Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Odds That End: Stephen Meyer’s Rebuttal Of The Chance Hypothesis

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Andes mountains opened up on both sides of us as we drove on one July afternoon along a highway that links Quito, the capital of Ecuador, with the smaller town of Ambato almost three hours further south. The setting sun shone head-on upon two volcanic giants- Tungurahua and Cotopaxi with its snow covered peak just visible through the cordillera. I had traveled along this road many times in previous years and had been repeatedly awe-struck by the sheer beauty of the surrounding land. Today fields extend as far as the eye can see, with the lights of small communities and villages illuminating the mountain slopes.

Volcanoes that periodically eject dangerous lava flows are a rich source of soil nutrients for Ecuadorian farmers. Still, in the eyes of organic chemists such as Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtershauser there exists a more pressing reason for studying the world’s ‘lava spewers’- one that has everything to do with the unguided manufacture of prebiotic compounds (1). Huber and Wachtershauser’s 2006 Science write-up on the synthesis of amino acids using potassium cyanide and carbon monoxide mixtures was heralded as groundbreaking primarily because of the ‘multiplicity of pathways’ through which biotic components could be made using these simple volcanic compounds (1).

Others have similarly weighed in with their own thoughts on volcanic origins (2-6). In the words of one notable Russian research team “the opportunity to define the pressure and temperature limits of [volcanic] microbiological activity as well as constrain its rate of evolution in a primordial environment is an exciting one, with implications for the origin of life on earth and existence of life elsewhere in the solar system” (3).

Whether it be Darwin’s warm little pond or contemporary speculations over life-seeding environments we see in both a search for continuity from the non-living to the living- a search that was exemplified in Walt Disney’s color and sound extravaganza Fantasia almost seventy years ago. Disney popularized origin of life theories by artistically proclaiming that volcanoes exploding and comets colliding were all that were needed to get life under way. According to such a portrayal the evolution of more complex multi-cellular forms would then naturally follow (7). Disney enthusiasts will no doubt find comfort in the decade-old New York Times prescription for a life-yielding brew:

“Drop a handful of fool’s gold (the mineral iron pyrites) and a sprinkle of nickel into water, stir in a strong whiff of rotten eggs (caused by the gas hydrogen sulfide) and carbon monoxide, heat mixture near the crackle and hiss of a volcano and let simmer for an eon.” (8)

Along a similar thread, journalist Tony Fitzpatrick cavalierly asserted that “conditions favorable for hydrocarbon synthesis also could be favorable for other life ingredients and complex organic polymers, leading…eventually to all sorts of cells and diverse organisms” (9). Of course skeptics of such depictions have their own armory of scientifically-valid reasons for denying that naturalistic earth models could have given us anything more than a geothermal sludge.

Perhaps the most persuasive of these comes from philosopher Stephen Meyer who in his most recent book Signature In The Cell supplied a mathematical treatise on the synthesis of bio-molecules (10). Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang) (10). In other words, we are stopped dead in our tracks by a probabilistic impasse of the highest order before we have even begun assessing the geological plausibility of competing origin of life scenarios.

The scientific method commits us to finding the best explanation for the phenomena we observe. Drawing from the opinions of NIH biologist Peter Mora, Meyer shows us how the chance hypothesis- that purports to explain how life arose without recourse to design or necessity- has been found wanting particularly in light of the ever-growing picture of the complexity of the cell (10). But the debate-clincher in Meyer’s expose comes from his comprehensive summarization of the bellyaches associated with chemist Stanley Miller’s controversial spark discharge apparatus (10).

Former colleagues of Miller concede that the highly reducing conditions he used in his experiments could not have been the mainstay of prebiotic earth (4). Nevertheless they further posit that localized atmospheric conditions around volcanic plums may have been reducing after all and that these could have given rise to life-seeding compounds (4). In their assessment:

“Even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced, which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide, a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.” (4)

Of course with so many ‘could-haves’ and ‘may-haves’ such a picture leaves us sitting on a vacuous flow of speculation rather than on a substantive bedrock of firm evidence. For seasoned biologist David Deamer the realization of implausibility, at least for a direct volcanic origin, comes from his own direct observations:

“Deamer carried with him a version of the “primordial soup”- a mixture of compounds like those a meteorite could have delivered to the early Earth, including a fatty acid, amino acids, phosphate, glycerol, and the building blocks of nucleic acids. Finding a promising-looking boiling pool on the flanks of an active volcano, he poured the mixture in and then took samples from the pool at various intervals for analysis back in the lab at UCSC. The results were strikingly negative: life did not emerge, no membranes assembled themselves, and no amino acids combined into proteins. Instead, the added chemicals quickly vanished, mostly absorbed by clay particles in the pool. Instead of supporting life, the bubbling pool had snuffed it out before it began.” (6)

Not only has Meyer’s probabilistic analysis supplied us with the odds that end the discussion for ‘chance-philes’, but contemporary extravagations over prebiotic earth have done nothing to bolster their credibility. We are left with little choice but to discard chance as a serious contender in the ‘life origins’ debate.

Literature Cited
1. Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtersheuser (2006) a-Hydroxy and a-Amino Acids Under Possible Hadean, Volcanic Origin-of-Life Conditions, Science, Vol 314, pp. 630-632

2. A.J Teague, T.M Seward, A.P Gize, T. Hall (2005) The Organic Chemistry of Volcanoes: Case Studies at Cerro Negro, Nicaragua and Oldoinyo Lengai, Tanzania, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #B23D-04

3.John Eichelberger, Alexey Kiryukhin, and Adam Simon (2009) The Magma-Hydrothermal System at Mutnovsky Volcano, Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, Scientific Drilling, No. 7, March , 2009, pp. 54-59

4. Adam Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason Dworkin, Daniel Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, Jeffrey L. Bada (2008) The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science 17 October 2008: Vol. 322, p. 404

5. David Grinspoon (2009) This Volcano Loves You, Denver Museum Of Nature & Science, COMMunity Blogs, See http://community.dmns.org/blogs/planetwaves/archive/2009/03/19/this-volcano-loves-you.aspx

6.Chandra Shekhar (2006) Chemist explores the membranous origins of the first living cell, UC Santa Cruz, Currents Online, See http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/04-03/deamer.asp

7.Fantasia, Walt Disney Home Video, Copyright by the Walt Disney Company, 1940

8. Nicholas Wade (1999) Evidence Backs Theory Linking Origins of Life to Volcanoes, New York Times, Friday, April 11, 1997

9.Tony Fitzpatrick (2000) Life’s origins: Researchers find intriguing possibility in volcanic gases, http://record.wustl.edu/archive/2000/04-20-00/articles/origins.html

10. Stephen Meyer (2009) Signature In The Cell: DNA And The Evidence For Intelligent Design, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, pp. 215-228

Comments
VC, The real problem with your opposition to Stephen’s position is more than just the obvious weakness of your argument, but it is also that you do not recognize the position you put yourself in. You also seem to ignore the way in which your argument plays out to those who follow the attack. As odd as it may be for a smart fellow like yourself, it seems you completely forget that this is a competition, and by virtue of being a competition, its mechanics of it are well known and well understood. Stephen stated a position and was willing to defend it. You on the other hand, were left with one of the three other positions available to you (in order to attack his position). One of those positions (the weakest one) you would not take as a matter of pure ideology. To do so would require a certain kind of intellectual courage that you have not shown you are capable of. On the other hand, the strongest of those positions could not be taken because you have neither the data nor the reasoning for your argument to be successful. As Stephen noted, you seem to have already known this yourself. This leaves you with the strategy in the middle; a move into uncontested territory followed by the hope for a tangential gain which you might exploit further. In other words, what is left to you is to change the topic away from the defended position. This is of course a well documented strategy, and has been exhaustively studied by countless generations. For your attack to have been successful you would have had to accomplish three things. The first is being able to actually move the conversation into uncontested territory (that which is safe from the defended position but still relevant enough to be viable in the attack). The second is a matter of gaining some level of tactical surprise over your opponent, and the third is the hard pursuit of an advance in your argument should one materialize for you. Unfortunately for you, you were not attacking a general observation or a set of data points; you were instead attacking the very underpinnings of rational thought. By definition, this is not a position that has a lot of uncontested territory surrounding it (if you know what I mean). Even so, you were not engaging an opponent who is unaware of the move you make. As such, any useful element of surprise was none existent. So without being able to move the conversation into new territory, and without any level of surprise to benefit your move, there would be no tangential gain for you to pursue and exploit. Your attack was doomed from the beginning.Upright BiPed
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Additionally, I've now been placed into moderation.Voice Coil
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
The question of how to do science when there are questions about the nature of causality was also answered; through observation, by noting correlations, by proposing and testing hypotheses.
But there isn't any testable hypothesis pertaining to the accumulation of genetic accidents. Also ID is based on observation and experience with causation. That is every time we have observed some level of IC and knew the cause it has always been via agency involvement. The same goes for CSI. IOW the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect.Joseph
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
StephenB:
What you really mean is that you don’t have the intellectual honesty or the intellectual courage to answer my questions or even approach them.
It is your characteristic descent into ad hominem remarks such as this that disincline me to comment further.Voice Coil
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
StephenB: So, it is not a case where something comes from nothing or comes into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of the particles. So the “Law of Causation” doesn’t apply to motion? That’s a rather odd exception to such an iron-clad rule isn’t it? Doesn’t it seem that if a photon veers one way or the other, it should have a cause?
I don't think you're really grasping what "nothing" means in the formulation. A universe with a quantum vacuum is not nothing. The idea that something can be studied to come from nothing in this universe is impossible, for you can only do such an experiment in the universe, which is something. We can never start with true nothing, for we would have to get rid of even ourselves.Clive Hayden
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Weasel man, Shannon information is meaningless in this debate as it does not pertain to information at all, just mere complexity.Joseph
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
inunison @253, Please excuse my delay in replying -- I had an offline holiday. Mustela Novalis @ 247 So whoever does not agree with your own conclusions gets a sticker “One should read the material before making claims about it.” No, but that's a reasonable reply when you have demonstrated that you haven't actually read Schneider's Ph.D thesis. It should be obvious to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of computer programing that Dr. Schneider’s simulator is bogus, in a sense that it does not relate to any realistic biological scenario. Again, if you read Schneider's Ph.D thesis you will see that it refers exclusively to real biological organisms. His ev simulator was written after his thesis was completed, as a means of validating that known evolutionary mechanisms could create the Shannon information he measured in actual genomes. Your claim that ev "does not relate to any realistic biological scenario" is therefore demonstrably false.Mustela Nivalis
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
StephenB: So, it is not a case where something comes from nothing or comes into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of the particles.
So the "Law of Causation" doesn't apply to motion? That's a rather odd exception to such an iron-clad rule isn't it? Doesn't it seem that if a photon veers one way or the other, it should have a cause? In a vacuum, sometimes an electron will pop into existence, sometimes a muon, or some other particle. What causes this distinction?Zachriel
December 28, 2009
December
12
Dec
28
28
2009
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
----Voice Coil [quoting me]: “…an “event” can be uncaused…it is conceivable to me that such an “event,” if that is what we mean by event, could be causeless…the movement of the particle may or may not have been caused….Causality, at the quantum level, and with respect to movement, may or may not HAVE been violated…there is no reason, in principle, why it cannot be suspended…Quantum events (changes in momentum and position) can be uncaused in that sense… Yes, of course. ----But now you say: “…I hold also that the movement is caused.” Yes, of course. Please go on a little intellectual jog with me and try to grasp these three distinctions: (a) what I acknowledge may be possible [quantum movements may or may not be caused], (b) what I actually believe to be the case [quantum movements are caused], and (c) irrefutable fact [anything that begins to exist must have a cause]. Now that you have the context, let me set it up for you. Based on the evidence that we have, the quantum vacuum as a “sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violet activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.” The sub-atomic particles are believed to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. Recall that it is difficult to know where matter leaves off and energy takes over. So, it is not a case where something comes from nothing or comes into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of the particles. I would argue, by extension, that the movement of the particles is also caused. Indeed, I do hold that position. The only reason I don’t state it as an incontrovertible fact is because it doesn’t directly pertain to the law of causality, which, as I a said many times, applies only to something coming into existence. My position is conservative, cautious, and reasonable. I do not assert that my inferences are beyond debate,[namely, that the movement of the particles is caused] but I assert that the law of causality itself is beyond debate because without that law, I could not draw any inferences in the first place. It is impossible to interpret evidence reasonably outside the law of causality. You have never addressed this point either because you don’t understand it or you refuse to accept it. If you ever do confront it, you will discover that you are quietly assuming in private the very law that you disavow in public. That, by the way, is also the reason why you continue to avoid the relevant question: How can one do science outside the law of causality? ----“I gather that you retract the above statements. Nothing wrong with that. Your retraction situates your position directly in opposition to contemporary quantum physics, but that is another issue.” I gather that you have a serious problem with reading comprehension, or possibly something worse. ----“One of Diffaxial’s remarks will suffice: Why would you quote someone else who also avoided my questions, and why would you put him on the spot when he is not here to defend himself. As it is, Diffaxial was simply saying that quantum events need not be bound by the law of causality, but, as I showed at the time, and as I have shown on this thread, that position is misguided, wrong, and yes, irrational. When Darwinists are losing a debate, they get desperate and hearken back to earlier threads and search for some of my quotes, so they can take them out of context and try to set up a comparison contrast in hopes of finding a contradiction. What baffles me is this: Since it didn’t work for others, why would you think it would work for you? -----“That said, I don’t wish to go further ’round the Maypole of this topic, as the arguments to follow and aspersions to be cast are utterly predictable, having been stated here before ad nauseam” What you really mean is that you don’t have the intellectual honesty or the intellectual courage to answer my questions or even approach them. That was the only predictable element in this dialogue, and it shows the relative merits of our two positions. I can, and did, defend my position, but you didn’t even begin to defend your position. That is because you cannot defend your position, and I knew it from the beginning. You must have known it as well. Like most Darwinists, you push forth boldly when you are scrutinizing others, but when the time comes to be scrutinized, you become timid, silent, and evasive. Because your position is irrational, your only hope is keep it at a safe distance from reason’s searchlight and hope that no one will notice. Well, everyone did notice. For one so disinclined, aspersions are perfectly appropriate. I let you off easy.StephenB
December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
StephenB:
Causality is not synonymous with predictability.
It is you who used the words "uncaused" and "causeless" rather than "predictable" with respect to these phenomena. You said:
…an “event” can be uncaused…it is conceivable to me that such an “event,” if that is what we mean by event, could be causeless…the movement of the particle may or may not have been caused….Causality, at the quantum level, and with respect to movement, may or may not HAVE been violated…there is no reason, in principle, why it cannot be suspended...Quantum events (changes in momentum and position) can be uncaused in that sense...
But now you say:
I hold also that the movement is caused.
I gather that you retract the above statements. Nothing wrong with that. Your retraction situates your position directly in opposition to contemporary quantum physics, but that is another issue.
Do you think, in principle, [not necessarily based on experience] that streets can get wet without a cause?
One of Diffaxial's remarks will suffice:
We have a well-developed understanding of macrophysical events such as water and wetness, the sorts of causal accounts that explain particular instances of wet streets, and the empirical regularity of those causal relationships. We also have a highly refined and extraordinarily precise understanding (both theoretical and empirical) of the domains in which quantum indeterminacy must be considered, such that it is completely clear from the physics that the “acausality” of some dimensions of quantum physics cannot stage a jail break and begin wetting roads and popping walls into existence out of thin air (your previous cartoon) without cause.
Good enough for me. That said, I don't wish to go further 'round the Maypole of this topic, as the arguments to follow and aspersions to be cast are utterly predictable, having been stated here before ad nauseam.Voice Coil
December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
----Voice Coil: "Granting your position arguendo, how would you do science in light of your own ad hoc inclusions and exclusions, for which you provide neither scientific nor logical rationale?" . ---"If one exclusion that omits a “coming into being” can be negotiated (changes in position/momentum), why not the next (the timing of particle decay)?" Causality is not synonymous with predictability. I hold also that the movement is caused, but since I, nor anyone else knows much about it, I can't state if for a fact. I can only state for a fact that nothing, including quantum events, can come into existence without a cause. To believe that anything at all is possible is to believe that any number of things can come into existence without a cause, which of course rules out any search for causes, since there would be no way of knowing which things are caused and which things are not. Thus, science would be impossible. ---"That is, on what principled basis do you maintain that roads cannot wet themselves by means of an uncaused change in movement of water molecules, given that the law of causality, as you describe it, permits uncaused changes in movement at the quantum level? (Note that you’ve already rejected responses grounded in the statistical consequences of quantum theory, and/or in observed empirical regularities, as unprincipled.)" Because if streets could wet themselves they would be changing their nature and that would violate the law of identity. [A thing cannot be what it is and be something else at the same time.] Further, rain does not come into existence without a cause. Further, streets become wet only because something else causes them to become wet. Do you think, in principle, [not necessarily based on experience] that streets can get wet without a cause? Why or why not? Do you think, in principle, that a cement wall can appear out of nowhere and kill a helpless motorist. Why or why not? Do you think science is possible absent the law of causality? If so, how is it possible.StephenB
December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Biped:
The conditions surrounding the unpredictable nature of decay are unknown (as was clearly stated upthread). This answer was termed as “vague” and you have since ignored it – as if something unknown should be more precise.
That doesn't work. The response you cite is to another question, not the question I am posing. Nor does it speak to the distinction for which I am requesting a rationale, to wit (in this instance): what is his rationale for asserting that the timing of particle decay is governed by the law of causality, because determined by "quantum conditions," but changes in position/momentum are not? This cut is not determined by the presence or absence of things "coming into being from nothing," as no comings into being from nothing are entailed in either instance. That is the rationale I am requesting. Absent that rationale, his inclusions and exclusions from the "law of causality" are more arbitrary and ad hoc than the forms of acausality noted those who take exception to his position, assertions of acausality that are responsive to distinctions that are inherent in the physics.Voice Coil
December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Upright Biped: The conditions surrounding the unpredictable nature of decay are unknown (as was clearly stated upthread).
As was also posted upthread, but held in the moderation queue until a significant amount dust had accumulated, it's not a matter of ignorance. We can show, with reasonable scientific certainty, that you *cannot* know. There are *no* local hidden variables. While wave functions are deterministic, observations of discrete phenomena are not. The question of how to do science when there are questions about the nature of causality was also answered; through observation, by noting correlations, by proposing and testing hypotheses. Again, the argument is not that causality is an unimportant feature of modern physics, only that it is not axiomatic. Theories of causation are subject to modification based on evidence. In modern times, this occurred with Relativity Theory, then with Quantum Theory.Zachriel
December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
VC, The conditions surrounding the unpredictable nature of decay are unknown (as was clearly stated upthread). This answer was termed as "vague" and you have since ignored it - as if something unknown should be more precise.Upright BiPed
December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT
StephenB:
I will proceed to provide the answer: It is impossible to do science unless causality is understood to be a non-negotiable principle.
And StephenB:
Quantum events (changes in momentum and position) can be uncaused in that sense.
Granting your position arguendo, how would you do science in light of your own ad hoc inclusions and exclusions, for which you provide neither scientific nor logical rationale? If one exclusion that omits a "coming into being" can be negotiated (changes in position/momentum), why not the next (the timing of particle decay)? If quantum entities may change motion uncaused, why not macrophysical objects? That is, on what principled basis do you maintain that roads cannot wet themselves by means of an uncaused change in movement of water molecules, given that the law of causality, as you describe it, permits uncaused changes in movement at the quantum level? (Note that you've already rejected responses grounded in the statistical consequences of quantum theory, and/or in observed empirical regularities, as unprincipled.) Given that you believe the "law of causality" is ironclad, violators irrational, and violations fatal to science, what rationale do you have for these arbitrary exclusions and inclusions? Since you are fond of counting, this is the seventh time I have asked you this question on this thread alone. You claim to have offered your rationale, but none is in evidence, and you seem unable or unwilling to supply a link.Voice Coil
December 27, 2009
December
12
Dec
27
27
2009
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
R0b @ 312 Evolutionary mechanisms may or may not generate information (however you define it) and that was not an issue in my reply to Mustela Nivalis. You said: "Biological realism is a separate issue." I beg to differ. When we talk about computer simulation program of the ev quality, that is the precise, relevant issue. Ev might be interesting thought experiment but nothing more. Therefore claim that it validates anything relating to biological scenarios is, plainly, bogus. In my opinion evolutionary biologists should stay away from any attempt to use computer simulation software as evidence for their claims, if they want to gain respectability within people involved in Technical Sciences.inunison
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
---"Voice Coil: "It [information code] indeed bears information that is in some respects analogous to instructions, blueprints, or a recipe required for building organisms, accomplished in part by specifying the synthesis of proteins." Thank you ---I’m going to pass on this topic. [How can one do science in the absence of the principle of causality?] Thank you. I will proceed to provide the answer: It is impossible to do science unless causality is understood to be a non-negotiable principle. I have asked every Darwinist within range to provide a credible or even comprehensible answer to the question about how science is possible if causality is negotiable, and no one has ever come up with one. Also, philosophy teaches us that no entity, physical or otherwise, can bring itself into being. For something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It would have to have the causal power of being before it had any being with which to exercise the power. It would at least have enough causal power to cause its own being. If its being comes from some other source, it would simply be an effect. No one has ever presented a rational argument against this point either. Indeed, the only way to deny it is to deny the law of non-contradiction. This concept is not religious its formulation. Even the atheist Ayn Rand, understood this point, albeit from a supplemental explanation, as dramatized by Galt, one of the characters in her book: “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it.”StephenB
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
"My view is that human societies tend to develop or evolve forms of collective morality that function to make those societies safer and more secure for their members and, hence, more stable." Aint that sweet. In the end morality = your view. "Yes, I think killing millions of people, who presented no threat to the survival of those who killed them, was “really” wrong." Really? Well no matter Hitler had a different view and the power to impose his will until overcome by more power. In the end for the moral relativists morality is reduced to 'might makes right" Vivid The Holocaust was not the will of the German people since it was kept secret from the vast majority of them and it was certainly not the will of the helpless millions who died.vividbleau
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
StephenB:
Describe the function of the information code in your own terms.
Rather obviously, DNA encodes the information required to replicate cells and organisms. It indeed bears information that is in some respects analogous to instructions, blueprints, or a recipe required for building organisms, accomplished in part by specifying the synthesis of proteins. And, of course, it is the transmission of modifications of DNA that enables evolutionary change. In a sense the information stored within DNA reflects the history of those modifications.
Would you also deny the fact that one of the functions of information is to build proteins because humans also build.
As I have repeated above, these are serviceable, loose analogies with human activities (such as storing and utilizing information in blueprints, directions, and recipies; building things employing such stored information; replicating the information so stored, etc.). I use similar terms above. It does not, however, follow that all facets of these human activities of are necessarily reflected in the activity of DNA, nor that all of the characteristics of information transmission via DNA are captured by these imperfect analogies. That is all I have stated, and I don't see an argument to the contrary in your responses.
I have already explained my rationale…
Where? I must have missed it. What post number? In what thread? I see that you continue to distinguish "things coming into being" from "changes in motion (position/momentum)" by stating that the "law of causality" applies to the first but not to the second at the quantum level (a distinction accomplished by means of an idiosyncratic definition of "event," such that changes in position are defined as "not events"). What I am requesting is your rationale for stating that some quantum events can be acausal while others cannot. Nor do you offer a rationale for declining to exclude the decay events cited by Zachriel from your "law of causality," events that entail no "comings into being." Nor do you describe a rationale for insisting that billiard ball collisions at the macro level are "events" and necessarily causal, while changes in position/momentum at the quantum level are not to be regarded as events, and therefore are excused from conformance to your law. So far as I can tell, you've never offered a rationale for any of this. You certainly haven't above.
I didn’t issue any demands.
Then I'll say that you've no place to stand from which to declare others irrational for advocating qualifications regarding the reach of causality in the instance of quantum events, when you yourself have allowed similar ad hoc exceptions with no rationale whatsoever for having done so (at least none you are willing to share).
How can you do science without the law of causality?
I'm going to pass on this topic. You may, if you wish, incorporate the views expressed by R0b and Diffaxial into mine by reference, particularly as described in the threads linked below. But those were obviously long, heated discussions that explored every possible nuance of the topic - culminating in Diffaxial's unwarranted silent banning, demonstrating once again that UD isn't an appropriate forum for conducting such difficult conceptual contests. At any rate, I'm not up for a discussion that promises to almost certainly become dysfunctional. Maybe another time, if that seems less certain. https://uncommondescent.com/religion/and-there-you-have-it/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-incredible-shrinking-timeline/#comment-334963Voice Coil
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
----seversky: -----"I do not deny the existence of morality, I reject the claim that there is any objective morality." -----Yes, I think killing millions of people, who presented no threat to the survival of those who killed them, was “really” wrong. Huh? What does "really" wrong mean if it doesn't mean objectively wrong? ---"In principle, yes, that allows for anything to be considered moral if a society as a whole agrees to it." So, if society in the 1950's decided that abortion was wrong, that was then, but if society in 2010 decides that abortion is not wrong, then that which was once wrong suddenly becomes right because society changed its mind. So, if society in 1900 decided that discrimination against blacks was tolerable, that was then, but if society in 2000 decides it is intolerable, that's different. Thus, what was once right graudally [or suddenly if the case may be] becomes wrong. So, which scenario in each case is "really" the moral one. Is it the early formulation, arrived at by popular opinion, or the latter formulation that contradicts the earlier formulation, which was also arrived at by popular opinion.StephenB
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
tgpeeler @ 274
“Where do you get the idea that physics has anything to say about the existence of God or the problem of evil?” This would be funny as hell if it weren’t so exasperating. THAT’S MY FREAKING POINT. Physics has NOTHING TO SAY about God or evil. Yet, if you are a naturalist (must we do this again?) that’s all you have to explain anything and everything.
All? According to materialists, that's everything. Surely everything is enough to explain everything. More seriously, physics has nothing to say about God or evil because, so far, they have not been required to explain the phenomena under investigation.
So if that’s all you have, and what you have can’t explain something, the only thing left for you to do is deny the existence of that something.
You are jumping the gun here. The fact that physics has no explanation for something now does not mean it never will have. As a species, we have only been doing science for a minute fraction of the estimated age of the Universe. You can surely afford to cut science a little slack. If God exists, it will make no difference to Him or you relationship to Him.
Thus Dawkins with his “illusion of design” and “apparently designed” nonsense. These things don’t exist in his ontology, yet they clearly are real. (We have EVIDENCE of them. That’s how we know.) So what’s a naturalist to do? Well, that’s pretty easy. Deny it.
Not at all. Atheists and agnostics are quite happy to acknowledge that there are things which appear to be designed. As you say, we have plenty of evidence in the form of things which seem to be designed. The problem is we only have evidence for the existence of one species of intelligent designers which is, obviously, ourselves and we are pretty sure that those biological features which look like they were designed were not designed by us. So, are they actually evidence of design or do they simply look that way to us? Darwin proposed an explanation of how this could happen through natural processes, a theory which has been greatly amplified and developed in the 150 or so years since he first published it. He supported his theory with evidence from his own observations and researchers since have compiled a great deal of evidence, including successful predictions of previously undiscovered data, which cumulatively tend to confirm it. You are, of course, free to deny or reject all of that but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution as the best theory available at the present time. And it is not a fallacy to appeal to appropriate or competent authority.
Naturalism is repellent to me because it is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Always has been and always will be.
Naturalism as a methodology has proven to be more fruitful than any of the alternatives which also provides support for the metaphysical claims of philosophical naturalism. How much of the knowledge, the science and the technology that we now take for granted was the product of naturalistic research and how much was the direct result of divine providence? As for morality, I have pointed repeatedly to the Old Testament narratives as evidence that any Christian claims to moral superiority are ill-founded.
The ontology of naturalism denies the existence of morality but now you’ll want to claim that you are a “good person too”? Well, you may well be, but you have no intellectual foundation for making the claim or caring about it in the first place. YOU DENY THE EXISTENCE OF MORALITY.
Wrong. I do not deny the existence of morality, I reject the claim that there is any objective morality. My view is that human societies tend to develop or evolve forms of collective morality that function to make those societies safer and more secure for their members and, hence, more stable. In principle, yes, that allows for anything to be considered moral if a society as a whole agrees to it. In practice, moralities are grounded on the the common interests of all human beings, such as survival. The fact that my, or your, desire to survive does not have the approval of some supreme moral authority is irrelevant. I do not need a God to tell me I am entitled to survive or that, if I have that desire, I should also respect the same in others if I want them to respect mine.
So the Nazis? No problem. Just carrying out the will of the people. Survival of the fittest and all that. Only the strong survive. So what’s your problem with the extermination of 6 million Jews and another 3 million or so untermenshcen?? Explain to me why that is wrong. Really wrong. If you think it is, that is.
Yes, I think killing millions of people, who presented no threat to the survival of those who killed them, was "really" wrong. The Holocaust was not the will of the German people since it was kept secret from the vast majority of them and it was certainly not the will of the helpless millions who died. As for 'fitness' in the Darwinian sense, it refers to how fitted an organism is to survive in the environment in which it finds itself. Any strategy which tends to ensure that survival is a fit one. In the case of the Nazis, their policies brought much of the rest of the world into the war against them and led ultimately to the total destruction of their regime. From a Darwinian perspective you could say that they were clearly not fit to survive. In terms of morality, they completely ignored the Golden Rule, which I believe is axiomatic, and look where it got them.Seversky
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
StephenB: How can you do science without the law of causality?
By proposing and testing hypotheses, by making observations and drawing correlations.Zachriel
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
"My ignorance is real — see Hanlon’s razor. I sincerely can’t make sense of what you’re saying, and given your palpable disdain for ID opponents, I’ll do us both the favor of not trying any more." I find it interesting that you think you can criticize the works of Dembski and Marks but claim not to understand a basic idea that a 10 year old can fathom. When one encounters such an attitude, what is one to think? Using Hanlon's razor, I assume your lack of understanding of a simple use of the term information and your criticism of Dembski and Marks is due to stupidity since you do not want to be accused of malice. Incredible admission and if true, I admire you for it but what is missing is an admission that ID may be on to something. We have to constantly repel and deflect all attacks but are given no credit by anyone for that and not by you. So which is it, stupidity or malice. For most I understand what it is, but we often give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are stupid. Should I ask each anti ID person here whether they are stupid or malice or both. They certainly are not both smart and of good will. I suggest you start further quests on this subject with any biology department and ask them what is meant by biological information. And keep in mind that the same data set can be information in more than one way. Information has many meanings. An English sentence can have semantic meaning as far as content or even be a double entendre or triple entendre but also have aesthetic content dependent on word use and structure as well as a different aesthetic content based on font choice, size and color. It could also correlate with word usage by a certain group of people. I am sure the aficionado on information or language could come up with a lot more possible types of information in the same English sentence. The biological community's understanding of information is in sync with Godfrey-Smith whom you seem to espouse and admit I sent you to him as he helped develop the Stanford site. Godfrey-Smith makes the ID case even though he professes to abhor ID. When Godfrey-Smith discusses the basis or coherence of Darwinian evolution it is incredibly shallow and full of holes. So maybe his discussion of information is equally shallow too but I use him since what he says is in sync with ID on this topic and that is supposedly his area and his ideas on information seems to be accepted by the biology community. So we will give him the benefit of the doubt. So rather than ask me any further questions which is quite fine with me, ask the biology community. Pick a university biology department that talks about information and biology on its website, contact a professor there and ask away. You will eventually find one or two who will gladly answer your questions. Bring their answers back here and we can see if there is anything to discuss.jerry
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
----Voice Coil: “It matters because the analogy between human direction and instruction and the functioning of DNA is imperfect. Human direction/instruction entail facets that are not evident in DNA; the functions of DNA display features that are not evident in human direction/instruction.” This is the fifth time you have refused to answer my request to describe the function of the information code in your own terms. Your contention that the DNA does not “direct” because humans direct is ridiculous. Would you also deny the fact that one of the functions of information is to build proteins because humans also build. Even Darwinists use the term “affinity” to describe a relationship between information and the organism’s development. Did you explain to your Darwinist colleagues that they must abandon that description because humans also experience affinity? Truly you are standing in intellectual quicksand. The problem, here, is not very hard to discern. You will not describe the function in your own terms because any kind of accurate description will refute your own position. So, you refuse to answer. ----“Your previous questions were directed to others, and hence your observation in 305 (”I’ve yet to hear from you…”) was a non-sequitur.” You decided to enter into the fray on others’ behalf, so you are accountable for defending your defense. ----“I gather you don’t have, or won’t share, the rationale I’ve requested above. Absent that rationale your take on causality and quantum phenomena (documented in 297 above) is rightly characterized as inconsistent and ad hoc – more so than the limitations alluded to by Zachriel, as your idiosyncratic definitions (of “event” and “effect”) have obviously been devised in anticipation of a your defense of a particular theological position (something can’t come from nothing, therefore God). You have failed again for the fifth time to answer a simple question. How can you do science without the law of causality? I have already explained my rationale and the futility of your attempt to hearken back to past threads in a desperate attempt to find inconsistencies in my comments. Prior to my explanation of the difference between “movement” and “beginning to exist,” you were obviously unacquainted with the matter. Indeed, you haven’t even dealt with points made on this thread. So, everything you are putting up now is a distraction away from your unwillingness to step up to the plate and answer questions. Indeed, if you would go through the intellectual exercise of answering my question, you would immediately understand why the law of causality is non-negotiable---and it is not “my” rationale. You should read a few books on the subject of the metaphysical foundations of modern science. It is not my rationale simply because you had never heard of it until I brought it up. ----It follows that you’ve no place to stand from which to issue demands for ironclad consistency with your take on “the law of causality,” nor stones to throw vis rationality. After all, “rationale” and “rationality” share a root. I didn’t issue any demands. I simply explained a fact well known in the philosophy of science. ----“At any rate, I’ve witnessed some of your many trips around the “irrational Darwinists abandon causality” Maypole. Do you really want to travel that route yet again?” You act as if I wanted Darwinists to be irrational. I would much prefer that they cease and desist with their evasions and abandon their illogical stance that something can come from nothing. On the present matter, I didn’t ask you to weigh in with your errors, or to evade all the relevant questions. That was all your doing.StephenB
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 301
If you cannot debate vjtorley without misrepresenting what I say and trying to use it against him, then please argue against him under your own strength and leave me out of it.
If you feel I have misrepresented your views then I apologize. You are, of course, free to set the record straight. Seversky
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Cabal: What is the cause of that predictability? The only ’cause’ I can think of is supernature; a ‘force’ outside of time and space but with a very accurate counter, ticking off atoms slated for a quantum event. A cause extending the width and breadth of the entire universe.
It's the same "cause" that makes casinos profitable—the Law of Large Numbers.Zachriel
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
StephenB:
We notice, for example, their proclivity to appeal to the quantum phenomenon in an attempt to show that some physical events can come into existence without causes, as if such a thing were logically possible—as if the principles of quantum mechanics themselves could have been established on such an irrational basis. Apparently, it never occurs to them that the evidence from quantum mechanics, like all other scientific approaches, depends as much on the law of causality as any other kind of evidence. Yet it is that same evidence that they point to in an attempt to show that causality is negotiable. Remarkable. [That there are so many popular scientists who fall into that same trap is yet more evidence of the sad state of their incomplete and one-sided education.]
Kind of funny, isn't it, even without an identifiable determinant, a cause such as I presume you insist must be present, QM, statistically, nevertheless is quite predictable? What is the cause of that predictability? The only 'cause' I can think of is supernature; a 'force' outside of time and space but with a very accurate counter, ticking off atoms slated for a quantum event. A cause extending the width and breadth of the entire universe. Since nobody knows, speculation is free.Cabal
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
jerry @ 281:
I find all this phony posturing illuminating. You supposedly have the ability to analyze the situation but feign ignorance.
My ignorance is real -- see Hanlon's razor. I sincerely can't make sense of what you're saying, and given your palpable disdain for ID opponents, I'll do us both the favor of not trying any more.R0b
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
inunison:
So you don’t know about ev’s biological relevance, but you are certain that it achieves its goals. Sorry, that type of faith I do not possess.
I said that it achieves the "modest goal of showing that evolutionary mechanisms can generate information". It shows it by doing it -- that is, it uses evolutionary mechanisms to generate information. It follows that information can be generated absent intelligent intervention. Biological realism is a separate issue.R0b
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
StephenB:
What does it matter if “direct” or “instruct” are human activities if they are also cell activities?
It matters because the analogy between human direction and instruction and the functioning of DNA is imperfect. Human direction/instruction entail facets that are not evident in DNA; the functions of DNA display features that are not evident in human direction/instruction.
Should I ask the question yet a fourth time? How can you do science absent the law of causality?
Your previous questions were directed to others, and hence your observation in 305 ("I've yet to hear from you...") was a non-sequitur. I gather you don't have, or won't share, the rationale I've requested above. Absent that rationale your take on causality and quantum phenomena (documented in 297 above) is rightly characterized as inconsistent and ad hoc - more so than the limitations alluded to by Zachriel, as your idiosyncratic definitions (of "event" and "effect") have obviously been devised in anticipation of a your defense of a particular theological position (something can't come from nothing, therefore God). It follows that you've no place to stand from which to issue demands for ironclad consistency with your take on "the law of causality," nor stones to throw vis rationality. After all, "rationale" and "rationality" share a root. At any rate, I've witnessed some of your many trips around the "irrational Darwinists abandon causality" Maypole. Do you really want to travel that route yet again?Voice Coil
December 26, 2009
December
12
Dec
26
26
2009
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 14

Leave a Reply