Michael Denton: The laws of nature are uniquely fine-tuned

Preacher J-Mac: If Denton is not a preacher, he has 2 choices What do you mean if he's not a preacher. I just told you he's not a preacher. And we can see which of the two choices you made, preacher man. Mung

Mung, If Denton is not a preacher, he has 2 choices; 1. become a preacher 2. provide scientific evidence for his claims Which one do you think suits Denton best? J-Mac

Collin, If Denton is not religious, he'd better become one, unless obviously he has scientific proof to back up his theory. I know he doesn't, that's why he writes books instead of papers just like Larry Moran. If he doesn't have any scientific evidence to back up his claims, how much different is he from Darwinists or from the supporters of the modern evolutionary theory that Larry Moran has been promoting? They all more or less base their beliefs on faith, since there is no evidence as to what the mechanism (s) of evolution is and making claims without scientific evidence is easy these days. All one has to do is post it on his/her blog or write a book. J-Mac

Is that what Denton is actually preaching? Denton is not a preacher. Mung

There is a difference between the fine tuning of the universe and an hypothesized fine tuning of nature for biology. We can follow the logic of the initial conditions of the universe, the origin of the four basic forces and the subsequent creation of stars/galaxies and other phenomena. If one takes a course in cosmology, the descriptions of how stars are born and die, how the elements were created and then new stars arise and planets and solar systems arise all make sense. There is no sense to be made from anything on how a cell arose from even the most eclectic mixture of elements and geological conditions and the four basic forces. Nor is there any sense to how multi-celled organisms originated and how all the novelties of the various phyla arose. Denton says there are millions of these novelties and no explanation as to how they arose. So I am a few chapters into Denton's new book and have no idea how he is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat. All he is doing is undermining Darwinism or as he says functionalism or adaptation as the driving force behind novelties. He is implying there are some magical forces out there determining what is possible and what we see is a product of these unknown forces. jerry

J-Mac, That's a good question. Whenever someone asserts an "evolutionary creation" point of view, I want to ask them some of the questions you are asking. But if I recall correctly, Denton is not actually religious. Collin

So, according to Denton, the bible words: "And God created...(whatever)" would actually mean: "And God fine tuned the laws of nature and they lead to the origin of the first self-replicating molecule... Then the fine tuned laws of nature led to the evolution of prokaryotic cell... Then the fine tuned laws of nature led to the evolution of prokaryotic cell into eukariotic cell... And so on, and so forth, until we arrive on the scene of the world...Thanks to the fine tuned laws of nature according to Denton...Right? Is that what Denton is actually preaching? J-Mac

Marcello Barbieri is right in claiming that most molecular machines in living organisms are true artifacts because they are "manufactured" by the cell "from without". The molecular machines are parts of a whole, they don´t have their own good, they serve a function for the sake of the whole. The organism instead is not an artifact because he has a good of his own, an immanent teleology. Marcello Barbieri: The Organic Codes (Cambridge University Press 2003) Anaxagoras

The cult of the artifact. I liked that. But on the other hand Marcello Barbieri writes that life is artifact-making. http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/99/198 Mung