Discussion of Big Science Today, by an Important Member of the National Association of Scholars

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Art

That’s called moving goalposts.

I never moved any goalposts. I always had in mind both the question of how advanced intellects would evolve in hot ocean trenches, and the question how those hypothetical advanced creatures could safely get to the surface and look at the heavens. But I’m being hit by different objections at different times from two or three different people, so it’s only to be expected that you’re not going to get a full and tidy order of exposition right from the start. This is a barroom conversation, not a planned treatise.

If you want a planned treatise, have a look at Denton, some of whom you’ve read. I’m convinced by the argument in Fire-Maker that advanced technology is only going to be produced by surface-dwelling, multicellular, structurally advanced animals. But I’m open to any scenario you might propose in which advanced technology could grow up wholly in an undersea environment. The problem is that you are failing to provide concrete suggestions, and instead picking away on my statements on general grounds.

@Art

After all, conditions on earth then were closer to our hypothetical deep sea paradise. Heck, it is rather possible that the first life actually arose in this paradise.

You are talking about the earliest forms of life, which, it seems, for 2 billion years or so were probably all unicellular. I don’t think you believe that one-celled critters at ocean vents invented technology, or even could have done so. I think you will admit that science and technology did not appear until the rise of man, which did not happen until life moved out of ocean vents and sub-crustal pools, and onto the continents, where things like controlled fire and metallurgy were possible.

Porpoises and octopuses may be smart in some respects, but they don’t have science, and they don’t have technology, and as far as we know, they don’t spend time trying to figure out their own ultimate origins. Science and technology were produced by land-dwelling beings. There are reasons why this should be the case.

@Art

So, from your encyclopedic knowledge of Denton, lay out his evolutionary timeline, with the relevant chemistry and other details.

I don’t think his evolutionary timeline is markedly different from that of most cosmologists, geologists, and biologists, so I don’t see what’s to be learned there. When I first read Denton’s Nature’s Destiny, my overall reaction was “This description of the history of the universe and life is just like Sagan or Jastrow, except that he is marshalling the same data to argue for teleology rather than antiteleology.”

Do you really believe it’s just evolutionary accident that science and technology emerged on the surface of the earth – that they could just as easily have emerged at the bottom of the ocean, or in hot mineral pools under the earth, or under a million tons of Antarctic ice? And that on some other planet somewhere, that’s where science and technology have evolved? If not, then what is your beef with Denton regarding the origin of science and technology?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

Do you think the above two statements from me are inconsistent or contradictory?

I didn’t say that. But the relation between them is unclear, and that means you did not write effectively enough to remove the appearance of inconsistency. So you should cease lecturing me about my reading and concentrate on improving your own writing. Several sources might help you, starting with Strunk and White. I taught Writing Skills for many years, and could sent along a list.

[Faizal_Ali]

There is no appearance of inconsistency as far as I can tell. I really doubt anyone else in this discussion had difficulty following my point, which was that Denton claims a designer “rigged” things so that something like human beings would evolve on earth, but that he provides no good argument to support that claim. But if anyone did, it should now be clear.

A question does remain: If my writing was merely ambiguous, then why did you interpret it as having only one meaning, and not the one I intended? A really good reader would have pointed out the ambiguity (if any) and asked for clarification, rather than going on multiple rants based on only one of the possible meanings.

[faded_Glory]

@Eddie

It wouldn’t be helpful, because it would be seriously misleading.

Not at all. Biological organisms reproduce. Pyramids and machines are constructed. This is an absolutely fundamental difference, because you can sit in the desert and just watch a pile of stones and a colony of desert rats, and guess what? Over time you will see new desert rats, but you will never see a pyramid come together all by itself. The pyramid needs external help, and the desert rats don’t. Capisce?

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Eddie

But I’m very fuzzy about how you imagine one-celled creatures living near ocean vents evolved into these intelligent mer-people.

I tend to agree that it would be a challenge for civilized and technological life to evolve underwater with purely thermal sources of energy. Cephalopods and Cetacea [via terrestrial] may be highly intelligent, but I doubt could ever be technological. Mastery of fire was transformative in terms of social dynamics, diet, range of habitation, and later metallurgy. Perhaps this could be bypassed, but it seems pretty speculative to me.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@faded_Glory

If instead of a machine on Mars we found a Martian on Mars, would we still automatically conclude that he was designed?

No, we would not “automatically” conclude anything. We would investigate both designed and non-designed options, and our conclusion would represent the preponderance of evidence – or we might leave the question undecided.

Why is no one investigating anything, then? Why is it all rhetoric?

@Eddie

“This description of the history of the universe and life is just like Sagan or Jastrow, except that he is marshalling the same data to argue for teleology rather than antiteleology.”

Which data, specifically, do YOU find to be compelling?

You keep mentioning generic evidence as though you acknowledge its importance, but run away from citing specific evidence.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@faded_Glory

Not at all. Biological organisms reproduce. Pyramids and machines are constructed.

I can’t believe you think I am not aware of that.

@faded_Glory

This is an absolutely fundamental difference,

Obviously it is a difference. But there are also similarities, notably an apparently “purposeful arrangement of parts” in both cases. Even Dawkins admits that biological entities look designed.

@faded_Glory

Capisce?

This way of questioning strikes me as insulting; I hope it was not intended that way.

@faded_Glory

you can sit in the desert and just watch a pile of stones and a colony of desert rats, and guess what? Over time you will see new desert rats, but you will never see a pyramid come together all by itself.

The parallel is not sound. You are comparing how a pyramid first comes into existence with how rats reproduce. The proper parallel would compare how pyramids and rats first come into being. Note that classic design theorists such as Paley allowed that one rat could produce a new rat without a new rat’s being separately designed; however, that just pushes the question back in time to the first rat. And even if one granted the whole sequence of evolution back to the simplest life, that still leaves open the question of the possible design of the first life – which cannot be explained by reproduction. In short, it still leaves open the possibility that the first life was an artifact – just like a pyramid.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

which was that Denton claims a designer “rigged” things so that something like human beings would evolve on earth, but that he provides no good argument to support that claim

Very clear. If you had written that at the first, I would have understood instantly. Thanks for clarifying, even if you did so with an insulting prefatory remark.

@Faizal_Ali

A question does remain: If my writing was merely ambiguous, then why did you interpret it as having only one meaning, and not the one I intended? A really good reader would have pointed out the ambiguity (if any) and asked for clarification, rather than going on multiple rants based on only one of the possible meanings.

Why does almost every conversation with you turn quickly from matters of substance into this kind of bickering complaint about conversational procedure? Is this how you criticized fellow science and medical students in your seminars and classes, by griping about what they should have said but didn’t and how they should have understood something but didn’t? If so, you must have been the most irritating student in the class.

[Faizal_Ali]

And yet another Irony Meter^TM lies in ruins. RIP.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

The parallel is not sound. You are comparing how a pyramid first comes into existence with how rats reproduce. The proper parallel would compare how pyramids and rats first come into being.

This is actually an error more commonly made by the ID proponents.

We conclude that things like watches and pyramids are designed because we know in each individual case they cannot come into existence without human intervention.

ID proponents then try to extract one property such entities share with living things, such as “complexity”, and say that one ought to conclude, therefore, that living things were also designed.

But complexity, or whatever, was not the reason we concluded watches or pyramids were designed. Rather, the conclusion is based on already knowing what sorts of things can arise without human intervention, and that watches and pyramids are not among them.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

The parallel is not sound. You are comparing how a pyramid first comes into existence with how rats reproduce.

I believe that’s properly referred to as a contrast.

@Eddie

The proper parallel would compare how pyramids and rats first come into being. Note that classic design theorists such as Paley allowed that one rat could produce a new rat without a new rat’s being separately designed; however, that just pushes the question back in time to the first rat.

Except that there never was anything we could credibly call a “first rat.” Evolution only happens to populations. You keep forgetting that for polemic convenience.

@Eddie

And even if one granted the whole sequence of evolution back to the simplest life, that still leaves open the question of the possible design of the first life – which cannot be explained by reproduction.

No one who studies this in any detail thinks that there is a bright white line separating nonliving from living. The Lane book might help you with this important concept.

Therefore, your “first life” is as incoherent as your “first rat.”

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Mercer

Therefore, your “first life” is as incoherent as your “first rat.”

I think that if you want to understand the structure of this argument, you must review the South Park episode, “Gnomes.” The argument runs:

1. We know how pyramids are built and designed by humans.
2. We do not know how the ur-Rat was made, but we do know ur-ur-Rat to be an important place in the Bible.
3. ???
4. Profit!

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

we know in each individual case they cannot come into existence without human intervention.

[emphasis added]

No, we reason in each individual case that they cannot come into existence without intelligent planning. Using a similar procedure, many highly educated people have reasoned that the first life could not have come into existence without intelligent planning. I am not here defending that conclusion, but simply explaining the basic line of reasoning, which you have inaccurately stated.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

Which data, specifically, do YOU find to be compelling?

Approximately 65-85% of it. But it’s compelling only when considered in all its interconnections. And spelling out the interconnections would involve reproducing 65-85% of the books. Ain’t gonna happen. But any retired scientist has enough time to read them.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

No, we reason in each individual case that they cannot come into existence without intelligent planning

What is the process by which you believe that happens? Lay out each logical step.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@Mercer

Which data, specifically, do YOU find to be compelling?

Approximately 65-85% of it.

That’s not specific.

@Eddie

But it’s compelling only when considered in all its interconnections.

Then it’s not compelling at all.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Mercer

@Eddie

@Mercer

Which data, specifically, do YOU find to be compelling?

Approximately 65-85% of it.

That’s not specific.

IKR? If you asked any evolutionary biologist who is not a creationist whackaloon what genetic evidence he finds compelling, what sort of answer do you think you would get? Not the above, that’s for damn sure.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Eddie

we reason in each individual case that they cannot come into existence without intelligent planning.

Given that we even know the names of a couple of the architects, Imhotep and Hemiunu, not a lot of reasoning is required.

I agree with Faizal. We recognize artifacts not on the basis of analyzing their complexity, but due to familiarity. We see computers and two by fours equally as products of manufacture. On the other hand, babies are welcomed as miraculously intricate, but the parents know it was not designed, at least not in the immediate. The divine watchmaker is a rational analogy, but design is not essential to complexity.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@RonSewell

Given that we even know the names of a couple of the architects, Imhotep and Hemiunu, not a lot of reasoning is required.

But even without knowing that, we could infer the design. (And in fact, I don’t believe the names of those architects were known until very modern times, after the hieroglyphs were cracked, but that’s a side point.)

@RonSewell

We recognize artifacts not on the basis of analyzing their complexity, but due to familiarity. We see computers and two by fours equally as products of manufacture.

Yes, we can usually “see” that they are designed, but that’s not the same as “proving” that they are designed. And there are cases, e.g., odd-shaped ancient stone objects, where “designed or natural?” is not clear, and then our usual habit of just “seeing” that a thing is designed fails us, and we have to provide arguments, based on the features of the object, that it must have been designed. It’s the problematic cases that I was thinking of when responding to Faizal, but perhaps he was thinking primarily of the routine cases, and we weren’t talking about the same thing.

@RonSewell

The divine watchmaker is a rational analogy,

I agree.

@RonSewell

but design is not essential to complexity.

Obviously not for all kinds of complexity, e.g., some patterns of ice might seem “complex” and a tropical storm might be complex in its structure without being designed, but regarding organic complexity, it’s uncertain. Your example of babies is covered by Paley when he says that in self-reproducing things, there is still design, even if there is no conscious intentionality. E.g., parents may not “design” their individual offspring, but the template is carried within them, and it’s the template, not the act of reproduction, which for Paley is explained by design. Of course, many biologists will disagree, claiming that the template is perfectly explainable without design, and I’m not here saying they are wrong, but merely pointing out that the matter is uncertain.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Eddie

is not clear, and then our usual habit of just “seeing” that a thing is designed fails us, and we have to provide arguments, based on the features of the object, that it must have been designed.

True, there are boundary cases, but these are are generally resolved not by analyzing complexity, but by identifying evidence of manufacture such as tooling marks.