Telic Temptations
by BradfordPaul Davies authored The Cosmic Blueprint. Like most of his work this book is thoughtful and well written. I want to focus on a small part of it for the purpose of this blog entry. On page 131 Davies discusses how life has modified earth's environment over geologic timescales. He illustrates his point with the specific example of the sun's luminosity which has increased by about 30% during the earth's history. Despite this significant increase, the temperature of the earth has remained within a small range that is hospitable to life. Davies uses the phrase "equability of conditions" in alluding to this.
In explaining earth's stable temperature range Davies noted a higher CO2 atmospheric content during the primordial earth phase which would trap heat and compensate for weaker heating effects from the sun. Then as the sun's lumionsity increased living organisms utilized ever increasing amounts of carbon and atmospheric CO2 consequently declined. A thermal balance was maintained and increasing oxygen in the atmosphere had an effect of its own on life. Conditions regulated by the actions of living organisms was pointed to as an example of self-regulation.
Davies goes on to say this:
It has a pleasing teleological quality to it. It is as though life anticipated the threat and acted to forestall it. Of course, one must resist the temptation to suppose that biological processes were guided by final causes in a specific way. Page 132; The Cosmic Blueprint; Published by Templeton Foundation Press.
But why must we resist the urge to reason that teleology is supported by our observations. The singular example cited by Davies is too limited to warrent this conclusion but if it is part of a broader pattern one can draw some legitimate telic inferences. If biological cells were front loaded with self-sustaining, self-replicating and adaptive features it would not be unreasonable to expect their environment to be similarly front loaded with enabling conditions for life. Unicellular niches are found within larger eocsystems which are many and varied and together make up a life friendly planet. Our planet is situated within a solar system containing a sun that is an energy optimal source with respect to its size and distance from earth. The solar system in turn occupies a suitable galactic location within a universe operating in accordance with finely tuned natural laws. Anthropic specifics are adaquately enumerated elsewhere including this interesting take. The point is front loading can be envisioned as a broad concept applicable to cosmic circumstances making earthly biological front loading possible. Nothing superstitious about possibilities suggested by nature itself.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Another amazing example of front-loading: it's dark during the night and not during the day. What if it had been the other way around? Someone or something clearly gave it some thought.
And what are the odds of the holes in my cat's fur lining up so precisely with his eyes? Now that's fine-tuning.
I could go on, but I won't.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Why not these questions instead? DNA has ordered sequential arrangements enabling function. Why not primordial sequences randomly ordered with respect to functional peptide polymers? And why would a blind, stupid watchmaker build an encoded device in the first place? What knowledge of chemistry would lead a reasonable person to believe primordial reactions front load the capacity to replicate cellular systems? A von Neumann replicator with no FLer. A bit of atelic fantasy.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Bradford:
A reasonable person would note that self-replicating molecules do not violate any known laws of chemistry. Such a person would also note that we do not have sufficient information about primordial conditions and possible chemical pathways to make probability assessments with any degree of confidence. Such a person would not reject the possibility of spontaneous emergence of such molecules because it might spoil his childish religious fantasy.
You are obviously not such a person.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
For what it's worth, Davies assumes that the Earth somehow was fine tuned to deal with the weaker sunlight in the distant past.
The problem of how the Earth was not an ice ball because of a lower brightness in its nuclear fusion process is known as the "Faint Young Sun Paradox."
Walter Brown argues, quite well, imho, that the Faint Young Sun Paradox is devastating to mainstream paleontological interpretations. You can't get around the basic physics of the issue, imho.
See:Faint Young Sun #1
Also, I don't think anyone knows for sure how much an atmosphere of all C02 will cause high heat on the Earth. A physics associate of mine didn't think CO2 had a sufficient IR absorption spectrum to cause much of any green house warming….
See: Global Warming not Caused by C02 for a dissident view on the IR absorption spectrum. The graph looks pretty embarrassing to global warming advocates since C02 has such a narrow absorption spectrum!!! This narrow spectrum will allow IR energy to escape pretty freely. C02 gets hot then transfers the heat to another place which can emit the energy at a frequency that will pass through the C02, end of story…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 3, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Raevmo,
Yes, you're not motivated by your religious views at all here, are you Raevmo?
Besides, even if it went down the way you hope - spontaneous generation in idyllic primordial conditions - the situation would still smack of design rather than chance. Just how evolution, cell operation, DNA, cosmology, and otherwise shows abundant indications of design, a fact increasingly admired and highlighted by many of us theists.
Incidentally, I hear you're a scientist? If so, let me extend my thanks. Whatever work you do just makes it easier to advance the design argument to modern minds. I really appreciate how much you and your colleagues are assisting the effort.
Comment by nullasalus — July 3, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
nullasalus:
I try to keep the superstition to a minimum. You should try it sometime.
Oh, I hope for idyllic conditions, do I? That's funny. Of course it would smack of design to you, anything would. You need that authority figure so you don't have to think for yourself, and eternal life is nice too. I understand the appeal.
You heard correctly, and I appreciate the gratitude. Thank you. But if you really think that whatever scientists do advances the design argument, then you are sadly mistaken. Those gaps in knowledge that you have to hide in, they tend to shrink as a result of scientific research.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
On second thought, regarding C02, the peak of the blackbody radiation is such that C02 could cause warming. If the peak were in a higher frequency spectrum than C02's absorption spectrum, there would be no chance for global warming from C02, but it is not, so suffice to say….
I don't know….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 3, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Also, I don't think anyone knows for sure how much an atmosphere of all C02 will cause high heat on the Earth. A physics associate of mine didn't think CO2 had a sufficient IR absorption spectrum to cause much of any green house warming….
See: Global Warming not Caused by C02 for a dissident view on the IR absorption spectrum. The graph looks pretty embarrassing to global warming advocates since C02 has such a narrow absorption spectrum!!! This narrow spectrum will allow IR energy to escape pretty freely. C02 gets hot then transfers the heat to another place which can emit the energy at a frequency that will pass through the C02, end of story…
Sal, are you indeed an associate of Gary Novak?
Comment by olegt — July 3, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Heh, no edit button and the blockquote tag doesn't seem to work. The first two paragraphs are a quote from Sal's comment.
Comment by olegt — July 3, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Raevmo,
Should I start now? Alright: "Gee, what an amazing combination of letters this reply has! It certainly has a strong illusion of design. But I must remind myself that it's merely an illusion, nothing but random and purposeless process. After all, utterly unguided chance creates whole universes, galaxies, planets, chemicals, life, cells, creatures, and eventually Boeing 747s. Sentences are easy for Eris Esoteric."
Man, I feel more rational already!
"Think for yourself!" says the admirer of Dawkins, who regards the whole suggestion of personal responsibility for action and thought to be one of the grandest superstitions of all - akin to Basil Fawlty holding his car responsible for not starting.
Hence why even ardent atheist scientists mutter about having to keep reminding themselves that the design they think they see isn't real. And why the Templeton Organization is viewed with terror and suspicion by some - a loosely religious organization encouraging research? Supplying grants? Dangerous stuff, there! They may come to the wrong philosophical conclusions!
No gaps necessary for design, Raevmo. We theists are going to swallow up evolution as one more demonstration of grand design and teleology in the service of deity. Once again, thanks for helping us out, you wonderful scientist you!
Comment by nullasalus — July 3, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
nullasalus:
Don't mention it. Don't choke while you try to swallow evolution.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Raevmo,
Already digested - it was delicious.
Think I'll have some cosmology for dessert. MWI with fine-tuning sauce, mayhaps?
Comment by nullasalus — July 3, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
nullasalus:
bon appetit.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
nullasalus,
read the labels before eating the deserts: both MWI and the fine-tuning are half-cooked dishes. Neither is mainstream science: the former is indistinguishable from the Copenhagen interpretation and the latter simply represents a gap in our understanding of particle physics.
Comment by olegt — July 3, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
olegt,
Ever had pig souse, olegt? Food labels stopped mattering to me awhile ago.
I'd argue fine-tuning is more philosophical conjecture than actual science at all. As for MWI, agreed, though every now and then I hear people talking as if MWI was the predominant view of physicists nowadays. Then again, the talk of QM interpretations seems to stir what a good friend of mine calls 'scientist knife-fights' I recall reading the abstract of a paper arguing that the only reason Copenhagen became the predominant view was because of fierce political manipulation by certain leading scientists, and if history were fair Bohm would be the view everyone subscribes to right now.
Either way, just having a bit of fun here. And for the record, I like Paul Davies. Anyone who irritates so many people across so many boundaries usually has a good idea.
Comment by nullasalus — July 3, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Raevmo:
Strawman. Noone claimed any violation of laws occurs.
The classic belief based on ignorance.
But he would be well advised to reject the spontaneous emergence of interacting sub-cellular systems because empirical data indicates such systems do not come into existence except through cellular replication. You would do well to dispense with your childish and predictable hostility.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
nullasalus:
I disagree with him often but also like him. He is not afraid to speak his mind even if it upsets conventional thinkers yet you get the impression his focus is on ideas and not on irritating people.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
olegt,
I'm not an associate of Gary Novak. It was another physicist (who shall remain nameless) that suggested C02 had an insufficient absorption spectrum…
Upon pondering my first comment, I basically withdrew it by saying, "I don't know", because my first comment just didn't seem right.
And the more I read Novak's site, the less enamored I was with it….
Anyway, I figured you'd correct me if I mis-stated something.:mrgreen:
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 3, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Yeah, Sal, Novak is a first-rate crackpot who can't tell momentum from energy yet feels qualified to claim that Einstein was wrong.
Comment by olegt — July 4, 2008 @ 7:25 am
July 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
In the book, The Creation Hypothesis, Hugh Ross writes:
“The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing. For example, if the strong nuclear force were even 0.3 % or 2 % weaker, the universe would never be able to support life. More astounding yet, the ground state energies for ^4He, ^8Be, ^12C and ^16O cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other than 4% without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen and /or carbon for any kind of life. The expansion rate of the universe is even more sensitive. It must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 10^55. Clearly some ingenious Designer must be involved in the physics of the universe.” (The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, J.P. Moreland, ed. P163)
Personally I disagree with Ross’ conclusion: “Clearly some ingenious Designer must be involved in the physics of the universe.”
I find the word “must” to be problematic here. Clearly fine-tunedness does not does not eliminate the “X factor”; that the reason behind the universes apparent fine-tunedness is simply something that we presently don’t understand. On the other hand, fine-tunedness is certainly something that is consistent with the idea of an eternally existing transcendent intelligence (EETI) and something such an intelligence could and can explain. But such an explanation is purely metaphysical and leads us invariably to some other unanswered questions in philosophy.
Is there a credible explanation in purely naturalistic terms? Recently, ideas like multiverses has been floated by some cosmologists. But is that something that can be proven scientifically, or demonstrated logically that it must necessarily be true? I think not. To answer such a question we need to ask ourselves what is the nature of nature? That is an ultimate kind of question that involves answering the question concerning infinite being. Anything involving infinity is something that intelligent beings, having finite minds, like us have extreme difficulty answering.
Clearly, fine-tunedness, and the origin of the universe are examples of those borderline issues where philosophy, theology and science all overlap. Can such questions ever be resolved? Clearly, for the present, we don’t have a clue how to even start to answer these kinds of questions.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 4, 2008 @ 11:51 am
July 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Olegt,
Fine tuning does not represent a gap in out understanding. That is simply wrong. To use just one example, we are not impressed with stellar evolution leading to life-essential heavy elements because we have “gaps” in our knowledge and we don’t know how it works. On the contrary, we know how it works, and the fine tuning argument results from the knowledge that it just barely does.
Fine-tuning is in the details, not the gaps. You are confusing it, perhaps, with ideas that are in the gaps, like irreducible complexity. Or ad hoc ideas, like a universal probability bound.
Comment by David Heddle — July 4, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Why are the planets so closely aligned to the ecliptic plane? Why is inertial mass equal to graviational mass? Why do the elements fit into a periodic table? Why do organisms seem to be so suited to the environment? Who painted the zebra's stripes? Why does the puddle's hole fit so staggeringly well?
Guth's theory of cosmic inflation leads naturally to a flat universe. Basically, the cosmos is stretched flat because it was stretched to such a vast extent. The inflation is due to symmetry breaking in the early universe. Modern versions of the theory make a number of empirical predictions, many of which have been tested and verified.
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Zachriel,
Because of the way planets formed from circulating debris. Conservation of angular momentum
I don't know (that’s like asking “why is General Relativity correct?”) but I don't recall the equivalence of the two being presented as an example of fine tuning.
Basic physics of QED, when spin degrees of freedom are taken into account.
Bill Buckner is my guess. Or maybe Goldie Hawn. I mean, what was up with that Laugh-In gig?
It doesn’t, absent a demonstration of multiple universes. The relevant questions are such as this: why is the cosmological constant ~100 orders of magnitude smaller than theory predicts, which bespeaks of incredible (but not perfect, because perfect wouldn't do) cancellation of higher order field-theoretic terms–essentially adding large numbers with different signs to produce a necessary small number.
None of which include detection of another universe. Any prediction of multiple universes cannot be substantiated because the same theory correctly predicts properties of our universe. The prediction of multiple universes has to stand or fall on its own — it cannot piggyback.
Classical E&M predicted many things correctly. It also predicts that matter is unstable and blackbodies radiate infinite energy at higher frequencies. The history of physics is filled with theories that get some things right, and other things horribly wrong. No test of any cosmology has demonstrated the existence of another universe.
Comment by David Heddle — July 4, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Those were rhetorical questions. We know—now—why they fit so staggeringly well.
It has nothing to do with multiple universes. It has to do with the puddle's ignorance of possible explanations, then jumping to a conclusion of design. That is clearly Adams' point.
Again, it has nothing to do with multiple universes. Inflation explains the staggeringly flat universe due to symmetry breaking in the early history of the universe. It does not explain other staggering aspects of the universe. But it's instructive to realize how often these staggering fits turn out to be due to relationships in underlying properties.
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
David Heddle wrote:
The relevant questions are such as this: why is the cosmological constant ~100 orders of magnitude smaller than theory predicts, which bespeaks of incredible (but not perfect, because perfect wouldn't do) cancellation of higher order field-theoretic terms–essentially adding large numbers with different signs to produce a necessary small number.
David, this is what I meant by a gap in knowledge. Our current theories of particle physics do not explain why Higgs bosons are (supposedly) relatively light or why the cosmological constant is so small. In fact, we have no tested accepted theory beyond the Standard Model and the SM has nothing to say on the subject. Fine tuning is required in theories that go beyond SM, but that's not a big deal: the state of our knowledge is quite limited in that area, chiefly because of a lack of experimental data.
Comment by olegt — July 4, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Zachriel,
You are spending an incredible amount of time and energy fighting the ideas that crop up on this blog. You are right in fighting the notion that we can ever prove beyond a shadow-of-doubt that God created the universe. In your arguments, however, you seem to be suggesting that in our search to understand our universe we need to accept beyond a shadow-of-doubt that God did not create the universe. Has science proven this already? Can science prove this? Are your assumptions about the universe better than the assumptions of the ID folk?
You must realize that your world view is based on assumptions as surely as the ID crowds world view is based on assumptions.
Make sure you are listening to what is being said on this blog instead of writing it off so quickly. There are hints here which might help us determine which assumptions are most rational.
Comment by 0112358 — July 4, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Zachriel:
Adams and his admirers use ignorance to their advantage. If a physical explanation is available it is used as a theological wedge to argue against the plausibility of a deity. But if knowledge of relevant physical dynamics is sufficient to infer an absence of design then knowledge can be used to infer it. There is no chemically based reason explaining the ordering of nucleotide polymers required to confer biological function to nucleic acids. There is reason to suppose the generation of any primordial polymer chain would be random with respect to protein function. But since this is counter to expectations an alleged gap will be posed to exclude a design interpretation.
Comment by Bradford — July 4, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Zachriel wrote:
Since I was quoting Hugh Ross in my first post let me respond with another quote from Ross:
So Ross, even though he is an outspoken old earth creationist, finds nothing objectionable in Guth’s hypothesis in regards to the theistic argument he is making using the universes fine-tunedness. Do you see something that is objectionable?
However, the question that it raises in my mind is, if it’s only this universe that has ever existed how did it know that it needed to be fine-tuned in this way? Indeed who or what got it started in the first place? As Freeman Dyson has said, it seems like “…the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.” (Dyson, The Disturbing Universe, Harper and Row, 1979, p 250)
PS to all: I left out the word ‘stronger’ in my earlier post. Here is the corrected quote: “The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing. For example, if the strong nuclear force were even 0.3 % stronger or 2 % weaker, the universe would never be able to support life. (When is management going to get the edit feature fixed?)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 4, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I don't believe I have made that argument. I have pointed out that arguing from Gaps is an inherently weak argument.
I would not make that claim.
You would have to provide a scientifically useful definition of God to answer that question. For many people, God is outside of rational understanding.
Most of those in the ID Movement claim a scientific basis for their beliefs. This is a claim that can be resolved without resort to metaphysics.
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Just a few hours ago you pointed to the exquisite fine-tuning of the expansion rate of the universe as evidence of a designer. That is apparently inoperative because you became aware that this might be explained as due to some other underlying symmetry. In effect, we have reduced the number of unexplained variables by one.
I don't think "objectionable" is the word I would choose. Just unpersuasive as a *rational* argument. If you were to lay back looking to the clouds and expressed your awe at the majesty of the universe, I would be more apt to be persuaded. Because at least then I would know you weren't trying to make a faulty rational argument.
The puddle ponders. But the staggering fit remains whether the puddle is unique or one of a multitude. It doesn't fit so staggeringly well because it is lucky. There are wonders of the universe outside its kin.
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Zachriel:
Here is a interview Alan Guth gave to Fred Heeren (6/8/1994).
Please notice that Guth doesn’t see his inflation hypothesis making metaphysical or theological claims. My point is simply that empirical science has limits, but there are still rational questions about our ultimate origins and why things are the way they are. These are rational questions that can be explored and discussed. I thought Telic Thoughts is a place open minded people of varying beliefs could come to discuss such things.
No I don’t think Guth’s theory has made fine-tunedness of the universe inoperative. As I said in my original post there are other physical constants that must be fine tuned to a very high degree for there to even be possibility of life. My point was that Ross accepts Guth’s inflation hypothesis but still thinks the fine tunig argument is a strong one.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 5, 2008 @ 12:33 am
July 5th, 2008 at 1:06 am
What do you mean by your statement that this is a claim that can be resolved without resort to metaphysics?
Comment by 0112358 — July 5, 2008 @ 1:06 am
July 5th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Zach,
Please. You display an instant attack mode with regards to any view which even has the potential to point in a direction you don't favor philosophically. And the problem is the arguments just aren't poetic enough?
There's bull and then there's bull.
And here's what it comes down to: No amount of evidence will ever be sufficient, because luck-as-offered is capable of anything and everything. It is essentially omnipotent, the FSM for atheists. And if anyone asks about the penultimate details, there's a shrug of shoulders and muttering about how maybe causality is just an illusion or something. Any answer that lets the puddle think the right, blind God was responsible.
Comment by nullasalus — July 5, 2008 @ 1:17 am
July 5th, 2008 at 9:16 am
That's correct. Nor does it explain why there is something rather than nothing. It only provides a plausible explanation as to why that something appears staggeringly flat.
Readily agreed. The talk about the physical constants is just a diversion. They may or may not have valid scientific explanations. The real question is why there is something rather than nothing.
No. But you have ignored the lesson of pointing to something as evidence only to have it yield to a plausible scientific explanation. Why do the planets all hug the ecliptic plane? That's obvious now, but without a ready explanation, it was once considered evidence of design.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 9:16 am
July 5th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Science is methodological. You can be a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, even a nihilist, and implement the scientific method. You don't have to believe it says anything useful or meaningful about the universe. You can believe in the Resurrection. You can believe that world was created Last Thursday. As long as you follow the well-defined methodology; hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat; then your results can be considered scientific. You don't have to believe in it.
What we can resolve, then, is whether ID meets the definition of scientific investigation. Now, you might still say that ID is true on some other basis. Perhaps you met the Designer. That's fine. But that doesn't mean it meets the definition of science.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 9:29 am
July 5th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I comment in areas where I think I can add to the discussion. I only contest arguments I find faulty, especially those that misuse science.
We know it's not luck that makes the puddle's hole such a good fit. The puddle only knows the hole fits staggeringly well. (You may want to actually read Adams' talk. His discussion of the Four Ages of Sand is also quite illuminating.)
I'm not an atheist or a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, it is interesting how closely the rise in global temperatures tracks with the decrease in pirates.
Penultimate? As I mentioned to JOHN_A_DESIGNER, the ultimate question, why is there something instead of nothing, would seem to make the better argument.
The puddle thinks the hole was made specially for him. Is he wrong? Does your answer have any scientific merit?
42
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 9:42 am
July 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Hi moderator. My comment appeared, but when I edited it, the editor said it was now marked as spam. I only changed 'the four ages of sand' to 'the Four Ages of Sand'.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 9:46 am
July 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
C’mon. I know you are smarter than that. Fine tuning simply doesn’t fit that analogy. Saying:
The planets are in the same plane! Ergo, design!
Is quite different from the cold, neutral observation:
If this constant differed by one part in (pick a number) then stars could not have formed and therefore there would be no life.
The first is clearly “God of the gaps.” The other is a bona fide scientific puzzle. Short of proving that the sensitivity is an illusion, something that nobody has done (no, not even Stenger–he hasn't even made a solid attempt, despite bragging that he would) there is no escape. It is a model independent observation. Fine-tuning does not imply an intelligent tuner, it is merely a possibly ill-advised term that acknowledges life’s (generically, not just our kind) sensitivity. It is not a gap argument. Imagine a theory that predicts the constants, and you are still left with the puzzle of a universe on a razor’s edge. Assuming the sensitivity is true, there is no gap that can be closed that eliminates it as a “problem,” except for the actual detection of, not just a theory consistent with, another universe.
Comment by David Heddle — July 5, 2008 @ 9:56 am
July 5th, 2008 at 10:17 am
They were *both* bona fide scientific puzzles, and they were both Gaps. Both have been used by some as God of the Gap arguments.
The Cosmos is flat. So flat, in fact, that if it varied ever so slightly, life could not exist.
The hole must have been made for me.If you take the primordial universe and stretch it, it becomes increasingly flat. If this happened, then we should see quantum fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation.There's a Gap. Yes, I understand you are not making a God of the Gap argument. Others do, however. There are many unexplained facts about the universe, many Gaps. Human ignorance abounds.
We have already seen how the staggeringly flat cosmos is plausibly explained as an inevitable result of symmetry breaking in the early universe. It had to be flat. And that answer is found right here in this universe. You may be right that resolving the other constants may involve other universes, but I'm not sure you're right to insist upon it. Not enough is known at this time.
But is there a problem with other universes? The universe used to mean the Solar System, then the Milky Way, now the Big Bang. One day what we call the universe may include many areas of cosmic expansion. Indeed, we already know the universe is far bigger than we can observe—like the far side of the Moon or Sun, beyond the reach of Earth-bound observers.
Assuming such a theory were necessary and possible, direct observation is not required. No one can directly observe the Big Bang, but it is considered well-established from studies of the Cosmic Background Radiation, especially with regards to the quantum fluctuations as evidence of that early epoch having occurred on a quantum scale.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 10:17 am
July 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Zachriel,
I am not arguing against a flat universe, I absolutely believe that the universe is exceptionally Euclidean. Nor is there anything “wrong” with multiple universes—I find such speculation fascinating. The problem is that nobody has devised an experimental test. Flatness and multiple universes remain independent predictions of (some) inflationary cosmologies, not necessary, model independent, hand-in-hand consequences. That is, one can propose inflationary cosmologies that do not require multiple universes; therefore flatness is not a confirmation of multiple universes.
With the Big Bang, we say that if the Big Bang happened, then we expect to see these properties of the universe. Of course we don’t see the Big Bang—we don’t see quarks either, but we test necessary consequences. With inflationary cosmologies, we say: our universe will be flat and (in some cases, but not necessarily) the theory also predicts multiple universes. Flatness is a test of inflation, not of other predictions. In the same manner, modes in a waveguide are a test of classical E&Ms prediction thereof—they are not (thankfully) a test of classical E&M’s prediction of an ultraviolet catastrophe or atomic instability.
Susskind understood this when he argued, in reference to the untestability of multiple universes, that we may have to change our definition of science.
Comment by David Heddle — July 5, 2008 @ 10:47 am
July 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Zachriel,
Granted, ID is not a purely scientific endeavor.
The ID movement is a reaction against another unscientific movement that attempts to provide answers about origens using a purely naturalistic framework.
Are you willing to argue just as vehemently against this other unscientific movement?
Comment by 0112358 — July 5, 2008 @ 11:04 am
July 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am
We're not that far apart.
That's correct. Multiverses are just theoretical speculation at this point.
That's correct. So, let's return to a couple of your previous statements to see if I am now reading them correctly.
You're saying it's an observation, not an argument. The problem is the telic terminology combined with how it is often used by the ID Movement. If you mean we have particular constants that appear essential to explain the universe, sure. And if your legs were any shorter, they wouldn't reach the ground. {I generally don't use winkies, so you can tacitly insert one here, if you like.}
Yes, an observation, not an argument. But one of those observations that immediately leads scientists to look for an underlying explanation, a unifying symmetry. It worked for flatness, and that hypothesis has been very fertile.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 11:06 am
July 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Certainly I am, and I have. But dogmatic naturalists rarely misstate the science. They just mangle the metaphysics. And often there is no definitive argument to be made. You can't make someone open their eyes and see.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 11:14 am
July 5th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Really?!
Comment by 0112358 — July 5, 2008 @ 11:35 am
July 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Zachriel,
But, even in jest, that is such an inaccurate analogy, well frankly I’m surprised you’d use it. Cosmological fine tuning is not “if this constant weren’t within this range, life as we know it could not exist.” That’s a privileged planet argument, and there your analogy is a bit stronger. Cosmological fine tuning applies to life of any kind—given that all but those who willingly blur the distinction between science and science fiction agree that life requires heavy elements.
No—an underlying symmetry can (perhaps) explain how the constants got their values. The fine tuning observation is independent of that—regardless of whether the constants are from a random draw or derivable, fine tuning is the observation that habitability is sensitive to their values. In fact, as I’ve pointed out many times, and contrary to ID which rather stupidly pins its hopes on the improbability of the constants, derived constants result in a stronger ID phenomenological case*—since habitability built into the fabric of spacetime is a more elegant piece of circumstantial evidence for design than random “just-right-constants.” The latter is what multiverse theories predict—so for now the science gap (no fundamental theory) actually favors, in a metaphysical sense, the multiverse proponents.
*Aside: Even in the biological realm you’d think they would see that the inevitability of life is a more satisfying design case than the improbability of life—but they don’t. Instead they ponder a fatuous “universal probability bound."
Comment by David Heddle — July 5, 2008 @ 11:40 am
July 5th, 2008 at 11:41 am
You are more than welcome to provide an example.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 11:41 am
July 5th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Let's say there was a great deal of flexibility in the constants. Gross-tuning, as it were. Would your argument change?
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 11:49 am
July 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Zachriel,
If there is gross tuning, which is what Stenger proposes, then the argument obviously changes radically. Whether some would then argue that the designer was so clever he made a fault-tolerant system–well that I could not say. I would speculate that the impetus for multiverse theories would be greatly weakened, and they would be treated with more scientific skepticism than they are today. However, as the only real alternative to the unpleasant alternatives of design or luck, they presently are given a wide berth.
Comment by David Heddle — July 5, 2008 @ 11:57 am
July 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Any hypothesis regarding origins has inherently mistated the science because it is no longer dealing in the realm of science.
Comment by 0112358 — July 5, 2008 @ 11:57 am
July 5th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Well, that's what Cosmic Inflation does for the relative homogeneity, isotropy and spatial flatness of the universe. In other words, the initial condition was grossly tuned, or not tuned at all, and yet it still resulted in a staggeringly flat universe.
It's quite possible, though by no means certain, that the other staggeringly precise values are similarly constrained by a simple, underlying symmetry.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
That's way too vague. It would help if it was a specific example.
Any hypothesis regarding origins? A hypothesis is just a tentative assumption for the purpose of deriving empirical predictions.
Maybe you mean any claim regarding origins. Big Bang Cosmology? The origin of the human species? Ultimate origins?
Extending science to make metaphysical judgments is not misstating science. But claiming that science is the only possible way to determine fundamental metaphysics is incorrect. Indeed, treating metaphysics as a philosophical system, there are a number of self-consistent such systems.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
David Heddle:
The term God of the gaps is so vague I don't think users of the term can adaquately define it. There are no gaps for me because I believe God is the ultimate cause in all causal chains. Showing that a more fundamental particle or force exists, explaining a physical phenomenon, does not change my view at all. Zachriel, you are confusing apologetics with the argument that since no plausible scientific explanation for x exists then God must have performed a miracle. That assumption is not required to construct a supporting argument for God's existence based on the nature of the universe. The planetary plane argument, along with much else, can be incorporated within an apologetic framework pointing out the consistency of God's power and nature (as scripturally delineated) with an orderly universe. That is not a scientific argument but it is a rational one.
Fine tuning is an obervation. Arguments are linked to it but distinct from fine tuning. You need to be clear in distinguishing an apologetic argument from a scientific one.
Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Perhaps not, but it is surely misusing science in much the same way that the ID movement is claiming to be scientific.
Comment by 0112358 — July 5, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I agree. The distinction I was attempting to draw is that dogmatic naturalists rarely misstate the facts of science, unlike ID Advocates often do. It is incorrect to claim that science can resolve its own relevance to metaphysics. And I have argued such on other forums.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The argument that since no plausible scientific explanation for x exists then God must have performed a miracle. — Bradford
Or alternatively, an unnamed Designer, using unknown mechanisms, at an unspecific time and place, must have intervened.
No, it's not. But some arguments are constructed so.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
David Heddle:
What is one to conclude if the nature of chemical bonding and the identification of specific biopolymers involved in primordial reactions indicates that life is not inevitable without a guiding hand? What underlying forces of nature would make the generation of symbolic coding systems inevitable? Reactions, yielding polymers (peptides, nucleic acids) are determinstic in nature. Bioploymers show coded mappings to function. That's a clue that freedom from chemical determinism is required.
Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
If you are using my statement as an operational definition then you have a problem with the gaps allegation. Miracles are not required to manipulate biopolymers. It can occur within known laws of nature. Well defined laws and an outcome deviating from expected norms is a clue that an intelligent agent is involved in a causal chain. Marking a contravention of natural laws is not needed to impute intelligence. Anomalies from outcomes dictated by deterministic processes are indicators.
Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Yes, it's your definition.
That would be option two; an unnamed Designer, using unknown mechanisms, at an unspecific time and place.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
The time and place might accord with mainstream concepts. General approaches like cleaving, ligation and energy flows would be used to explain specific physical features of outcomes.
Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Zach,
Coincidentally, every single one of those faulty arguments seems to be one which leans in a direction that you find philosophically distasteful. I suppose this result is just blind, unguided chance once more.
No, 'we' don't know. Not in the sense of what the argument is attempting to indicate.
It's one more of many good arguments. If there's any strength to design arguments, it's that we know what design is capable of, and have an inkling of what potential it has. We're not sure what 'unguided chance' is capable of - its very existence is an open philosophical question.
Again and again - science cannot answer these questions in either direction. Say the puddle was designed and you're outside of science. Say the puddle was the stuff of chance and you're outside of science. But some important arguments and decisions occur outside the bounds of science, and the abuse of science's boundaries is not limited to (or even largely done by) the ID community.
Comment by nullasalus — July 5, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
David Heddle,
Avoiding the ID specifics of that argument, I've actually wondered the same about 'unlikelihood of life' versus 'inevitability of life' as far as arguments go. Though I've found that what determines one argument is often "what the opposite is saying".
I've seen this many times, since I lurk on a wide variety of forums. On a Catholic or more mainstream Christian forum, atheists show up to insist that the Big Bang wasn't the start of the universe - it was probably eternal, with the Big Bang simply being an event. And humans aren't alone in the universe either, there simply must be other intelligent life.
But when I go over to mormon forums (Keeping in mind that mormon doctrine supposes a universe that is, apparently, past-eternal and the existence of intelligent life on other planets), the opposite occurs. Atheists show up, but suddenly the Big Bang clearly was the ex nihilo start of the universe. And clearly humans are alone in the universe as intelligent life.
What's interesting is that in both cases, the atheists insist that their stance is the stuff of scientific truth - and that clearly the theists are either abusing science or don't understand it.
Comment by nullasalus — July 5, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
We do know the reason why the puddle's hole fits staggeringly well. And we know it's not luck.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Zachriel,
Not in the sense of what the argument is attempting to indicate - are we down to repeating ourselves? The puddle gambit is a weak argument - no surprise, Adams wasn't exactly known for penetrating philosophical and theological insight. His accomplishments in fiction and dry humor are ample.
Comment by nullasalus — July 5, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
We do know the reason why the puddle's hole fits staggeringly well. And we know it's not luck. And we know it's not multiverses. You have to argue it doesn't apply to the broader case, but you haven't argued that. All you did was handwave.
You're claiming we can't make a reasonable determination if a puddle's hole was designed or was due to natural contingency. You can take that metaphysical position, but it can't argued. Most people have no problem with drawing reasonable distinctions. You'll convince the rest.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Zachriel,
If you need me to, it'd be my pleasure.
I'll start with a question: Why don't you tell me why the puddle's hole fits staggeringly well?
I don't think 'reasonable distinctions' come into play when you're talking about a designer at such a level, especially since said designer can employ natural contingency in design.
Comment by nullasalus — July 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
nullasalus:
Some strength that is. Back in the day the prevailing ID theory told us the gods were throwing around thunderbolts and lightning. Until we learned otherwise. Same old story all over again, except now the gods miraculously seed the earth with the first cells.
I'd be interested in a link to the atheist's claim that clearly humans are alone.
Comment by Raevmo — July 5, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Raevmo,
'Gods throwing around thunderbolts' is a canard, and has been gone over on this very blog in the past. Learning natural physical processes has never removed design from the picture - God doesn't have to 'miraculously' seed the earth, since what constitutes a miracle does not entail a violation of natural law. Why you mistake design with miracle (especially since, when last we spoke, you ceded that what constitutes a miracle is subject to perspective anyway) I do not get.
If you're asking for their logic, it was a combination of the Fermi Paradox and OoL problems given at the Mormon Apologetics Forum. I believe Crick was quoted in support.
Comment by nullasalus — July 5, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
nullasalus:
No, it isn't a canard. People invented gods to explain thunder and lightning. It seems as if you feel embarrassed by that.
Calm down. I used the word miraculously as a figure of speech. I have no problem with the idea that God created the laws of nature such that life was inevitable. What I dislike is the idea that the first cells were "poofed" (miraculously) on earth, as for example Bradford seems to believe.
Comment by Raevmo — July 5, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Raevmo,
Why would I be? It's not my faith. That doesn't mean I won't defend an abused explanation of their reasoning - you still have a grasp of pagan theology that is butchered to say the least. Saying gods were invented to explain thunder and lightning is downright precious. And the same guys who "invented" Zeus and Athena also invented primordial chaos as the ultimate explanation. Chance and unguided randomness is just one more theological construct.
I've never seen Bradford argue 'poof' - only that unguided natural processes are insufficient as an explanation for the OoL. Maybe I misunderstood him, but if so I'll leave it to him to inform me.
Comment by nullasalus — July 5, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Why should nullasalus feel embarassed because of a belief he does not hold? His scientific beliefs are solid and his philosophical and religious beliefs are rational. Greek mythology is a canard as it has nothing to do with arguments advanced by IDists.
Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
nullasalus:
Really? Why?
Nobody believes in that strawman construct. There's an important deterministic aspect to evolutionary theory. Natural selection.
What do you mean by unguided natural processes? If God created the universe and the laws of nature, and then laid back, would OOL then be unguided?
Comment by Raevmo — July 5, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Bradford:
No it is not a canard. You are relying on Christian mythology. What's the difference?
Comment by Raevmo — July 5, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I rely on Christianity for the identity of God and his revelations through scripture. Believing in God does allow one to consider all logical options. Atheists are more restricted in that way. They have no choice but to believe in the inevitability of life arising under earth-like conditions. It is good the universe is such a large place as there are likely to be planetary laboratories throughout it.
Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Raevmo,
Because it's baseless and slanted, like saying cars were built to give mechanics jobs. And even that only stands as a comparison if evidence indicated the role of the gods was primarily to provide a mechanism to explain phenomena. Considering they seemed fine to leave it at 'Zeus is responsible for lightning, somehow, and sometimes perjurers get hit', it hardly seems like a concern.
Strawman construct? The greeks believed in primordial chaos giving rise to all that exists, you know. Including their pantheon. Their 'deterministic aspect' no more eliminated the essential component of blind, all-powerful possibility and raw chance than modern atheists' do.
It's a theological construct. Just your altar looks more Lovecraftian than mine.
Depends on the God, depends what 'laid back' means. For me it's a philosophical question that science can at best inform, never decide on. I think it's obvious folly to attempt otherwise, though I can respect those who disagree with me provided they handle themselves well.
For one, because there's no reliance on Christian Mythology in Bradford's questions about the OoL, at least that I can see - except in the vaguest way, where the capabilities of design is recognized at all stages, along with the plausibility of a designer at a level beyond humanity. Was Francis Crick subconsciously relying on deism when he flirted with panspermia?
Comment by nullasalus — July 5, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Zachriel wrote:
However, it’s not the only question. And my point all along has been the fine tuning of the universe raises some interesting and legitimate philosophical and theological issues. In my first post above I said:
I think the late great atheist philosopher Anthony Flew would agree with me. (I don’t think he died, it’s just that he no longer considers himself to be an atheist. )
In his book, There is a God: How the Worlds Most Notorious
Atheist Changed His Mind, he writes:
Quoting Davies 1995 Templeton address:
Flew then quotes Davies again from another article:
Why does our universe exhibit such a high degree of fine-tunedness? It’s because of the way it was originally set up. It is because of the socalled laws of nature. Why does this universe have these particular laws? Nobody including scientists knows. However they are legitimate questions to ask. At least Flew, Davies and others think so. I wonder what Mike Gene thinks. It sound like a kind of ultimate front loading to me.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 5, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
John A. Designer:
Sounds like that to me too. The evidence for cosmological front loading lies in the laws by which the universe functions.
Comment by Bradford — July 5, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
July 6th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Davies (from John-A-Designer's post)
Perhaps we will soon be told about the myriad of universes that have been tried and failed because the convergence of laws were not quite right. Our universe, of course, did survive because finally, after an infinite number of permutations, the right set of laws finally chanced to converge. This, we will be told, is somehow more scientific than postulating a Designer.
Comment by 0112358 — July 6, 2008 @ 12:10 am
July 6th, 2008 at 4:02 am
You forgot to add that we are already told that any design-not-by-chance hypothesis is completely unscientific and anything pointing to trial and error (ie: anti-teleology) is.
Comment by computerist — July 6, 2008 @ 4:02 am
July 6th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Exactly. The point is that neither group can claim a purely scientific basis for its beliefs, but one set of beliefs is certainly more rational based on what we are finding out about our universe through true science!
Comment by 0112358 — July 6, 2008 @ 9:05 am
July 6th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
0112358 wrote:
But what is it that does the selecting? In his book, The Mind of God, Paul Davies mentions the work of Lee Smolin who develops an idea which Davies labels “Cosmological Darwinism” Very briefly, the basic idea is that our universe like other universes throughout all eternity spawn baby universes that split off to become new universes. These new universes, while not competing with each, other would vary from each other enough to evolve a slightly different set of values for their physical constants. I guess after enough universes had been born a few of them would become lucky enough to form something “significant.” Of course who or what decides what is or what isn’t significant?
Davies points out: “that it is not clear that Smolin’s theory makes any progress in explaining the specialness of the universe. The linkage between biological and cosmological selection is an attractive feature, but we can still wonder why the laws of nature are such that this linkage occurs. How fortunate that the requirements of life match those of the baby universes so well. Moreover, we still require the same basic structure of the laws in all universes to make sense of the theory. That this basic structure also permit’s the formation of life remains a remarkable fact.” p222
Such ideas reminds me a lot of other impotent ideas like “panspermia.” If you have difficulty solving a problem here why not just move it to another time and place. How does such a move solve the problem? That we are never told. But hide something back far enough and maybe just maybe people will forget about it. My mom tried that with chocolate chips, hiding them further and further back in the cupboard. But, I always found them. There was nothing better after school than a handful of chocolate chips and a tall ice cold glass of milk.
But if you study something scientifically, using scientific instruments and methods etc., doesn’t that make it scientific? For example, if you study an alleged haunted house with special scientific instruments doesn’t that make the investigation scientific and bring paranormal science into the mainstream?
Okay, I’m being facetious. But, I think you will find a similar kind of argument being made by some modern cosmologists. In their minds you only need the bare veneer of science to make a very speculative idea scientific.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 6, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 12:49 am
For me pure science is verifiable in the here-and-now. It is repeatable and can be verified independently by different groups. Pure science has to do with phenomena that are happening in the present. We can use scientific tools to investigate things that have happened in the past but in these types of investigations presuppositions and world-views come increasingly into play. Because of this I would not consider these types of investigations to be purely scientific. There is an additional element being added beyond pure science.
Comment by 0112358 — July 7, 2008 @ 12:49 am
July 7th, 2008 at 7:45 am
The study of the past can certainly be scientific. For instance, we have a great deal of scientific certainty that T. Rex once walked the Earth (and tore flesh, and mated, and laid eggs). Saying this is not a matter of scientific investigation is quite incorrect.
Comment by Zachriel — July 7, 2008 @ 7:45 am
July 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Zachriel:
You're right! Your example has a scientific element to it. I wouldn't argue that point but I still don't consider your example pure science (Read carefully what I was saying above). Your paleontologist is not observing something happening at present. He uncovers clues, puts them together and makes inferences about the past based on those clues. He is not setting up an experiment and making observations on some sort of repeatable phenomena. He may come close to a correct understanding of T. rex through his scientific observations but he will never really "know" in the same way a chemist knows that a water molecule is made up of one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen.
In some respects he is like the IDist who pieces clues together and postulates a designer. Your paleontologist pieces clues together and postulates a meat eater. Then there's the Materialist who pieces clues together and postulates randomness and chance. None of these individuals are operating on a purely scientific basis.
Comment by 0112358 — July 7, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Absolutely she is. The paleontologist is observing the fossil T. Rex in the here-and-now. The observation can be replicated by other observers, also in the here-and-now. Now, here's where it becomes science…
Our paleontologist proposes a hypothesis, a tentative explanation that is used to make *predictions* of other empirical observations. These new observations will also be in the here-and-now.
"Hmm," she thinks. "A very large skull. Maybe if I dig in the rocks, I'll find leg bones." She does and she does.
More seriously, we might look at the relative dating by strata. T. Rex is always found in strata 'below' (older than) hominids. We might examine the teeth or joints for wear marks. And so on.
This is what science is all about. We observe some aspect of the world. We form a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis. We predict new observations. Test them. Publish our results so that others can confirm and extend them. Then continue to probe into ever more detail.
You know that how exactly?
There is no reasonable scientific doubt that T. Rex walked the Earth. And it is far easier to observe a fossil T. Rex than atoms. We generally infer the existence of atoms from their chemical properties. Many scientists considered atoms strictly theoretical until Einstein made the first statistical estimate of molecular size with his explanation of Brownian Motion (requires java). At that point, even though they couldn't be directly observed, their existence was considered verified.
The problem with ID is that it doesn't propose valid scientific hypotheses. A hypothesis has to entail (logically imply) a specific and distinguishing empirical prediction. So Einstein's Theory of Relativity entailed (predicted) a bending of light around the Sun that was specific, as well as distinct from Newton's Theory. Then it was just a matter of mounting an expedition to Africa in 1919, setting up an observatory, and photographing a solar eclipse.
Comment by Zachriel — July 7, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Zachriel,
Try to read this again . . . SLOWLY.
Comment by 0112358 — July 7, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I think what 0112358 is trying to say is that historical science is not repeatable, and therefore yields less confidence. A historical scientist cannot know in the same way a physicist knows that a ball dropped from a building at a certain rate when he pushed it off the building himself. While new data may fit into the historical scientist's model, thus granting more confidence in the model, when a physicists drops a ball from a building to measure its consistency with the model, he knows first hand "who pushed it" and "why."
Using an extreme example, all of the historical data in the prehistoric world could have been faked by mischievous extra-terrestrials, and there's no way humans could know about it. But when a physicist pushes a ball off the roof, he knows who did it and why. This is a level of knowing not possible with the historical scientist.
(It may seem intuitively silly to think that ETs would do such a thing, but that's obviously beside the point, and is an utterly non-scientific question.)
It gets down to confidence. I think what 0112358 is trying to say that repeatable empirical science yields a greater confidence level.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 7, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I read that. But for some reason you didn't modify your view accordingly.
And I strongly disagree with that point, for the reasons given above. Hypotheses are proposed, and tested. That's what makes it pure science. (Adding "pure" in front of "science" is pure semantics. The scientific method requires more than observation. It requires the proposal and testing of hypotheses.)
Now, please reread my response above.
Observations are always in the here-and-now.
You point to an observation. I point to an observation. From your observation, you might propose a hypothesis, that objects fall according to some sort of law. From the fossil, I might propose a hypothesis, that T. Rex walked the Earth. In either case, we then make predictions of novel observations. We might try dropping a feather. Or look for other fossils. And then modify our hypotheses accordingly.
T. Rex once walked the Earth, and we use science to verify and extend our understanding of this scientific fact.
Galileo certainly didn't. Nor did Newton. So Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation is not pure science.
That's true. By the way, balls fall because of Intelligent Falling. Just like angels move planets in their orbits. There's no way to tell the difference between that and gravity. Angels are very careful about that.
That I would agree with. Histories can be notoriously tricky to untangle. Then again, Galileo couldn't see the Earth move either.
There is no reasonable *scientific* doubt that T. Rex walked the Earth.
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2008 @ 7:45 am
July 8th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I misread that. I thought you said he knows what did it and why (caused the falling motion), not who did it and why.
The paleontologist digs up a fossil. She knows who did it and why. She takes the fossil back to the lab so that other scientists can examine the speciment. She knows who did it and why. She proposes a hypothesis, that the rock represents the remains of a long-extinct organism. A biologist suggests that they use a microscope to look for cells. A geologist suggests that they date the strata. The paleontologists suggests another expedition to find more speciments. Each propose hypotheses and methods of testing these hypotheses. They know who did it and why.
The result is increasing confidence in the scientific understanding understanding of T. Rex.
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2008 @ 8:02 am
July 8th, 2008 at 8:20 am
kornbelt888 wrote:
That would work in astronomy as well. For all we know, God could have made the world 6000 years ago and then created an illusion of an old universe by adding light traveling to us from nonexistent distant stars or by drastically changing the speed of light. Come to think of it, that's what YECs are arguing. I don't think anyone except YECs takes that seriously, though.
Comment by olegt — July 8, 2008 @ 8:20 am
July 8th, 2008 at 10:18 am
kornbelt888:
You're absolutely right kornbelt. There cannot be the same level of confidence in historical biology as there is in laws of physics which can be tested right now. Not unless one's confidence is bolstered by a strong dose of faith.
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2008 @ 10:18 am
July 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
She knows who dug it up, but she's not an eye-witness to the cause of the fossil's existence, except through inference that is far away from any direct experience.
I agree, which is why I said, "While new data may fit into the historical scientist's model, thus granting more confidence in the model…" Both historical science and empirical science make models and can evaluate new data according to the model to see if it fits, with necessary adjustments made to the theory as needed. But in your example, the paleontologist wasn't there when the data was made. She wasn't an eye witness to it's cause, so there's an added level of fakery (or misunderstanding) possible that doesn't exist when dropping balls from roofs (except for some super power fiddling with the laws of physics dynamically, in which case, all bets are off for all science.) If the paleontologist were able to witness the reproduction anew of the sequence of events that allegedly led to the creation of the bones that she discovered, that would be equivalent to dropping balls from roofs. Some people are more confident in empirical science than historical science, because of the additional eye-witness component that empirical science affords. I think that's what 0112358 was getting at.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 8, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
New data may undermine concepts instead of inspiring confidence. Such was the case recently. Bird evolutionary tree given a shake by DNA study illustrates the point. Sometimes trees are nicked but studies like this demand major pruning.
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Bradford:
So tell me, what concept was undermined by this bird phylogeny study?
Comment by Raevmo — July 8, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The tree that needs revision.
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Bradford,
A few of the tree's branches may have been redrawn, but the concept of the evolutionary tree is alive and well. The current study confirmed it as did lots of others before it.
Comment by olegt — July 8, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
olegt,
Is it? I was under the impression that the 'tree' was now a 'bush', since going back far enough means you don't end up with a single LUCA, but a whole bunch of them due to horizontal gene transfer at the earlier stages of life.
Then there's the question of how we view ourselves in relation to the tree, due to everything from technological advances (gene therapy, etc) to scientific discoveries (epigenetics and otherwise) to otherwise.
Comment by nullasalus — July 8, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Those redrawn branches represent conceptualizations of how evolution took place. New evidence can undermine our confidence in prior concepts; a theme which runs counter to what had been written prior to my comment.
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Nullasalus,
At the level of birds (or even animals) it's still a tree.
Bradford,
once again, which concepts have been undermined? Concentrate.
Comment by olegt — July 8, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
It would appear in the tree/bush of life the more one zooms in on the details of the tree/bush, the less confidence there is the ability of the model to make predictions.
It would be great if we could re-run the whole thing and see what actually happened, when, and possibly by whom.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 8, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
olegt,
Perhaps, but if we're drawing the borders like that then the fact that it's a tree means little. Do someone believe birds were dropped off as a single species en masse by aliens 1 million years ago and evolved since then? Well, their earthly lineage forms a tree.
As for the article, one 'undermining' I take away from it is how it illustrates the limitations of classifying some animal families with too heavy of a weighting on morphology. It looks like "these two animals have (dis)similar traits, therefore they must (not) be closely related" may have led many researchers down the wrong path in this case.
Comment by nullasalus — July 8, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Re-route the tree and tell us Olegt. Is this swamp humor? If it is take it there.
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
olegt:
You're not that stupid so I assume you're trolling. If you're not explain how changes suggested by the new data do not undermine prior concepts of how the species in question evolved.
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Bradford,
I hope you understand that a particular arrangement of branches in a tree is not a concept. As nullasalus correctly noted, our previous picture of the tree, based in a large part on bird morphology, was proven incorrect in a few places. That, however, in no way undermines the basic concepts of evolution.
Comment by olegt — July 8, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
The quotation supplied by John A. Designer suggests to me that Davis believes that fundamental physical constants and parameters are isolable factors freely and independently variable. However, seems to me at least, that both the presumption and the object of theoretical physicsis to reduce to unitarityy, to describe the evolution of the universe in terms of a small set of inextricably interrelated constantly covarying factors, as a coherent whole.
In the exemplars provided, the strong nuclear force, ground state energies of atoms, and the expansion rate of the universe are all the same thing (!). Not separately “tunable.”
Is that what creationists and other “Many-Worlders” are thinking?
Otherwise its confusing (to me at least) to talk about “fine-tuning,” which conjures the image of the “Man Behind the Curtain,” monitoring pointers, twisting dials, and pulling levers.
I'm sure I'm getting this wrong. Please explain.
Comment by Rock — July 8, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
It is when the tree represents an idea as to how evolution occurred. Tell it to the dictionary.
con cept:
NOUN:
A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
Or were you referring to the foilage in your back yard olegt?
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Are you saying there is reasonable scientific doubt that T. Rex walked the Earth? If not, then we have established with full scientific confidence at least one historical fact.
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
The 'bush' metaphor was suggested by Rokas and Carroll to refer to the "recurring discovery of persistently unresolved clades". A bush is still a nested hierarchy. We just can't easily untangle the branches.
You're right! After millions of years, it can be very difficult to resolve rapid divergences in closely related lines. At large scales, we have a nested hierarchy. And at as close of scales as is possible to resolve, we have nested hierarchies. (Though as nullasalus points out, there is some evidence that horizontal mechanisms were more important in the early history of life. There are also a number of other, better known exceptions, e.g. endogenous retroviruses.)
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Pruned trees are still trees (nested hierarchies). Avian genomes form a phylogenetic tree nested within the larger tree of life. Did you have any doubt that would be the case?
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Zach,
I never said it wasn't - I think the fact that we're now at the point of arguing 'No, it's still treelike, I see a tree, it just looks like a bush' makes the whole thing funnier. The context I saw it used in was with reference to the LUCA, incidentally.
The re-evaluation I see the bird evolution discovery relating to is what I said: The problems of an over-reliance on morphology. That and yet more possible bolstering for contingency considerations, I suppose. Wonderful design, this evolution thing.
Comment by nullasalus — July 8, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Let's supply some context. After posing a scenario you end with the comment:
Sometimes scientific endeavors occur this way. More evidence leading to an increased conviction that the initial idea was correct. But not always. Since you ommited the sentences preceeding the one begining with the word "bird" let me include them.
See? A better picture of how things work in reality. Sometimes confirmation. Sometimes not. Of course pruned trees are still trees. I never claimed otherwise. The real question is why an issue was made out of an accurate observation?
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Depends on how you define "reasonable", and whether or not you take the evidence at "face value", among other things. All we "really have" are rock fossils that we think were bones of some creature that walked the earth millions of year ago based on geological theory, etc. Is any of the inferences true beyond the bare evidence? Hell if I know. I don't know if I trust human reason enough to know. As far as I can tell, my practical side doesn't have any reason to doubt it. My philosophical side has plenty of reason question it. At the end of the day it doesn't seem to matter. It's not much more than an amusing question for me.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 8, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
kornbelt, you wrote this in comparing physics to historical sciences:
Stick with that line of reasoning because it is sound. You agree with that right Zachriel?
Comment by Bradford — July 8, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I got kind of busy at work. Thanks for carrying the torch kornbelt888!!
Comment by 0112358 — July 8, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The claim concerned the *scientific* nature of historic claims, not your personal predilections or what you find interesting. T. Rex walked the Earth is a strongly supported scientific claim.
Handwaving. You certainly know that careful study of fossils reveals a great deal of detail about the organism. We can see the wear on their joints, their cellular structure, the healing of wounds. We have more than one T. Rex fossil. We have fossils of related dinosaurs. We have entire ecosystems. We have the tree of life. We have strata. We have relative dating. We have absolute dating. We even have soft tissue samples with proteins confirming a link to birds.
Thinking fossils are unimportant doesn't make the data go away. T. Rex walked the Earth is a strongly supported scientific claim.
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
He repeated the term pure science as if there were a valid distinction. He did not modify his view when I pointed to a well-supported scientific claim about history.
We're still stuck on what constitutes the scientific method. An observation of a fossil is an observation. We can repeat that observation, propose hypotheses, and make predictions. That's what makes it science.
Our confidence depends on the specific claim and the available data. Do you agree that T. Rex walked the Earth is a strongly supported scientific claim?
Comment by Zachriel — July 8, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Hence my statement, "As far as I can tell, my practical side doesn't have any reason to doubt it."
I sometimes wonder if your eyes are scanning posts for text you can pounce on, and you then just sort of ignore the rest. Whatever floats your boat.
Right. Hence my statement, "As far as I can tell, my practical side doesn't have any reason to doubt it."
Hmm, I see how you could misunderstand, but what I said and meant was, "At the end of the day it doesn't seem to matter [to me]. It's not much more than an amusing question for me." In other words, whether T Rex really exists, or whether the fossils are the practical joke of mischievous aliens, it doesn't have much import to my daily life. The life and times of T Rex is an interesting academic question with practically no value to me personally beyond mere amusement.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 8, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
The point is not whether or not T. Rex walked the Earth. The only thing we have is a bunch of fossils. The point is that from these fossils we can only make deductions. These deductions can not be verified empirically. I have no problem with someone making deductions. In the case of the paleontologist, you have no problem with her making deductions. Why is it, then, that you have a problem with an IDist making deductions?
Comment by 0112358 — July 8, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
But empirical science has one thing historical science does not have, which affects the psychological level of confidence of some people, maybe not you, but some people. That is simply a fact. If you think it is an unimportant fact, so be it. Obviously some people disagree.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 8, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Fascinating discussion. Why don't you, guys, share your views on astronomy. All we have is light and radio waves reaching us from the depths of the cosmos, so "we can only make deductions," as the Fibonacci sequence would say. Can't touch the stars. Do you trust astronomers who are saying that the Universe is 13 billion years old and is expanding at an accelerating pace? How do you feel about the dark matter?
Comment by olegt — July 8, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Depends on what you mean by "trust." Trust typically involves risk. I trust aerodynamics when I get on an airplane. But I risk nothing by tentatively accepting the universe is 13 (more or less) billion of years old. I risk nothing tentatively accepting Common Descent. And will do so until a better theory comes along, or a super-being grants metaphysical knowledge that it isn't what it seems.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 8, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Hey olegt. Are you making a design inference? Would you believe me if I told you I pulled those numbers at random from a hat? There's hope for you yet!
Comment by 0112358 — July 8, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
It bears pointing out that 0112358 can be the result of necessity.
Comment by olegt — July 8, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Perhaps the concepts we need to be exploring are global versus local and continuity versus discontinuity. For example, the evolutionary tree is a global concept not a local concept. And of course, you cannot get more global than you do with cosmological theories such as the modern big bang theory, which encompass all of space and time — the universe as a whole.
Can or should empirical science concern itself with the global? I think so. Can it do as good of a job studying global process as it does a local process? I think is much more limited, and to gain a global perspective there needs more reliance on inference and extrapolation.
By their very nature global theories begin and remain much more tentative and much speculative. They may forever remain that way.
In the same way theories about local processes are characterized much continuity. It is, therefore, much easier to flesh out the causal connections. Global theories, on the other hand, are characterized by much more discontinuity and “gappyness“. What I was trying to say earlier is that some scientists and science enthusiasts try take the success and prestige science has gained with its local theories and project that success and prestige onto a global theory.
Isaac Newton once said that he saw himself as a small boy picking up shells on the sea shore while the ocean of truth still lay undiscovered before him. Of course, science has made fantastic strides since Newton’s time. But, in my opinion, in the grand cosmological scheme of things we have barely gotten our feet.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 8, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Very well put!
Comment by 0112358 — July 8, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 8:17 am
The point is whether it is a valid scientific claim.
We have far more than fossils, as already explained. And fossils remain evidence despite any handwaving. They don't go away.
Actually, we propose hypotheses. Then we deduce from the hypothesis new observations. Then we test them. Hypothetico-deductive.
That is incorrect, as already mentioned. A biologist observes the fossils, decides to use a microscope to see if there is a discernable cell structure. Confirmation of this prediction would lend strong support to the view that the fossils were once living organisms. Checking for wear patterns on joints or for how broken bones may have healed add additional information about how they lived. And predicting where to find eggs, then finding them is also empirical.
Because IDists do not propose valid scientific hypotheses. A paleontologist can tell us where to find what fossils. They can tell us how T. Rex lived. ID is scientifically sterile.
Empirical, A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation.
Paleontology deals with data produced from experiment and observation, proposes hypotheses, and tests them. Paleontology *is* empirical science.
Comment by Zachriel — July 9, 2008 @ 8:17 am
July 9th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Light from other galaxies is fossil light, often millions of years old, as old as a T. Rex fossil. Is it a reasonable scientific claim to say that other galaxies exist? Scientists claim to be able to determine the composition of stars. As they can't scoop up any star matter, is this a valid scientific claim?
Comment by Zachriel — July 9, 2008 @ 8:31 am
July 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am
No problem. Strike "empirical" and use "repeatable experimental" instead.
I would object to the usage of "experiment" is such a context. Paleontology merely discovers evidence like a kid looking for easter eggs. It does not produce it. The causal origin of the evidence is not known. The cause is unwitnessed. Moreover, it's production is not experimentally repeatable.
Again, repeatable-empirical science has a feature historical science does not possess, an eye-witness repeatability of the generation of evidence.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 9, 2008 @ 11:42 am
July 9th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
They're called natural experiments, but I will substitute "testing" for clarity.
You just reused the term "empirical" that you said you had abandoned.
In any case, the claim was that the existence of quarks is pure science, but the existence of T. Rex or galaxies are apparently of some lower, ill-defined order.
Comment by Zachriel — July 9, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
There are some questions that lie beyond the present scope of science. The ultimate origin of the universe is one of these. This is not to suggest that astrophysics hasn’t been incredibly successful in explaining what happened in the fractions of seconds after the universe came into existence. The inflation stage of the universe, theorized by Alan Guth and others, is estimated, for example, to have lasted only 10^-35 seconds. In other words, inflation was already ancient history when the universe was 1 second old. That is an unimaginably short period of time. Yet, as I said earlier Guth himself has admitted that his inflation theory does not explain the origin of the universe itself.
I think that no one has made this clearer than Brian Greene in his book, The Fabric of the Universe: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. “A common misconception,” he writes, “is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn’t. The Big Bang is a theory…that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after what happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all. In fact if you think about it for a moment, you realize that the big bang presents us with quite a puzzle.”
It is exactly the kind of puzzle that philosophers and theologians just love. As astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded in his 1978 book, God and the Astronomers, that for “the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
The big bang itself presents a metaphysical road block to both empirical science and worldviews, like materialism and naturalism, that pretend to be based on empirical natural science. Natural science requires some degree of causal continuity. The big bang presents an absolute dead end to any kind of natural causal continuity.
So what caused the universe to explode into existence?
I think there are logically three possibilities:
1. The universe was uncaused. It just happened.
2. Our universe was caused by some primordial universe (or universes) that preceded it.
3. Our universe was caused by an eternally existing, or self existing intelligence that ontologically transcends it.
How can we decide among these three options? While there are probably some people that believe in number one, I think most serious thinkers put their money on number 2 or 3, so I‘ll concentrate there.
#2 seems to have some appeal to people who prefer scientific or empirical explanations. Ironically, however, there is no way to empirically verify this option so it fails to live up to its billing. Furthermore, it ultimately leads to an infinite regress. How can one empirically prove the existence of an infinite regress? In a way #2 seems to be scientific, but it is only a matter of appearances.
#3 concedes that there are things that transcend our ability to know and understand empirically. It is not something that is provable but it certainly is something that is possible. Ironically it is theory based on empirical science that has led us to this point. It was Einstein’s theory of General Relativity that suggests that if run the film of our cosmos in reverse we’ll reach a point where even space and time cease to exist. It suggests that whatever caused our universe to come into existence is something very powerful, (powerful enough to cause the existence of our universe) but it also transcends space and time as we know it. So, how and why did this mysterious something cause the existence of our universe? Maybe it was planned… Maybe it was intended… if you look globally or holistically from what we do know I think you can make that kind of argument. Not only that, I think it is the best explanation.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 10, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
JOHN_A_DESIGNER,
That is a good summary and brings out a very important point (In fact, the only point). . . There are some things that are beyond the scope of science. The individuals that would like to correct and silence the ID crowd point out rightly that ID can not scientifically prove that there is a Designer. In their arguments, however, they insinuate that answers to origins are possible. They go on talking about using scientific means to explore the question of origins. This gives the impression that science can provide that answer. What they seem to fail to realize is that questions about origins are simply beyond the scope of science. They fail to realize that they are in the same position as the ID folk in regard to questions of origins.
Comment by 0112358 — July 11, 2008 @ 11:44 am
July 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
0112358,
Thanks for the compliment. You wrote that the anti-ID folks “fail to realize that they are in the same position as the ID folk in regard to questions of origins.”
So is ID science? That is where I part company (in a civil non-hostile way) with many in the ID community. The version of ID I subscribe to doesn’t see ID as science or as a scientific theory but as an interpretation of certain scientific discoveries. Something, that in my opinion, is a legitimate role for philosophers and theologians.
The questions of origin: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of consciousness raise interesting if not puzzling questions. At present these are the kinds of questions that science has not and cannot answer. Yet if you read a popular work by science writers, like Dawkins, Dennett, or the late Carl Sagan etc., you're more than likely get loads of authoritative opinion about theses kinds of questions and be left with the impression that these are the kinds of questions that science is on the verge of answering. They are, indeed, very interesting and worthwhile questions. But honestly, they are not really questions that science is even capable of answering at the moment.
However, just wait; some critic out there will respond to what I have written and accuse me of being anti-science. No, I’m not anti-science I just think that science is limited in it’s scope.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 11, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
JAD,
Count me in your corner, sir. This is exactly the attitude I take - glad to know there are others around who appreciate some aspects of the ID community but still have a similar reservation.
Comment by nullasalus — July 11, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
0112358…:
The origin of what? Science is quite capable of answering many questions about origins. We know that the atoms in our bodies originate from long-dead stars. We know quite a bit about the evolutionary origin of humans. There is no reason to assume the origin of life is beyond the capabilities of science.
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Raevmo:
You use the same tactic with cosmology that critics use with biology. Insert an arbitrary stoppage point into a causal trail. Atoms originate from stars heh. Where do stars come from? Where would all that primordial hydrogen following a BB come from? The best means of gauging scientific limits is by the limits of accurate predictions based on empirical data. We do not know what would have preceeded the origin of the universe. We do not know how a series of chemical reactions could give rise to a cell. Those are limits to our scientific understanding.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Bradford:
I didn't say science can answer all origin questions. I just denied that science can't answer any origin questions. Yes, we do not know what preceded the origin of the universe, assuming something preceded it at all. We haven't worked out yet how a series of chemical reactions could give rise to a cell, but we're making progress. It's you who is inserting an arbitrary stoppage point. You insist we can't figure out how life originated because you assume without reasonable grounds that only God could have done it. Would it really destroy your faith if we discovered how life can originate without His intervention?
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
July 12th, 2008 at 1:36 am
In my opinion it is not science. My point was simply that the anti-ID folk are often just as unscientific. They say; "there is no Designer so only a naturalistic explanation of origins is permissible." Is this statement any more scientific than saying; "There is order and design in the universe therefore there must be a Designer"?
Ultimate origins. "Why there is something rather than nothing."
Comment by 0112358 — July 12, 2008 @ 1:36 am