Vid: Hoping to find ancient life remains on Mars

_{kairosfocus

December 18, 2015

Origin Of Life, rhetoric, specified complexity, worldview

2}_{Categories
Origin Of Life
rhetoric
specified complexity
worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I ran across a vid of a proposal developed by Martin Marietta to explore Mars, towards settlement (and terraforming?):

What I find highly interesting is the motivations given. In addition to the Mars colonisation idea, there seems to be hope that finding “independent” life on Mars would show life must be common in the universe.

Of course, we will recall the 1990’s dust up over Nasa’s announcement of life on a meteorite held to have come from Mars. (Cf Wiki here.) Which, brings to mind Astronomer and Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross’ thought that impacts on Earth would spread life-bearing rocks far and wide across the solar system. *His initial response to the Nasa announcement is here.)

But, too, there is a big question:

wouldn’t it be much simpler and cheaper to address the issue of whether functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I) can credibly come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity right here on Earth?

Perhaps, it is time to begin decoupling the long term solar system colonisation project from speculations on the origin of life and its hoped for abundance in the universe?

Thoughts welcome. END

Comments

07 I am actually emphasising two things. First, the design inference -- note my stress on actual empirically grounded work -- is an inductive exercise requiring no more metaphysical commitments than ordinary commonsense reasoning. In that context, when we find that certain things are reliable signs of design when we can directly cross check; and they are backed up by the needle in haystack blind search challenge, we have an epistemic right to hold that they are signatures of design as cause, ST future observations to the contrary. As is usual with scientific generalisations. On this, we may then base other arguments as reasonable. Secondly, evolutionary materialist scientism has some strong direct implications coming out the gate that reduce it to self-referential incoherence. So, it should be generally understood as self-falsifying. Thus, reasoning on this is utterly unreliable per principle of explosion. There should be no expectation of using such a position in any serious argument. Unfortunately, a world where that is generally accepted is not the one we inhabit. Now, Dembski and Arrington are speaking to some fairly esoteric worldview options on which physical reality has immanent telic factors in it. On such a world, the inductive design inference would still work, detecting that in-built ordering to an end. Such a view is NOT equal to the typical evolutionary materialist scientism out there. And monist physicalism -- usually meaning: physical reality manifesting blind forces and factors that form the world from Hydrogen to Humans exhausts reality -- is another way of saying in effect evolutionary materialistic scientism. The material point is that unlike Sagan, Lewontin et al, there is no a priori cartesian dualism or the like imposed on the design inference. It is an empirically grounded inductive exercise. Those who these days so often assert that an explanatory filter type approach, on rejecting chance and or necessity ASSUMES design as default, assert a twisted strawman caricature. KFkairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Whatever zeroseven. I have made my case and will add to that: The wedge document, so what?Virgil Cain_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Virgil Cain @83, Then definitely you are in disagreement with Barry Arrington, and it seems, KF. As Barry said: “If such a natural telic force exists, the existence of design as a category of causation is no obstacle to accepting the truth of monist physicalism.” So if it turns out there is a natural telic force that is responsible for CSI, then ID will be a materialistic (physicalist) theory right? I think KF seems to be agreeing with Barry that ID does not rule out monist physicalism.zeroseven_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

@85 Some good philosophy there KF, Philosophy is a love of wisdom. Chance Evolution believers have to reject wisdom to hold to their faith.Jack Jones_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

PS: Nancy Pearcey:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
[--> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]
kairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

VC, Actually, if evolutinary materialist scientism is true, we are delusions [there is nothing there to be a stable personal identity], our minds are delusions, rationality and responsibility collapse, and knowledge is an incoherent construct. So, if it were taken as true it undermines ability to access truth and indeed to be rational. Where also if the deliverances of our electrochemical computational substrates are so untrustworthy on a central issue, that puts the programming [and that has to be explained -- oops, that too is a delusion -- on blind chance and mechanical necessity] our whole intellectual enterprise is a futile chasing after the wind. Indeed, these words and all other words in this thread are just empty noise. It is utterly, irretrievably, patently incoherent. So, that is where the matter must start before asking about something else can be compatible with it. Compatibility requires what has been locked out. And that is where the issue needs to be faced. KFkairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

From Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92:
1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
If materialism is true then all of that is false. And if all of that is false then ID is false.Virgil Cain_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

I will say it again- If materialism is true then ID is false. This is exemplified by the explanatory filter as materialism is the claim that necessity and chance are all that is required to explain what we observe. ID claims that materialistic processes cannot produce life and if materialism is true then abiogenesis is also true. ID falls. Pure and simple, people.Virgil Cain_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

@60 KF KF, I am only reciprocating.Jack Jones_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Claudius: First, again, the question is malformed. The real issue is whether evolutionary materialist sacientism is compatible with itself. Second, perhaps you need to ponder what leading philosopher (and Naturalist) Nagel has had to say. Third, I am not "assuming" that evolutionary materialist scientism undermines responsible rational freedom. Just for two illustrations as to the sort of people who directly imply or state such, cf first Crick in his The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
. . . and Provine in a well known U of Tenn 1998 Darwin Day Keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
Many more could be brought forward on the point. Which is quite simple in the end. Here is JBS Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Reppert amplifies:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
In short the proposed cause is simply not adequate to the observed and experienced effect. KFkairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus - You appear to be assuming that materialism entails the impossibility of free will. Correct? Also, if ID is compatible with materialism, why not make common cause with materialists to advance ID? I know you think materialism is false but there seems little point railing against materialists when they could well be ID supporters.CLAVDIVS_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

PS: The real prior question is whether evolutionary materialistic scientism is compatible with itself. And it is not.kairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

F/N: Lewontin:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
KFkairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Claudius, the root issue is that evolutionary materialistic scientism, though politically dominant is not a viable worldview on the merits. I amplify to show that the focus is the lab coat clad view that the cosmos moved from hydrogen to humans by blind chance and mechanical necessity strictly. FYI, there are views of the nature of matter that would class what others would call spirit by way of distinction as matter. The key issue is that the design inference is strictly independent of major metaphysical worldview commitments beyond responsible rational freedom so we can think, know and reason; the issues about it should be at that level, as inductively grounded conclusions that are reasonably reliable should be prior to worldview frameworks in our epistemology. So, if the design inference is reasonable on empirical evidence, and turns out to be incompatible with evolutionary materialism that should count against evo mat. (For sure there should not be an insinuation of begging questions against the privileged worldview, materialism in a lab coat. In other worlds one must wonder if evo mat is increasingly obviously failing an empirical test and someone is trying to twist this around to dismiss the test as cutting across what they assume to be true.) The question as usually posed is misformed. Evolutionary materialism is a grand metaphysical narrative never mind the lab coats, the design inference is not in that category, it is about inductive inferences on tested reliable sign. Looking at the evo mat worldview, it is already incoherent in accounting for a commonsense fact: we are responsibly free and rational, ending in self referential incoherence. It should never have been taken seriously. KFkairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Thanks kairosfocus ... so Virgil Cain is simply wrong, in your view. What is the difference between 'evolutionary materialism' and just plain 'materialism' as you use the terms?CLAVDIVS_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Jerry, liquid water faces the issue of temperature-pressure conditions, so it is likely not sustainable; short term is a different story hence serious consideration of there being water-cut features, even in very recent times. Ice obviously exists even in vacuo, e.g. comets. The other concern is that water vapour is a light molecule, relatively speaking so would tend to be lost from the atmosphere of a relatively light planet -- thermal energy per degree of freedom tends to be of order kT so a light molecule can more readily get to escape velocity and will fade out of an atmosphere for a terrestrial planet. Also solar wind seems to be stripping Mars' atmosphere. In the end, it is exploration that will answer. KFkairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Claudius: The design inference is independent of metaphysical commitments other than that we are able to observe, understand and reason freely and responsibly, with significant accuracy. That is, it does not embed a prior commitment that materialism is false as a start point for reasoning. So, if there is an immanent telic force in nature, the design theory will be compatible with such. On the world of life, a design inference on the FSCO/I in the cell points only to deign of the cell, not the identity or nature of its designers. Though in context of other considerations it may help people forming a worldview level conclusion. At cosmological level, fine tuning points to design of the observed cosmos, indicating that a credible candidate designer should be considered. Indeed, design is normally understood as evidence of designer being required. The issue would be of what nature, opening up worldviews level arguments on being etc; but that goes beyond what ID as a research programme within science, is about. Beyond these, evolutionary materialism should not even be on the table as a serious discussion point, as it is inherently self refuting, unable to account for what we need even to discuss in this thread, responsible, rational freedom. KFkairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 70 Wondering what's the right answer - is ID compatible with materialism, under certain conditions, as you said, or is it not?CLAVDIVS_{December 22, 2015
December
12
Dec
22
22
2015
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

//Attributing false quotes to me gets you a first class one way ticket out of here. Bye bye.// That seems rather drastic. We have all misinterpreted the words of others. It is only when we know that the misinterpretation is intentional and malicious that we can ascribe an evil intent. Do you have any indication of such an intent?paul sussman_{December 22, 2015
December
12
Dec
22
22
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Tiger131 quotes me as saying: "the existence of design as a category of causation is no obstacle to accepting the truth of monist physicalism." I actually said: "If such a natural telic force exists, the existence of design as a category of causation is no obstacle to accepting the truth of monist physicalism." Attributing false quotes to me gets you a first class one way ticket out of here. Bye bye.Barry Arrington_{December 22, 2015
December
12
Dec
22
22
2015
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

Mr Cain - You and Mr Arrington are in complete disagreement regarding ID and materialism. You say "ID is not and never will be compatible with materialism. If materialism is true then ID is false." Mr Arrington says "the existence of design as a category of causation is no obstacle to accepting the truth of monist physicalism."
CARM: There is no real difference between materialism and physicalism… Stanford: Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’…
Do ID proponents not even agree on the fundamental metaphysics of their position?Tiger131_{December 22, 2015
December
12
Dec
22
22
2015
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

you might be interested in this concerning Martian water
My point is a physics question. Can liquid water exist on Mars now or at anytime in the past? It seems molecular weight would be a major problem for it to have ever been there. I am not competent to answer it but this is a question for the physicists to answer.jerry_{December 22, 2015
December
12
Dec
22
22
2015
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Kf and Jerry, you might be interested in this concerning Martian water.Vy_{December 22, 2015
December
12
Dec
22
22
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

George:
All I did was ask for a single paper from a peer reviewed journal that has concluded that a biological structure was the result of “design”.
The evidence from peer-review is what is used to infer biological structures are the result of design. And no one can use that evidence to show that natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes could produce them. And that is very telling.Virgil Cain_{December 22, 2015
December
12
Dec
22
22
2015
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Jack has a problem with Jack.Mung_{December 22, 2015
December
12
Dec
22
22
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

ID is not and never will be compatible with materialism. If materialism is true then ID is false.Virgil Cain_{December 22, 2015
December
12
Dec
22
22
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Jack seems to really have a problem with George. I really don't see why. Obviously George is not that bright.paul sussman_{December 21, 2015
December
12
Dec
21
21
2015
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

KF: "JJ, Tone please. KF" KF, thank you for defending my honour.George Edwards_{December 21, 2015
December
12
Dec
21
21
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Z, interesting, though there is the matter of retention of vapours due to Mars' small mass, a molecule of 18 AMU is rather light. We can note the thinness of the current atmosphere and the avg molecular mass, 43 AMU; with isotope ratios suggesting preferential loss of lighter molecules. I also see a suggestion of solar wind stripping. For human habitation, I expect domes and lined tunnels eventually. Water in the Asteroid belt may be useful. KFkairosfocus_{December 21, 2015
December
12
Dec
21
21
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

JJ, Tone please. KFkairosfocus_{December 21, 2015
December
12
Dec
21
21
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply