Biological Design Argument?

[ngill09]

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

We’ve been over this before!

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.

At least now you’re not claiming he was talking about the universe.

And we now know that the solar system does not require the persistent dominion of a supernatural force in order to have the system it does. It is a perfect example of the Intelligent Design proposal being used as an argument from ignorance and being overcome by the expansion of scientific knowledge.

 

[Aloysium]

We’ve been over this before!

At least now you’re not claiming he was talking about the universe.

And we now know that the solar system does not require the persistent dominion of a supernatural force in order to have the system it does. It is a perfect example of the Intelligent Design proposal being used as an argument from ignorance and being overcome by the expansion of scientific knowledge.

Alright, I get it, you have absolutely no desire to learn about God;
so i am the idiot that keeps wanting to help you, when of course this is all ignorance to you.

If and when you want to seriously know about the mystery in which you dwell, just ask. If you just want to negate anything that threatens your cognitive prison. I won’t be wasting my time.

 

[edwest2]

Here is more evidence of design:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120905134955.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[nmgauss]

Here is more evidence of design:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120905134955.htm

Peace,
Ed

There is a desire to make the universe simple because a designer, like a mathematician, wants elegant solutions. The mathematician uses the mind to make sense of the universe. However, the more we learn about the universe, the more complexity we find in it, which frustrates mathematicians. When Newton thought he had it made, along came quantum mechanics to throw water on his neat theories.

The study of the bell curve arose through observations of the material world. Then along came Karl Friedrich Gauss who formulated a theory around these observations. So what came first, observations, or theory? When God is supposed to have designed everything, deductive logic is in play akin to Plato’s methods. The study of observations is inductive logic akin to Aristotle’s methods. The vast amount of scientific knowledge that has accumulated is through Aristotelian observation, experimentation, and then conclusions. Not conclusions first, that are supported by observation. The latter is putting the cart before the horse.

The expansion of the Islamic Empire brought Aristotle’s insights to the Christians by way of Spain. Before that, they were stuck in Neo-Platonism. The Muslims were the world’s first great scientists. Much of the scientific knowledge gained by Europe was through the Muslims in Spain.

 

[rossum]

Are you conceding evo is a model?

It is and it isn’t. Evolution-as-fact is not a model, it is a fact. Evolution-as-therory is a model. All scientific theories are models. That is why we replace them with better models/theories when new data is discovered.

The theory of gravity is a model: Newton’s model was replaced by Einstein’s model. The fact of gravity is still the same and did not change while we were reworking our model.

Wire is a an element.

Copper is an element. Wire is a manufactured object. Sloppy wording is not good in this sort of discussion.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We know virtually nothing about these people except that they designed Stonhenge. Stonehenge didn’t just fall in place by accident.

You need to study archaeology. We know where and when they lived. We know the types of houses they lived in and how they buried their dead. We know some of the artefacts they used.

We have zero evidence of a fortuitous combination of chemicals so complex as to produce the first life form.

Creation by a designer has zero evidence. Chemical action has some, but not complete, evidence. Abiogenesis is ahead of design at the moment, but the race is not yet finished.

The Urey experiment produced something, but far from a living life form.

Then you were wrong above the say “zero evidence”. We have some evidence, as with the Miller-Urey experiment. The designer-did-it side has not even got as far as Miller-Urey did. Where are the designer produced amino acids?

rossum

 

[rossum]

You have not answered a point I made earlier. The Big Bang was the first event in the history of the universe. We know that from that event a finely tuned and ordered universe was created, one capable of supporting life in its most complex forms.

Then why do you have a problem with abiogenesis? If the universe was fine tuned to allow life to emerge, then we would expect life to emerge in that fine tuned universe. In a fine tuned universe the laws of chemistry are set up so that life will spontaneously emerge.

Abiogenesis is evidence of fie tuning. Direct intervention by a designer after the Big Bang is evidence of a lack of fine tuning. Requiring direct intervention shows that life cannot emerge in the universe as created, and hence that the universe is not fine tuned for life. At best it would be sloppily tuned – almost right, but not quite.

You would say this fine-tuning of the laws of the universe was not designed, but accidental. I say the fine-tuning was designed with the utmost attention to complex laws of physics, so as to produce order rather than chaos.

You can say what you want. To convince me you will have to show some calculations. Firstly the anthropic principle limits the number of possible universes we can observe. Secondly you will have to justify your figure for the limits on the various physical constants that allow a universe within the constraints of the anthropic principle.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

And we now know that the solar system does not require the persistent dominion of a supernatural force in order to have the system it does.

Who are the “we” you are talking about?

Is Einstein one of the “we”?

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Albert Einstein

So now you are dismissing both Newton and Einstein?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

You need to study archaeology. We know where and when they lived. We know the types of houses they lived in and how they buried their dead. We know some of the artefacts they used.

Yes, we can infer that they were intelligent designers.

Creation by a designer has zero evidence.

Even Dawkins admits that life gives the appearance of being designed. Yet he can’t believe his own eyes … because he is an atheist and doesn’t want to.

Chemical action has some, but not complete, evidence. Abiogenesis is ahead of design at the moment, but the race is not yet finished.

This is not a race. The race is over. You can prove abiognesis to be a chemical action, but you cannot prove it to be a fortuitous chemical action. The only way you could do that (and it can never be done) is to recreate the exact conditions present on the planet at the time of abiogenesis, and then conduct and intelligently designed experiment to prove it fortuitous. Do you really want to go there?

We have some evidence, as with the Miller-Urey experiment.

This is evidence of a chemical action, but not of a chemical action that occurred without being intelligently designed, which scientific experiments are supposed to be, as in the case of Urey…

**The designer-did-it side has not even got as far as Miller-Urey did. **

Again, Urey is an intelligently designed experiment, so intelligent design is ahead of fortuitous chemical action.

Then why do you have a problem with abiogenesis? If the universe was fine tuned to allow life to emerge, then we would expect life to emerge in that fine tuned universe. In a fine tuned universe the laws of chemistry are set up so that life will spontaneously emerge.

Why don’t you see that you are making the case for intelligent design?

Abiogenesis is evidence of fie tuning.

Yes, indeed!

Direct intervention by a designer after the Big Bang is evidence of a lack of fine tuning. Requiring direct intervention shows that life cannot emerge in the universe as created, and hence that the universe is not fine tuned for life. At best it would be sloppily tuned – almost right, but not quite.

I don’t understand this reasoning. What is the difference in your mind between fine tuning and direct intervention? Both come from God. If from the moment of the Big Bang God intended life to exist, he would not have to directly intervene 14 billion years later to make that happen. It would have happened according to the fine tuning of the universe when it was supposed to happen. You want to call that happening a fortuitous chemical action which God did nothing to prepare for the universe. Newton and Einstein disagree with you. Dawkins agrees with you, but who cares what Dawkins thinks?

You can say what you want. To convince me you will have to show some calculations. Firstly the anthropic principle limits the number of possible universes we can observe. Secondly you will have to justify your figure for the limits on the various physical constants that allow a universe within the constraints of the anthropic principle.

Calculations smalculations. Whew! Read Stephen Meyers’ Signature in the Cell. He will give you more math than you can handle.

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.” Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

 

[ngill09]

ngill

And we now know that the solar system does not require the persistent dominion of a supernatural force in order to have the system it does.

Who are the “we” you are talking about?

Is Einstein one of the “we”?

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Albert Einstein

So now you are dismissing both Newton and Einstein?

“We” is scientists after Laplace, and anyone who knows something about the history of astronomy. If you told Einstein that the solar system is physically impossible and can only be sustained by supernatural forces, he would have told you to read Laplace. Einstein believed in the God of Spinoza. Spinoza argued that supernatural intervention - miracles - were impossible. Spinoza, and hence Einstein, were more like pantheists than traditional theists.

Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Nor does God perform miracles, since there are no departures whatsoever from the necessary course of nature. The belief in miracles is due only to ignorance of the true causes of phenomena.
If a stone has fallen from a room onto someone’s head and killed him, they will show, in the following way, that the stone fell in order to kill the man. For if it did not fall to that end, God willing it, how could so many circumstances have concurred by chance (for often many circumstances do concur at once)? Perhaps you will answer that it happened because the wind was blowing hard and the man was walking that way. But they will persist: why was the wind blowing hard at that time? why was the man walking that way at that time? If you answer again that the wind arose then because on the preceding day, while the weather was still calm, the sea began to toss, and that the man had been invited by a friend, they will press on—for there is no end to the questions which can be asked: but why was the sea tossing? why was the man invited at just that time? And so they will not stop asking for the causes of causes until you take refuge in the will of God, i.e., the sanctuary of ignorance."

 

[rossum]

Yes, we can infer that they were intelligent designers.

They were human. Are you denying that humans can design things intelligently?

Even Dawkins admits that life gives the appearance of being designed.

And the appearance of a mirage is evidence of the presence of water? Dawkins was putting the emphasis on the appearance; a misleading appearance.

This is not a race. The race is over. You can prove abiognesis to be a chemical action, but you cannot prove it to be a fortuitous chemical action. The only way you could do that (and it can never be done) is to recreate the exact conditions present on the planet at the time of abiogenesis, and then conduct and intelligently designed experiment to prove it fortuitous. Do you really want to go there?

This is science, not mathematics. I do not have to “prove” anything. Was Newton’s theory of gravity ever “proved”. No, which is just as well since it wasn’t completely correct.

The Miller-Urey experiment has been repeated a number of times by different researchers with different likely (and less likely) compositions of the early atmosphere. The joint result of this research is to show that over a relatively wide range of possible early atmospheres, amino acids are produced. We don’t need to know the exact composition, because we have tested a range of different possible compositions and have the results.

I don’t understand this reasoning. What is the difference in your mind between fine tuning and direct intervention?

Fine tuning happened before the Big Bang, and resulted in the laws of physics and chemistry we see today. Direct intervention happened after the Big Bang and would require the presence on non-standard forces, or whatever. Call it “miraculous intervention” if you want. Those non-standard forces should show up in the historical record. So far our research has not shown up any place where such non-standard forces are required. Nor has research shown up any entity capable of wielding such non-standard forces.

Calculations smalculations.

Which is why creationism/intelligent design so often fails. Have you actually read many real science papers? Are you aware of how much mathematics and calculation there is in the average science paper? Have a look at some work from 1908: the Hardy-Weinberg principle If you can’t do the maths then you are not going to convince many scientists.

Whew! Read Stephen Meyers’ Signature in the Cell. He will give you more math than you can handle.

He gives me more spurious maths than I am prepared to bother with.

rossum

 

[rossum]

ngill

And we now know that the solar system does not require the persistent dominion of a supernatural force in order to have the system it does.

Who are the “we” you are talking about?

This is a well known story in the history of science.

When Isaac Newton discovered his theory of gravity, he used it to calculate the orbits of the planets. However, he could not at that time show that each planet would return exactly to a point it had been before, due to the precession of planetary orbits and other complications, and so he could not show that the solar system would continue indefinitely. Newton hypothesised that from time to time, God directly intervened and nudged the planets back into their correct orbits.

In his Mécanique Céleste (from 1799) Laplace managed to clear up the loose ends that Newton had been unable to resolve. Thus he had no need for Newton’s hypothesis of direct divine intervention. Hence his remark to Napoleon: “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.” (“I did not need that hypothesis.”)

rossum

 

[buffalo]

It is and it isn’t. Evolution-as-fact is not a model, it is a fact. Evolution-as-therory is a model. All scientific theories are models. That is why we replace them with better models/theories when new data is discovered.

The theory of gravity is a model: Newton’s model was replaced by Einstein’s model. The fact of gravity is still the same and did not change while we were reworking our model.

Copper is an element. Wire is a manufactured object. Sloppy wording is not good in this sort of discussion.

rossum

And it is happening as we speak.

Rocking the foundations of biology

Forgive me but you got the point.

 

[buffalo]

You need to study archaeology. We know where and when they lived. We know the types of houses they lived in and how they buried their dead. We know some of the artefacts they used.

Creation by a designer has zero evidence. Chemical action has some, but not complete, evidence. Abiogenesis is ahead of design at the moment, but the race is not yet finished.

Then you were wrong above the say “zero evidence”. We have some evidence, as with the Miller-Urey experiment. The designer-did-it side has not even got as far as Miller-Urey did. Where are the designer produced amino acids?

rossum

If creation happened how did it happen without a designer?

 

[buffalo]

There is a desire to make the universe simple because a designer, like a mathematician, wants elegant solutions. The mathematician uses the mind to make sense of the universe. However, the more we learn about the universe, the more complexity we find in it, which frustrates mathematicians. When Newton thought he had it made, along came quantum mechanics to throw water on his neat theories.

The study of the bell curve arose through observations of the material world. Then along came Karl Friedrich Gauss who formulated a theory around these observations. So what came first, observations, or theory? When God is supposed to have designed everything, deductive logic is in play akin to Plato’s methods. The study of observations is inductive logic akin to Aristotle’s methods. The vast amount of scientific knowledge that has accumulated is through Aristotelian observation, experimentation, and then conclusions. Not conclusions first, that are supported by observation. The latter is putting the cart before the horse.

The expansion of the Islamic Empire brought Aristotle’s insights to the Christians by way of Spain. Before that, they were stuck in Neo-Platonism. The Muslims were the world’s first great scientists. Much of the scientific knowledge gained by Europe was through the Muslims in Spain.

** Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem - in a nutshell. **

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem - in a nutshell.

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

"We" is scientists after Laplace, and anyone who knows something about the history of astronomy. If you told Einstein that the solar system is physically impossible and can only be sustained by supernatural forces, he would have told you to read Laplace. Einstein believed in the God of Spinoza. Spinoza argued that supernatural intervention - miracles - were impossible. Spinoza, and hence Einstein, were more like pantheists than traditional theists.

Why are we suddenly talking about “supernatural intervention” when right along we have been talking about intelligent design? Isn’t there a BIG difference?

Einstein knew the work of Laplace. He also knew Newton. He sounds more like Newtoin than Laplace.

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Albert einstein

“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.” Isaac Newton

They are both talking about Intelligent Design. You go with Laplace. I’ll go with Newton and Einstein.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

They were human. Are you denying that humans can design things intelligently?

Of course not. Your point? Inductive reasoning leads us to believe that Stonehenge was intelligently designed. Abiogenesis leads us to believe the same thing on a higher level.

And the appearance of a mirage is evidence of the presence of water? Dawkins was putting the emphasis on the appearance; a misleading appearance.

It’s only a misleading appearance for Dawkins because he has already decided there is no God and therefore there can be no intelligent design, dontcha know?

This is science, not mathematics. I do not have to “prove” anything. Was Newton’s theory of gravity ever “proved”. No, which is just as well since it wasn’t completely correct.

The Miller-Urey experiment has been repeated a number of times by different researchers with different likely (and less likely) compositions of the early atmosphere. The joint result of this research is to show that over a relatively wide range of possible early atmospheres, amino acids are produced. We don’t need to know the exact composition, because we have tested a range of different possible compositions and have the results.

How fortunate that you don’t need to know the exact composition, nor the exact conditions under which abiogenesis occurred. How very scientific of you. And how very scientific of you to realize that all these various experiments were not possible unless they had been intelligently designed. No?

Fine tuning happened before the Big Bang, and resulted in the laws of physics and chemistry we see today. Direct intervention happened after the Big Bang and would require the presence on non-standard forces, or whatever. Call it “miraculous intervention” if you want. Those non-standard forces should show up in the historical record. So far our research has not shown up any place where such non-standard forces are required. Nor has research shown up any entity capable of wielding such non-standard forces.

Who or What did the fine tuning? Are you talking about God?

Have you actually read many real science papers?

Yes. Enough to know that Dawkins and Company have no slam-dunk argument without resorting to atheism. And then it’s only seemingly slam dunk for other atheists.

He gives me more spurious maths than I am prepared to bother with.

If you are not prepared to bother with it, how do you know it’s spurious?

 

[rossum]

If creation happened how did it happen without a designer?

How can you have a creator without a creation?

“Hello. What do you do?”

“I’m a creator.”

“And what do you create?”

“I create universes.”

“Fascinating. How many universes have you created?”

“Erm… Well… None so far.”

“Then you aren’t a creator of universes, are you.”

rossum

 

[rossum]

Of course not. Your point? Inductive reasoning leads us to believe that Stonehenge was intelligently designed. Abiogenesis leads us to believe the same thing on a higher level.

We have independent evidence of the existence of the designers of Stonehenge. Where is your equivalent independent evidence of the existence of the designers behind abiogenesis? Where did these designers live? Where are the remains of their artefacts? What were their burial practices?

It’s only a misleading appearance for Dawkins because he has already decided there is no God and therefore there can be no intelligent design, dontcha know?

It’s only a misleading appearance for you because you have already decided there is a God and therefore there must be intelligent design, dontcha know?

How fortunate that you don’t need to know the exact composition, nor the exact conditions under which abiogenesis occurred. How very scientific of you.

I am not aware of any “exact” measurements anywhere in science, except simple counts. All scientific measurements come with error bars, to indicate just how inexact the measurement is. We know the value of the gravitational constant to about seven decimal places. We do not know the “exact” value. Does that render all the scientific work on gravity invalid? Again, your lack of knowledge of science is showing.

And how very scientific of you to realize that all these various experiments were not possible unless they had been intelligently designed. No?

So, God Himself is also designed. As long as scientists can design an experiment to investigate God then God, the subject of the experiment, must be designed. I am sure many theologians are going to be interested in your thinking here.

Who or What did the fine tuning? Are you talking about God?

You asked why I treated the two possible design hypotheses differently. I explained. I do not accept either design hypothesis. The Buddhist universe is eternal and has no external cause, intelligent or otherwise. I was discussing your hypotheses and answering your question.

If you are not prepared to bother with it, how do you know it’s spurious?

If you are not prepared to read the criticism of it then how do you know it is any good? What are your qualifications in maths or biology?

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

Of course not. Your point? Inductive reasoning leads us to believe that Stonehenge was intelligently designed. Abiogenesis leads us to believe the same thing on a higher level.

)

Concluding that Stonehenge was intelligently designed without having several supporting observations is deductive. First you conclude that Stonehenge was intelligently designed and then you search for justification for your conclusion. A lot of people justify war because Joshua murdered the Canaanites. They want war, and look for biblical passages to support it.

In order to be inductive, you would need to gather lots of information in order to figure out how Stonehenge got to be built. Once enough information has been gathered without any goal to proving a certain hypothesis, analysis of your data will suggest causes. It may or may not be enough for any conclusion. At least with induction, there is an effort to reach a conclusion, not having a conclusion first and then trying to prove it.