Biological Design Argument?

[ngill09]

ngill

It is one thing to attribute the unknown to the power of God. It is quite another to insist that what we do not presently understand must only have a supernatural explanation.

Well, for a religious person everything comes from God (including the mysterious laws of nature) and can be explained by God as its source. Your notion that we cannot attribute the laws of the universe to God lest it turns out that they can be otherwise explained by science is supported only by a belief that there is no God to support these laws.

Are you an atheist?

According to Newton, “God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them.”

This exxplanation will be very uncomfortable for the atheist. How do you suppose the atheist would counter Newton’s explanation? That we don’t know yet how it all went down, but we shouldn’t bring God into the picture?

Let me be clear that there are two things in question here.

First is the proposition that because there is no natural explanation for a phenomenon, there can be no natural explanation for that phenomenon. This is the assertion in your quote from Isaac Newton regarding the motion of heavenly bodies in our solar system. He was proven wrong by Laplace - the stable motion of the heavenly bodies in our solar system can be explained entirely by natural forces. This is also the assertion being made in this thread regarding the origin of biological life. Because you do not understand how it can arise naturally, you assert that it cannot arise naturally. I suspect that in the future this assertion will be disproven just as Newton’s was. This is an unanswered question, and we should be very careful making declarations about the answer until more is known.

Second is the proposition that the physical constants of our universe exist improbably and must therefore exist by design. This probabilistic inference is made invalidly from one point of data. I would tentatively class the question of the probability of the specific values of the physical constants of our universe to be an unanswerable question, as to answer any question of probability would require observation of more than one universe.

The futility of this endeavor is illustrated by your attempt to explain the mysterious nature of the universe by attributing it to a God whose nature is also mysterious.

As to my own religious beliefs… I leave them ambiguous, since I’ve noticed a definite tendency on this forum of labeling people and attributing to them beliefs that they do not necessarily hold. I, despite never classifying myself under any belief system, have already found myself being attributed statements and assertions for which I’ve made absolutely no reference.****

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

First is the proposition that because there is no natural explanation for a phenomenon, there can be no natural explanation for that phenomenon. This is the assertion in your quote from Isaac Newton regarding the motion of heavenly bodies in our solar system. He was proven wrong by Laplace - the stable motion of the heavenly bodies in our solar system can be explained entirely by natural forces.

Not really. Laplace explained the stable motion as a result of natural forces, but those natural forces (laws) Newton saw as the product of a designing intelligence.

**This is also the assertion being made in this thread regarding the origin of biological life. Because you do not understand how it can arise naturally, you assert that it cannot arise naturally. I suspect that in the future this assertion will be disproven just as Newton’s was. **

Your faith in the power of science is touching, to be sure. But again your error … I did not say life could not arise naturally. I only said that God’s providence alone could explain how it could arise within the natural order. You obviously are an atheist, so let’s get over that hump right away. As an atheist you see no place whatever for a biological design. Heaven forbid that God should play a role in anything! Thus the only alternative is that abiogenesis happened according to fixed laws of nature, not a designing intelligence. But the law of evolution certainly does not apply to abigenesis, so what laws of nature are your talking about? We will find out some day? And precisely how are we going to find out when the moment for finding out passed billions of years ago?

Are you going to intelligently design an experiment that proves abiogenesis does not need a designing intelligence. If so, all you will have proven is that your experiment needed to be intelligently designed by a man instead of God. That doesn’t get you anywhere, does it?

 

[tonyrey]

*The “Science-of-the-gaps” and the “Science-of-the foundations” hypothesis has a record so abysmal it is not accepted by anyone who believes in the reality of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. The “theory of Everything” turns out to be “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…” *

If you have discussions with materialists they will often say “There is no explanation yet but scientists are working on it”! They also assume that science can in principle explain the whole of reality - including itself…

What is this “theory of everything”?

The hypothesis that everything has come from nothinq - or one **physical **phenomenon!

What I am proposing, and what I think most scientists are proposing, is to recognize when we are ignorant of some facet of our universe and rather than say it therefore cannot have happened through natural means, to research and explore that area. We should suspend judgment until we know more.

If you apply that principle to everything you cannot be a Christian because the supernatural becomes superfluous!

It is one thing to attribute the unknown to the power of God. It is quite another to insist that what we do not presently understand must only have a supernatural explanation.

It is also a mistake to insist that the unknown** must **have a natural explanation!

 

[tonyrey]

You should pose that question to scientists who postulate a multiverse!

No response!

If you assume that physical constants couldn’t be different you imply everything is ruled by physical necessity - for which there is not one jot of evidence. The alternative is to believe there are an infinite number of possible constants since there is no obvious reason to postulate any particular number. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

                             There is not one jot of evidence for any inference to the  underlying probability distribution of the physical constants of the  universe. It is invalid to say that the physical constants have the  values they have necessarily, and it is equally invalid to say that the  physical constants can vary to any degree. No inference can be made  without additional data.

Cosmologists would disagree with you because your conclusion rules out all theories about other universes, particularly the multiverse. You become completely trapped within this universe if all inferences beyond it are invalid.

Imagine I pulled a numbered lottery ball from a hat. On the ball reads the number “42”. From only this information, what is the probability that I would draw a ball reading the number 42?
The answer is that nothing can be said about the probability without making invalid assumptions about the contents of the hat. Was that the only ball? Do I have 42 balls, one for each whole number between 1 and 42? Do I have an infinite number of balls representing every real number? The only thing you can tell from one drawing is that “42” is within the range of possible values.

Your argument doesn’t apply to all possible universes where the range of values is infinite!

 

[ngill09]

No response!

My original comment was aimed at anyone claiming to make valid inferences about the probability of the nature of the universe being as it is. Because you’re fixated on a certain dichotomy, you assume that I can only be aiming this at you.

Cosmologists would disagree with you because your conclusion rules out all theories about other universes, particularly the multiverse. You become completely trapped within this universe if all inferences beyond it are invalid.

I think it is appropriate for us to be epistemologically trapped within a universe beyond which we have no observation. That would be honest.

Your argument doesn’t apply to all possible universes where the range of values is infinite!

The range of possible values has not shown to be infinite, nor has the distribution of those values been shown to be uniform.

 

[ngill09]

ngill

First is the proposition that because there is no natural explanation for a phenomenon, there can be no natural explanation for that phenomenon. This is the assertion in your quote from Isaac Newton regarding the motion of heavenly bodies in our solar system. He was proven wrong by Laplace - the stable motion of the heavenly bodies in our solar system can be explained entirely by natural forces.

Not really. Laplace explained the stable motion as a result of natural forces, but those natural forces (laws) Newton saw as the product of a designing intelligence.

Then you should have no problem with supposing life arose due to natural forces which were under the ultimate Governance of God.

**This is also the assertion being made in this thread regarding the origin of biological life. Because you do not understand how it can arise naturally, you assert that it cannot arise naturally. I suspect that in the future this assertion will be disproven just as Newton’s was. **

Your faith in the power of science is touching, to be sure. But again your error … I did not say life could not arise naturally. I only said that God’s providence alone could explain how it could arise within the natural order. You obviously are an atheist, so let’s get over that hump right away. As an atheist you see no place whatever for a biological design. Heaven forbid that God should play a role in anything! Thus the only alternative is that abiogenesis happened according to fixed laws of nature, not a designing intelligence. But the law of evolution certainly does not apply to abigenesis, so what laws of nature are your talking about? We will find out some day? And precisely how are we going to find out when the moment for finding out passed billions of years ago?

You should do yourself a huge favor and refrain from making assumptions and assertions about the beliefs of other people. It would do wonders to keep you from making a fool out of yourself and the Church which you represent. My argument here is what we should suppose is the proper role of God. Does God hold the planets in their orbit directly, or did he set the natural laws which govern the planets natural motion? The God I believe in is more powerful than your god and does not need to tinker with His Creation in order to make life happen.

Are you going to intelligently design an experiment that proves abiogenesis does not need a designing intelligence. If so, all you will have proven is that your experiment needed to be intelligently designed by a man instead of God. That doesn’t get you anywhere, does it?

If I intelligently design a model explaining how the planets revolve around the sun, does that necessarily imply that the planets revolved around the sun by specific intelligent design and not by natural means?

 

[tonyrey]

You should pose that question to scientists who postulate a multiverse!

                             My original comment was aimed at anyone claiming to make valid  inferences about the probability of the nature of the universe being as  it is. Because you're fixated on a certain dichotomy, you assume that I  can only be aiming this at you.

Your assertion is not only discourteous but false and fallacious.

Would you pose your question to scientists who postulate a multiverse? If not why not?

Cosmologists would disagree with you because your conclusion rules out all theories about other universes, particularly the multiverse. You become completely trapped within this universe if all inferences beyond it are invalid.

I think it is appropriate for us to be epistemologically trapped within a universe beyond which we have no observation. That would be honest.

Do you confine all your reasoning and conclusions to that which we observe (presumably with our physical senses)? If so why?

Your argument doesn’t apply to all possible universes where the range of values is infinite!

The range of possible values has not shown to be infinite, nor has the distribution of those values been shown to be uniform.

Do you in practice totally ignore possible values when they are not precise or not shown to have a uniform distribution?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill
**
Then you should have no problem with supposing life arose due to natural forces which were under the ultimate Governance of God.**

Have I said anything different?

**You should do yourself a huge favor and refrain from making assumptions and assertions about the beliefs of other people. It would do wonders to keep you from making a fool out of yourself and the Church which you represent. **

And you need to get off your high horse, young man!

**If I intelligently design a model explaining how the planets revolve around the sun, does that necessarily imply that the planets revolved around the sun by specific intelligent design and not by natural means? **

You obviously know nothing about abiogenesis. And you are certainly not going to be able to intelligently design a model to show how it happened.
**
The God I believe in is more powerful than your god and does not need to tinker with His Creation in order to make life happen.**

If you believe in God you would believe in the miracle of Creation. Tinkering with abiogenesis, as you call it, is but a moment in the great miracle. Your god is not more powerful than mine.

 

[ngill09]

Your assertion is not only discourteous but false and fallacious.

Would you pose your question to scientists who postulate a multiverse? If not why not?

Depending on why they postulate a multiverse, I might raise the same objections. However, I don’t think that scientists postulate a multiverse for the reasons you think.

Do you confine all your reasoning and conclusions to that which we observe (presumably with our physical senses)? If so why?

Depends on what you mean “observe”. I try to avoid drawing conclusions from subjects on which I am completely ignorant. I suspect you would act similarly in a situation where the truth was of utmost importance. For example, as a juror at a criminal trial, I trust that you would base your verdict on what has been verifiably observed and what can be reasonably inferred from the evidence, rather than going by emotional reactions or instinct.

Do you in practice totally ignore possible values when they are not precise or not shown to have a uniform distribution?

As a practicing statistician of sorts, I do not draw inferences about the underlying distribution of values for which I only have one observation. I would not, for example, conclude that because something has a value which is a real number, that its range therefore includes all real numbers with uniform probability, as you seem to have done.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The act of abiogenesis is so complex that life could not have arisen from lifeless matter on its own by accident.

That, I am afraid, is a fallacious assumption. As I show in my article for the evolution website Talkorigins.org, life probably arose as an initially very simple system:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

There is not one jot of evidence for any inference to the underlying probability distribution of the physical constants of the universe. It is invalid to say that the physical constants have the values they have necessarily, and it is equally invalid to say that the physical constants can vary to any degree. No inference can be made without additional data.

Imagine I pulled a numbered lottery ball from a hat. On the ball reads the number “42”. From only this information, what is the probability that I would draw a ball reading the number 42?
The answer is that nothing can be said about the probability without making invalid assumptions about the contents of the hat. Was that the only ball? Do I have 42 balls, one for each whole number between 1 and 42? Do I have an infinite number of balls representing every real number? The only thing you can tell from one drawing is that “42” is within the range of possible values.

I have answered this type of argumentation in my article:

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God

 

[ngill09]

That, I am afraid, is a fallacious assumption. As I show in my article for the evolution website Talkorigins.org, life probably arose as an initially very simple system:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I have answered this type of argumentation in my article:

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God

I like the way you think, but I don’t see that you’ve addressed the problem of invalid inference from insufficient data. I know a good bit about statistics and probability, and I don’t see how any inference about the underlying distribution of possible values for these constants can be valid. I suppose I might put myself under the “the physical laws are necessary or highly probable” (I’d go with necessary). If I’ve got your refutation of that position correctly, you’re saying that the underlying reality that would make those physical laws necessary would itself be infinitely improbable. And that, wonderfully ironically, brings me to something I’ve been talking about in another thread - that is the necessarily random nature of existence. Whether you post God or underlying reality as the ultimate necessary reason for the nature of our universe, both exist either for no reason and no cause or because of a sort of cosmic simplicity.

So what I think it all boils down to is whether the ultimately simple self-sufficient nature of existence is a Being.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

That, I am afraid, is a fallacious assumption. As I show in my article for the evolution website Talkorigins.org, life probably arose as an initially very simple system:

I agree that it was simple compared to later systems. I do not agree that it makes sense to allow its sudden appearance without fortuitous preparation by an Intelligent Being.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I like the way you think

I like yours too:

My argument here is what we should suppose is the proper role of God. Does God hold the planets in their orbit directly, or did he set the natural laws which govern the planets natural motion? The God I believe in is more powerful than your god and does not need to tinker with His Creation in order to make life happen.

---

And that, wonderfully ironically, brings me to something I’ve been talking about in another thread - that is the necessarily random nature of existence. Whether you post God or underlying reality as the ultimate necessary reason for the nature of our universe, both exist either for no reason and no cause or because of a sort of cosmic simplicity.

Not quite. Classical philosophy concludes (not holds as premise, as some erroneously think) that God by His very nature of being Pure Act must have certain properties by necessity, and if anything is to exist at all, it needs God as basis of all existence. To understand how classical philosophy arrives at those conclusions you need to be familiar with its metaphysical concepts of act and potency, being and act of being etc. I suggest reading Fester’s Aquinas:

amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908

amazon.com/gp/product/B005KR0LUC/

The world on the other hand is purely contingent – it could be any other way than it is.

 

[tonyrey]

Would you pose your question to scientists who postulate a multiverse? If not why not?

The fact remains that they postulate a multiverse without experience of any other universe.

Do you confine all your reasoning and conclusions to that which we observe (presumably with our physical senses)? If so why?

Depends on what you mean “observe”. I try to avoid drawing conclusions from subjects on which I am completely ignorant. I suspect you would act similarly in a situation where the truth was of utmost importance. For example, as a juror at a criminal trial, I trust that you would base your verdict on what has been verifiably observed and what can be reasonably inferred from the evidence, rather than going by emotional reactions or instinct.

We are all ignorant regarding the ultimate nature of reality yet you seem to have drawn the conclusion that the only valid observations are those which concern physical events.

Do you in practice totally ignore possible values when they are not precise or not shown to have a uniform distribution?

As a practicing statistician of sorts, I do not draw inferences about the underlying distribution of values for which I only have one observation. I would not, for example, conclude that because something has a value which is a real number, that its range therefore includes all real numbers with uniform probability, as you seem to have done.

It is an occupational hazard of statisticians - as well as scientists and analytical philosophers - to think rational conclusions are restricted to numerical values.

1. How would you justify the principle of induction on the ground of precise statistics?
2. Are all your decisions based on mathematical probability? If not why not?
3. Do you always do nothing when you have only one observation on which to base a conclusion?

 

[ngill09]

We are all ignorant regarding the ultimate nature of reality yet you seem to have drawn the conclusion that the only valid observations are those which concern physical events.

Not quite. It would be more accurate to say that the only valid observations are those which are independently verifiable, and I wouldn’t necessarily hold to that strict of a standard.

It is an occupational hazard of statisticians - as well as scientists and analytical philosophers - to think rational conclusions are restricted to numerical values.

1. How would you justify the principle of induction on the ground of precise statistics?

1. Are all your decisions based on mathematical probability? If not why not?

1. Do you always do nothing when you have only one observation on which to base a conclusion?

Don’t confuse terms. When we’re talking about probabilities, as we are when we talk about the probability that the physical constants have the numerical values that they have, then it is absolutely appropriate discuss them in terms of valid probabilistic inference. I have not said or implied anywhere that everything must be reducible to statistics. So,

1. Induction is a proof technique, and usually does not involve stochastic elements.
2. That’s actually an interesting question, and I think that most of my decisions actually do involve a rudimentary analysis of probabilities. Outside of professional decisions, it’s usually not a very rigorous analysis, but where there’s uncertainty involved, there’s some involvement of probability. On the other hand, I think that a lot of decisions don’t involve much uncertainty and are more preference-based.
3. No, but I never claim to have knowledge about the underlying probability distribution from a population from which I only have one observation.

 

[DrTaffy]

Hydrogen is the dominant element of the universe. Without it there would be no water, and hence no life. The dominance of hydrogen was a product of the Big Bang. Hence the universe is fine tuned for life.

You are asserting that no form of life can exist without water. You haven’t proven it.

Also, you would have to change the physical laws a lot for hydrogen to not be stable. Can you suggest such a set of laws and then show what would exist under those laws, and what chemistry and other processes would be possible in such a universe?

Even trying should show just how difficult a challenge it is. Yet I don’t see that you can make the fine tuning assertion without having done this for every possible universe.

Supernatural intervention was required for life to form, as both Einstein and Newton would have been glad to concede.

Unsupported assertion, again, followed by argument from authority. Not that I agree that Einstein would concede that.

The act of abiogenesis is so complex that life could not have arisen from lifeless matter on its own by accident. If you argue that it did, it’s up to you to prove it.

I haven’t asserted that it did. You have explicitly asserted that “abiogenesis is so complex that life could not have arisen from lifeless matter on its own” and have not met the burden of proof for this assertion. Nor do I see how you can.

You can’t just make assertions and then demand that they be accepted unless proven wrong. Otherwise we end up with an infinite regress of unsupported assertions:

1. “there is no God, now prove me wrong”
2. “God exists, which proves you wrong, now prove me wrong”
3. “there is no God, which proves you wrong, now prove me wrong”
4. GOTO (1)
   

The most famous developer of the scientific method was Francis Bacon, who was not a scientist.

Sure he was, a very famous scientist at that. ‘Historia Vitae et Mortis’ for example.

In any case that is missing the point. Sure there are some philosophy fans who like to portray ‘Philosophers’ as dictating the rules to the practitioners of all other subjects, but this is pointless snobbery - nothing like that occurs. Similarly there are Physicists who think that they are somehow ‘superior’ to the other physical sciences because physics informs those other subjects - and that they can therefore safely wire a lab bench . Speaking as someone who has gone from studying physics to chemistry and biology (at research level) this is nonsense.

The ‘less fundamental’ subjects learn from logic, math or physics, sure. But it is the practitioners who (quite rightly) determine how those lessons translate into the rules of their discipline. Practitioners of the ‘more fundamental’ subjects who ignore this tend to lead to results like my shockingly electrified lab bench.

Your quotes from Einstein reveal his rejection of a personal God. They certainly do not reveal him as an atheist like yourself. Einstein was well known to repudiate atheism. He was Deist in the tradition of Spinoza. Or so he claimed.

He rejected militant atheism, sure, but it is not clear if by that he just meant those who positively assert “there is no God” as opposed to ‘not believing in God.’ e.g:

You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.

So you could call him agnostic or a Spinozan pantheist, he calls himself either from time to time. He was certainly not a theist like you.

 

[DrTaffy]

In other words nothing will alter your confidence that the origin of life was fortuitous and Chance is the ultimate explanation of everything - including the power of reason!

No - rather you just asserting that abiogenesis is ‘improbable’ will not convince me. You have to support your assertion if you want to convince me or, probably, pretty much anyone.

You need to explain why there should be such disparity between the two aspects of life given that there are no precedents on which to base your hypothesis.

They are two different things.

For example, why should a universe in which the laws of chemistry make it likely for complex self-replicators to arise not also have large numbers of asteroids smashing into it’s life-friendly niches?

If the universe were not hostile to abiogenesis life would be far more widespread than all the evidence suggests. Scientists are not indulging in a guessing game when they refer to the likelihood of life on a** rare **number of specific planets.

We only have evidence from (really) one solar system so far. And that one has life, but the sample is admittedly biased.

What do you mean by ‘scientists’ referring to “the likelihood of life on a** rare **number of specific planets”?

It is a simple statement not about what you would do but what you think is true…

Yeah - I think it is true that I would argue that!

The best explanation satisfies the criteria of economy, adequacy, coherence, consistency, probability, intelligibility and fertility.

And how do you balance those? How ‘economical’ is the God Hypothesis? In short, are you arguing that you and I would agree on which is ‘the best’ explanation?

“fine tuned” implies an intelligent cause - unless you resort to naturalism and the Chance hypothesis.

No it doesn’t. Other options are a universe where the constants vary over time and/or space, or a large number of cosmoses (cosmi?) with different laws.

As I pointed out, the total number of possible universes far exceeds the possible universes with the specific conditions necessary to support advanced life as we know it.

‘Point out’ being another way of saying ‘make the unsupported assertion that this is true’ I take it?

And why limit it to life as we know it?

You have not yet refuted my points…

You have not yet supported any of your assertions.

 

[ngill09]

The world on the other hand is purely contingent – it could be any other way than it is.

The thing is, I don’t know if the universe can be any way other than it is. Sure I could imagine a universe different than ours, but for that matter I can also imagine a God that is not a trinity or that is indifferent to life on Earth.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The thing is, I don’t know if the universe can be any way other than it is. Sure I could imagine a universe different than ours, but for that matter I can also imagine a God that is not a trinity or that is indifferent to life on Earth.

Again, I suggest reading the Feser book.

(And no, the Trinity cannot be deduced philosophically, knowledge of it is dependent on divine revelation.)

 

[tonyrey]

We are all ignorant regarding the ultimate nature of reality yet you seem to have drawn the conclusion that the only valid observations are those which concern physical events.

Why not?

1. How would you justify the principle of induction on the ground of precise statistics?

1. Are all your decisions based on mathematical probability? If not why not?

1. Do you always do nothing when you have only one observation on which to base a conclusion?

… When we’re talking about probabilities, as we are when we talk about the probability that the physical constants have the numerical values that they have, then it is absolutely appropriate discuss them in terms of valid probabilistic inference.

We are discussing whether this is the only universe, whether there are other (possible) universes, whether the laws of nature must be as they are and whether this universe is more adequately explained as the result of Chance or Design.

I have not said or implied anywhere that everything must be reducible to statistics.

Yet you seem to contend that no rational conclusions are possible about the nature of this universe without a statistical foundation.

1. Induction is a proof technique, and usually does not involve stochastic elements.
   Do you mean that the principle of induction has nothing whatsoever to do with probability?

1. That’s actually an interesting question, and I think that most of my decisions actually do involve a rudimentary analysis of probabilities. Outside of professional decisions, it’s usually not a very rigorous analysis, but where there’s uncertainty involved, there’s some involvement of probability. On the other hand, I think that a lot of decisions don’t involve much uncertainty and are more preference-based.

Then you agree that most of your decisions are not based on precise numerical values?

1. No, but I never claim to have knowledge about the underlying probability distribution from a population from which I only have one observation.

So you never claim to have knowledge about the nature of the universe?