Biological Design Argument?

[buffalo]

DNA: Celebrate the unknowns

•   		 				[Philip Ball](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html#auth-1)
  
  
    							 																		 												 																					 												 																					 												 					 							 								 										 		 	 	 	 							 		 	 	Nature 			496,419–420(25 April 2013)doi:10.1038/496419a  	Published online 																	 				24 April 2013							 	 									 												 							 				 			  											 												 					 	 															 												 					        
  
    		 											 										 			 		   												 												 					  	 	  							 																 		 										 				 				 			 										 										 														 			 								 										 																			 																		 																		 																		 																		 																									 																									 																																													 																																							 																		 																		 																																 																																																								 																									 																		 					 																																						 																 				 				 			 																				 						 									  						 								 				 												 												 					 On the 60th anniversary of the double  helix, we should admit that we don't fully understand how evolution  works at the molecular level, suggests Philip Ball.

 

[rossum]

On the 60th anniversary of the double helix, we should admit that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, suggests Philip Ball.

God of the gaps is not a very convincing argument.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

God of the gaps is not a very convincing argument.

rossum

I didn’t used to like it, but I like it more now. The more we learn, the more we see just how big the gap is and getting bigger.

Bottom line - there will always be at least one gap, otherwise you are God Himself.

 

[DrTaffy]

1. This universe is extremely inhospitable - as we have seem from the virtual extinction of life on this planet on several occasions.

Well, “extremely inhospitable” is a relative term, so I’ll grant you that assertion.

1. Yet life has emerged because the physical constants of this universe correspond exactly to the requirements for life.
2. So many other conditions have to be fulfilled that life is extremely rare even in this universe - let alone all possible universes.

Yet you seem to fail to see that these two assertions rather contradict the previous one. They are not quite irreconcilable, as I said, but to make both (in the same post yet!) does increase the burden of proof from insane to gonzo nuttier-than-squirrel-poo insane.

1)To show that abiogenesis is very improbable in this universe, you need to know every possible way that life could arise in this universe, the exact physical laws and conditions applying throughout this universe, and calculate the sum of probabilities for any possible form of life arising by any means possible in any of the existing niches where life might be possible. Since we can only begin to guess at the number of earthlike worlds available, and to start to guess at the ways our kind of life might have evolved here, this is an impossible task

2)To show that this universe is fine tuned for life, you need to do a similar job for every possible universe - which implies knowing the laws of physics for every possible universe, every possible form of life possible under those laws, what range of ‘possible universes’ are in fact possible and how probable each variant is. Then you must show that our universe is somehow privileged compared to the others.

This is an even more impossible task.

3)To make both assertions you must fulfill (1) AND (2) - then reconcile them somehow, e.g by showing that this ‘inhospitable’ universe is as ‘hospitable’ as any possible universe could be.

You have not even given a scientific explanation, let alone met the burden of proof!

That’s how it works. Unless I have made an assertion, I have no burden of proof.

Fine tuning is directly based on the inadequacy of the abiogenesis hypothesis.

No. Really no.

Quite the opposite - the more the laws of nature make abiogenesis probable, the more of an excuse you might have for claiming that the universe is ‘fine tuned’ to permit life to arise.

Please produce the verifiable evidence that physical constants vary

I have already done so. In this comment.

• and vary sufficiently - to refute the improbability of life in this universe.

Oh, now hang on, Quickdraw McTriggerHappy.

If you assert “the improbability of life in this universe” it is up to you to prove that assertion.

All I have asserted is that your argument rather relies on the conditions we observe here (physical ‘constants’ and so on) holding true for all spacetime. Otherwise, even if you prove that those ‘constants’ are perfect for life, all you have shown is that life arises only where the conditions are hospitable. That is like claiming that the fact that icicles only forming on cold days is proof of an Ice-God directing them not to form on warm days when they would melt.

So for you to successfully make your assertion, you must show that the ‘constants’ do not vary over time and space. I don’t need to do anything more than point out the possibility - the fact that I have done more is simply a reflection of the overwhelming evidence my side!

You seem to be unaware that “I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one” is a very bold assertion - for which you certainly need to provide evidence…

Umm - I know myself better than anyone, and that is indeed what I would do. Isn’t that good enough?

If that seems unfair to you, the only thing I can suggest is limiting yourself to assertions you can support with evidence!

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

 

[tonyrey]

1. This universe is extremely inhospitable - as we have seem from the virtual extinction of life on this planet on several occasions.

It follows that the extreme inhospitability of the universe for the survival of life is strong evidence against its fortuitous origin.

Since we can only begin to guess at the number of earthlike worlds available, and to start to guess at the ways our kind of life might have evolved here, this is an impossible task

Scientists are not indulging in a guessing game when they refer to the likelihood of life on specific planets. If such ignorance existed scientists would be seriously mistaken not only for referring to physical constants but also in attempting to create life.

2)To show that this universe is fine tuned for life, you need to do a similar job for every possible universe - which implies knowing the laws of physics for every possible universe, every possible form of life possible under those laws, what range of ‘possible universes’ are in fact possible and how probable each variant is. Then you must show that our universe is somehow privileged compared to the others.

This is an even more impossible task.

The total number of possible universes far exceeds the possible universes with the specific conditions necessary to support life as we know it.

You have not even given a scientific explanation, let alone met the burden of proof!

That’s how it works. Unless I have made an assertion, I have no burden of proof.

“I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one” is a very bold assertion - for which you certainly need to provide evidence…

Fine tuning is directly based on the inadequacy of the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Quite the opposite - the more the laws of nature make abiogenesis probable, the more of an excuse you might have for claiming that the universe is ‘fine tuned’ to permit life to arise.

On the contrary. The laws of nature have to be taken in conjunction with the physical constants. If the laws of nature alone make abiogenesis probable, the more of an excuse you have for claiming that the universe is not fine tuned to permit life to arise.

You have still not shown that the physical constants vary sufficiently.

If you assert “the improbability of life in this universe” it is up to you to prove that assertion.

All I have asserted is that your argument rather relies on the conditions we observe here (physical ‘constants’ and so on) holding true for all spacetime. Otherwise, even if you prove that those ‘constants’ are perfect for life, all you have shown is that life arises only where the conditions are hospitable. That is like claiming that the fact that icicles only forming on cold days is proof of an Ice-God directing them not to form on warm days when they would melt.

So for you to successfully make your assertion, you must show that the ‘constants’ do not vary over time and space. I don’t need to do anything more than point out the possibility - the fact that I have done more is simply a reflection of the overwhelming evidence my side!

You need to show that physical constants vary **to a specified extent **without preventing life from existing. Otherwise your objection is worthless.

You seem to be unaware that “I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one” is a very bold assertion - for which you certainly need to provide evidence…

Umm - I know myself better than anyone, and that is indeed what I would do. Isn’t that good enough?

You have still failed to produce evidence for your assertion “I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one(s) with (famously) no need for the God hypothesis”. Your position has no rational foundation whatsoever because it is completely negative - apart from one unsubstantiated assertion about scientific explanation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dr.Taffy
**
I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one(s) with (famously) no need for the God hypothesis. **

For scientific questions the best available explanations are the scientific ones. For philosophical questions, the best available answers may not be the scientific ones. The range of scientific knowledge is limited by the rules of science. But it was philosophy that set down the rules for scientific evidence, not science. Likewise, philosophy may set down the rules for studying other domains of knowledge, such as morality, politics, esthetics, and metaphysics. The subject of a directing intelligence of the universe is a metaphysical question that can be answered by logic, irrespective of what science says. Great scientists from Newton to Einstein have admitted this. Both for Newton and for Einstein there was no problem asserting the need for a God hypothesis.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” Albert Einstein.

 

[tonyrey]

The laws of nature have to be taken in conjunction with the physical constants. If the laws of nature alone make abiogenesis probable, the more of an excuse you have for claiming that the universe is not fine tuned to permit life to arise.

Even without taking physical constants into account the total number of possible laws of nature far exceeds those with precise specifications. Amongst many other factors the frequency and distribution of elements have to be propitious. Even in this universe scientists generally agree that advanced life as we know it is a rarity.

 

[DrTaffy]

It follows that the extreme inhospitability of the universe for the survival of life is strong evidence against its fortuitous origin.

No, that is a far more specific use of “extreme inhospitability of the universe” than the one I conceded - nor do you seem to see that the addendum “for the survival of life” is very different from “for the origin of life”. You could have a universe where life arises de novo half a dozen times every day before breakfast, but is all extinct by teatime.

If you assert that the universe is hostile to abiogenesis, you have to demonstrate that. You have yet to do so.

“I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one” is a very bold assertion - for which you certainly need to provide evidence…

I’ve answered this - no it isn’t! It is a simple statement about what I would do. It’s relevance to your assertion that "the best available explanation is superior to no explanation whatsoever… " is twofold:

1. The concept of “the best explanation” is vague at best. You and I would almost certainly disagree on which explanation of abiogenesis is “the best” one!
2. assuming that we are still talkig about either the origin or the complexity of life, there is more than one explanation. So you are presenting a false dichotomy between “the best one” and “no explanation”!

What exactly do you contest about this - that there are many proposed explanations, that you and I would disagree on what the “best one” is, or something else?

On the contrary. The laws of nature have to be taken in conjunction with the physical constants.

Ookay. You can differentiate between the laws and the ‘constants’ or ‘parameters’ that are fed into those laws. How does that invalidate anything I have said, let alone proving any of your assertions?

If the laws of nature alone make abiogenesis probable, the more of an excuse you have for claiming that the universe is not fine tuned to permit life to arise.

No - the opposite. If the laws of nature make abiogenesis probable, those laws are fine tuned to produce life. On the other hand, there is less reason to believe that direct divine intervention was necessary to produse life in spite of those laws.

Put it this way - there is a continuum:
At one extreme you have a universe where the laws are incredibly favorable to life. A compost heap piled up today will have evolved new life by tomorrow. This universe is fine tuned for life, but does not require supernatural intervention for life to occur.

At the other extreme, you have a universe where life is impossible, naturally. Stars or planets do not form, everywhere is bathed in hellish radiation, and the laws of thermodynamics actually do forbid the processes of cellular growth. Despite this we observe a planet in a stable solar system with abundant life.
This universe is not fine tuned for life, but you would be justified in assuming that supernatural intervention was required for life to form.

Either assertion (that the universe is fine tuned for life, or that supernatural intervention was required for life to form) requires proof. Making both at once requires vastly more proof.

Even in this universe scientists generally agree that advanced life as we know it is a rarity.

A ‘rarity’ in a universe of billions upon billions of stars can be very very numerous.

We are going in circles here. Unless you can produce something new and interesting, I think we are done. Even if you can produce something new and interesting, I think I would prefer you to take it to a thread specifically on that subject, rather than continue to hijack this one.

 

[DrTaffy]

For scientific questions the best available explanations are the scientific ones.

Sure.

For philosophical questions, the best available answers may not be the scientific ones.

No - not at all. For philosophical questions, philosophical answers are the best ones. Likewise mathematical answers for mathematical questions, aesthetic answers for questions of aesthetics and so on.

The range of scientific knowledge is limited by the rules of science. But it was philosophy that set down the rules for scientific evidence, not science.

But it was scientists who set down those rules, even if they were doing philosophy at the time. Just because philosophy is ‘more fundamental’ than science does not mean that philosophers know more about science than scientists.

Physics informs electricians, but a lab bench wired up by a physicist came very close to sparing you the anguish of my continued existence!

The subject of a directing intelligence of the universe is a metaphysical question that can be answered by logic, irrespective of what science says.

Science has a lot to add to the debate, especially on issues such as the origin of life, evolution and comology. Logic is a tool used in science, not alien to it.

Great scientists from Newton to Einstein have admitted this. Both for Newton and for Einstein there was no problem asserting the need for a God hypothesis.

Newton also believed in alchemy, sorcery and other kooky stuff.

Einstein said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

and

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

In any case, the argument from authority is another fallacy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dr.Taffy

Either assertion (that the universe is fine tuned for life, or that supernatural intervention was required for life to form) requires proof. Making both at once requires vastly more proof.

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.

Supernatural intervention was required for life to form, as both Einstein and Newton would have been glad to concede. Not that this can be proven in a scientific laboratory, of course. But that it can be demonstrated as a logical inference. 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. Efforts have been made to prove it.They failed, even the ones that were intelligently designed to succeed. That is because only a supremely intelligent Being could have brought these elements together by design.

Don’t let your atheism get in the way of science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

DrTaffy

But it was scientists who set down those rules, even if they were doing philosophy at the time. Just because philosophy is ‘more fundamental’ than science does not mean that philosophers know more about science than scientists.

No it wasn’t. The most famous developer of the scientific method was Francis Bacon, who was not a scientist.

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.

“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.” Albert Einstein

 

[ngill09]

Question for people positing a “probability” that the various constants of the universe are what they are: What is the underlying probability distribution for these values and how did you derive that distribution given only 1 data point?

 

[ngill09]

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” Albert Einstein.

It’s noteworthy that in this quote from Isaac Newton, he is not referring to “the universe” as you bracketed, but to the solar system. The original quote is: “The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and hence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being”

Astronomy during Newton’s day was much less advanced than it is now. Newton could not figure out, using the mathematical techniques and astronomical laws of his day, how the solar system could be sustained without the continual intervention of a divine force.

Enter Laplace around 1800. A mathematical genius to rival Newton, but with additional observations and his own ingenuity. His *Traité de mécanique céleste * mathematically modeled the movement of the celestial bodies to an unprecedented level of understanding using advanced mathematical techniques, such as Perturbation Theory, which were unavailable during the time of Newton. He showed that the solar system is mathematically stable without the intervention of supernatural forces. The story goes that when Napoleon asked Laplace “What role did God play in the construction and regulation of the heavens?”, Laplace replied “I had no need of that hypothesis.”

I would counsel you to be very careful about what you insist is impossible without divine intervention. The “God-of-the-gaps” hypothesis has a very bad track record. Do not make God a God of Ignorance.

I’d recommend watching this: youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo. A sort of brief history of astronomy from an astronomer.

 

[tonyrey]

It follows that the extreme inhospitability of the universe for the survival of life is strong evidence against its fortuitous origin.

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!

• nor do you seem to see that the addendum “for the survival of life” is very different from “for the origin of life”. You could have a universe where life arises de novo half a dozen times every day before breakfast, but is all extinct by teatime.

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.

If you assert that the universe is hostile to abiogenesis, you have to demonstrate that. You have yet to do so.

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. The virtual extinction of life on this planet on several occasions demonstrates how many hazards it encounters when it exists, let alone before it has appeared.

“I would of course argue that the best available explanation(s) is(/are) the scientific one” is a very bold assertion - for which you certainly need to provide evidence…

I’ve answered this - no it isn’t!

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

It’s relevance to your assertion that "the best available explanation is superior to no explanation whatsoever… " is twofold:

1. The concept of “the best explanation” is vague at best. You and I would almost certainly disagree on which explanation of abiogenesis is “the best” one!

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

1. assuming that we are still talkig about either the origin or the complexity of life, there is more than one explanation. So you are presenting a false dichotomy between “the best one” and “no explanation”!

The issue is not the origin or complexity of life but the origin and survival of life.

What exactly do you contest about this - that there are many proposed explanations, that you and I would disagree on what the “best one” is, or something else?

Which of the listed criteria do you reject - and why?

On the contrary. The laws of nature have to be taken in conjunction with the physical constants.

Ookay. You can differentiate between the laws and the ‘constants’ or ‘parameters’ that are fed into those laws. How does that invalidate anything I have said, let alone proving any of your assertions?

Far more precision is required for physical constants than for the laws of nature.

If the laws of nature alone make abiogenesis probable, the more of an excuse you have for claiming that the universe is not fine tuned to permit life to arise.

No - the opposite. If the laws of nature make abiogenesis probable, those laws are fine tuned to produce life.

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

On the other hand, there is less reason to believe that direct divine intervention was necessary to produse life in spite of those laws.

You are taking the existence of those laws for granted - as if they are the product of physical necessity!

Put it this way - there is a continuum:
At one extreme you have a universe where the laws are incredibly favorable to life. A compost heap piled up today will have evolved new life by tomorrow. This universe is fine tuned for life, but does not require supernatural intervention for life to occur.

Your example presupposes the existing state of affairs.

At the other extreme, you have a universe where life is impossible, naturally. Stars or planets do not form, everywhere is bathed in hellish radiation, and the laws of thermodynamics actually do forbid the processes of cellular growth. Despite this we observe a planet in a stable solar system with abundant life.
This universe is not fine tuned for life, but you would be justified in assuming that supernatural intervention was required for life to form.

This example presupposes a non-existent state of affairs - which cannot lead to any conclusion!

Either assertion (that the universe is fine tuned for life, or that supernatural intervention was required for life to form) requires proof. Making both at once requires vastly more proof.

You have produced a false dilemma…

Even in this universe scientists generally agree that advanced life as we know it is a rarity.

A ‘rarity’ in a universe of billions upon billions of stars can be very very numerous.

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.

We are going in circles here. Unless you can produce something new and interesting, I think we are done. Even if you can produce something new and interesting, I think I would prefer you to take it to a thread specifically on that subject, rather than continue to hijack this one.

You have not yet refuted my points…

 

[tonyrey]

I would counsel you to be very careful about what you insist is impossible without divine intervention. The “God-of-the-gaps” hypothesis has a very bad track record. Do not make God a God of Ignorance.

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…”

 

[ngill09]

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…”

Could you elaborate more on what “science-of-the-gaps” and “science-of-the foundations” are? What is this “theory of everything”?

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.

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.

 

[tonyrey]

Question for people positing a “probability” that the various constants of the universe are what they are: What is the underlying probability distribution for these values and how did you derive that distribution given only 1 data point?

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

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.

 

[ngill09]

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

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.

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.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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 explanation 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?

Please say more about yourself so that we will know how to regard you. Thanks.