental states in relation to physical entities.
In thinking about these matters, I often find it useful to assume that there is no God and to ask an atheist scientist why nature is like this and not like that. This process of scientific question-and-answer can include asking what would have had to be true about nature for it have produced systematically different, counterfactual phenomena. As a scientist, s/he seems to have good answers at every step of the way. The world is, in other words, intelligible to scientific reason, and hence to reason as such if we regard scientific reason as truly or paradigmatically rational.
What scientific proponents of the Multiverse theory show us is that one can scientifically conceive of very few natural law sets that are intelligibly consistent with the existence of complex physical life.
Matter and its energetic interactions must be have well defined properties if they are to be meaningful, coherent notions. Likewise living matter and its properties.
What all known science tells us is that there just isn't a lot of conceivable room for maneuver here that would be intelligible to reason.
But theism traditionally tells us that human reason is a reflection of or participates in divine reason. So this lack of intelligible alternatives may be telling us something about a lack of intelligible alternatives even for a supremely rational mind.
What we don't know is if higher levels of animal consciousness could be systematically shielded from undergoing higher level pain states without adverse consequences. The very existence of the latter pain states suggests their adaptiveness, which in turn suggests their biological utility. Systematically less pain for a given species might result in that species engaging in systematically riskier behaviors. Deer might stay put and be destroyed by forest fires because they're not experiencing much pain from nearby flames.
If a group of animal-loving scientists was able to inoculate a species systematically against agonizing pain, it would not surprise me to find that species on the road to extinction. Indeed, many species may have become extinct in the past in part because their pain response was insufficiently strong.
So imagining a systematically different biology of pain may fall victim to the law of unintended consequences.
Certainly, I'm glad I'm not charged with the task of designing a world teeming with a rich variety of complex and conscious life forms.
I don't know if the imaginary better world designs deployed by atheists propounding the argumeent from evil make any logically consistent, scientific sense or how it could possibly work. I don't know what the mechanisms are supposed to be. If, upon having, let's say, a non -predatory mechanism for nutrition of living material beings fully specified, I'd perhaps be in a position to say whether it's really logically possible or not, and hence whether it's something God could instantiate. Given a specific definition of the full properties of living matter, certain things will be logically impossible for living matter with those properties.
But what we know about actual living matter reveals it to have extremely complex properties. And for all I know, this complexity may be essential to living matter. I certainly don't know how to make different or better DNA. I've no idea what the possibilities are. But once you start assigning definite properties F, G, H… etc to a thing, then logic rules out it having incompatible properties X, Y, Z,…etc.
Doing this specification for a whole alterntive universe of properties while maintainng consistency and generating rich forms of conscious life is no simple matter.
So when an atheist says,
"You say God is omniscient and omnipotent. If he is so omniscient and omnipotent, then he should know how to create have better world"
I invite them to publish their superior thoughts on how the world should have been made in a refereed scientific journal.
But forgive me for not just taking their word for it that their thoughts really will prove to be superior when subjected to serious scientific scrutiny.
Living matter has certain essential properties. You can either demonstrate that an alternative form of conscious living matter, with different properties, is truly viable and superior, all things considered; or you can continue churning out comic book anti-theism.
Comment by stunney — March 30, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
March 30th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Raevmo:
Yet as I pointed out above per a ScienceDaily release this week, actual biological diversity is far greater than Darwinian sexual selection can account for. There have been several recent studies demonstrating that even in species of birds who mate for life, there's quite a bit of sexual promiscuity going on. Mate partnerships apparently being more about sharing of parental and protection duties than about "good genes."
In fact, according to the researchers themselves, the Darwinian expectation that comes from following the sexual selection hypothesis to its logical conclusion actually leads to ever decreasing diversity, "…to the point where sexual selection could no longer take place."
Instead, what we see is way more genetic diversity than "expected" from sexual selection, and none of the speciation by drift that diversity supposedly leads to. Why, it's starting to look like diversity is an evolutionary stabilization mechanism instead of a speciation mechanism!
So it could be that while the showiest peacock and the biggest, baddest gorilla get a lot of sex, they're fathering way fewer offspring than their status suggests. Maybe they're kept sexually happy because they're the ones who get killed the quickest, or because they're the ones the troop relies upon for physical protection.
Think of it this way… If threatening marauders are busy going after the showiest, biggest, baddest - but slowest and most physically handicapped by his showiness - alpha in the area, the better disguised women and children and lesser males can disappear into the underbrush or fly away during the melee and more of the troop (or flock) will survive. That really muscle-bound Arnold guy just might be the group's generational sacrificial scapegoat, not the "best genes" in the species.
See how that works? Just-so stories CAN be fun! §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 30, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
March 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
As I argued earlier if I wasn't a theist I would be attracted to the idea of "˜Ultimate Directed Panspermia'. Only "˜Ultimate Directed Panspermia, which posits the existence of other universes "fits the bill" because any other kind of explanation (at least if you accept the idea that the universe was created by the "˜Big Bang') fails to explain how life got started in the first place; it merely shuttles the question off someplace else. And, as I also conceded earlier, based on Ockham's razor one would do better to consider another logically possible explanation, if one exists. For me classical theism, or, perhaps some kind of deism, is then the only other logically attractive alternative.
In my opinion, there are 3 major questions that any kind of naturalism or materialism cannot resolve:
1. What is the cause of the universe?
2. What is the cause of life?
3. What is the cause of mind and consciousness?
At least "˜classical atheism' as espoused by Bertrand Russell and others seemed to be somewhat reasonable. One could attribute aseity or "˜self-existence' to space-time, matter-energy and the universe as a whole. If the universe was infinite and eternal it could be then argued that it is the cause of all finite and contingent being; or perhaps more accurately all that has ever existed is an eternal regress of natural causes. It appears; however, that the "˜Big Bang' has caused something of a metaphysical bottleneck that limits this kind of natural causal nexus. Whatever caused the universe, it now appears, must, at least, in some sense transcend the universe both spatially and temporally. An infinite regress is no longer an easy, simple, or adequate explanation. It can no longer be argued that matter and energy eternal. What caused or existed before the universe is, at least for the present, appears to be empirically an open question.
The simpler and, in my view, better explanation is that a mind or intelligence is the self-existing (or ontologically self-contained) thing that transcends the universe. It exists because it has always existed. It's not much more complicated than that. I think Billy Ockham would have been pleased.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 30, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
March 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Thanks for the tip - I hadn't seen that paper yet. I had to smile when I read in the ScienceDaily release that the paper appeared in a journal published by the same company that publishes Nature. As if that reflects well on the journal. In fact the journal Heredity has fairly low impact. But Petrie has a very good reputation and has published stuff on her peacocks in top journals such as Nature.
You're right that mate choice is about more than just "good genes". Good genes are just in vogue at the moment. It makes more sense to go for a mate that can provide direct benefits such as plenty of food and protection, rather than for a mate that can transmit his/her good genes to your offspring. On the other hand, mates with good genes might be better at acquiring the good stuff, so the two desirable properties need not be in conflict.
But keep in mind that there are plenty of species where female and male do not have any bond after copulation. That's what the expression "lek paradox" refers to. On a "lek" groups of males display, and females visit the leks to mate. Often it's a very small proportion of the lekking males that get laid so to speak. Most females seem to prefer mating with the same male. It's hard to understand why females would choose such males if not for their good genes. The paradox is that genetic diversity in such good genes quickly disappears precisely because the females' consistency in their preference. At least, that's what very simple mathematical models of the process suggest. Apparently, Petrie has come up with a model that shows how this loss of diversity is prevented. I haven't read the paper, so I can't comment on the details.
But you're wrong in implying that sexual selection is considered by biologists to be the major driving force of biological diversity. There are many more factors - environmental variation and the need to adapt to a specific environment being chief among them.
The data refute your suggestion.
Interesting theory, but it seems to rely on a group selection argument. Like I said above, the lek paradox concerns species that do not live in groups (except for the group sex), so I'm afraid your argument doesn't cut it.
Comment by Raevmo — March 30, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
March 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Has anyone ever considered whether or not natural selection acting on random mutations is like using a sledgehammer to repair a miniature watch?
Comment by Douglas — March 30, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
March 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Raevmo:
Actually, the extrapolations (and generalization) are mine alone, just contemplating the variety of recent studies documenting more genetic diversity in species than sexual selection can account for. The ScienceDaily release is about human mate choices - how the ugly guys get girls as often as the Prince Charmings, thereby maintaining a "healthy" genetic diversity that sexual selection can't account for.
Sort of fits with the 'New Eugenics' idea of a Barbie-Ken world of designer humans, which by all rights would be disastrous for humanity because it would diminish that "healthy" genetic diversity. If it ever became the popular means of procreation, that is. Almost as dumb as launching a nuclear war because some egghead in a lab coat swears it'll cure global warming. I swear sometimes I think scientists are a privileged class of certifiable idiots run amok.
I once wondered whether human brain evolution would speed up dramatically if Cesarian section ever became the predominant method of birth. Given that human brains are about as big as they can be right now without killing Mom (an evolutionary dead end if there ever was one). Well, C-sections are now the predominant method of hospital births in this country after steadily rising over the last 4 decades, in a country where most births occur in hospitals.
This is more for the convenience of the doctors than the health of mothers or babies, but it's real. Humans don't seem to be getting any smarter.
Comment by Joy — March 30, 2007 @ 5:34 pm