|
Author
|
Topic: Cosmic Coincidences, Grand Unified Theory, and ID
|
Jacob A. Salamon
Member
Member # 503
|
posted 10. July 2003 12:55
It seems to me that ID concentrates too narrowly on the themes of Specified and Irreducible Complexity.
The hundreds of cosmic coincidences that were necessary for the possibility of life on earth is an equally strong argument for a designer, and should be part of the ID arsenal.
Some opponents of the Cosmic Coincidences argument claim that as our understanding of the laws of physics grow we will be able to see that the existence of life was a necessary outcome of these laws. But even if this turns out to be the case - would this not provide an even stronger argument for design? How did the massive, chaotic Big Bang explosion give rise to laws of physics favoring life as opposed to any others? (Indeed why are there any laws of physics at all?) The only possible reply is that the laws were front loaded into the Big Bang itself by a designer.
The physicist's search for a Grand Unified Theory would have to be able to explain the existence of life (indeed all biological phenomena) as well as the laws of physics. If it does not, then it is not complete, and by definition NOT a 'grand unified theory'. And again the same argument of the previous paragraph would apply - where did all this order (read 'information') come from?
The bottom line is that the above arguments make an equally strong case for ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 10. July 2003 16:58
In other words,
"The fact that the laws of the universe are perfect for life is evidence for a Designer. The fact that the laws of the universe can't produce life is evidence for a Designer."
...right?
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/hunch/hunch.html
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 10. July 2003 18:00
tis indeed unfair...
It is quite possible that natural laws cannot derive biological complexity while being capable of accounting for the formation of stars, planets, solar systems.
I don't see any parallel for the genetic code in quarks, quantum mechanics, big bangs, or other such physical constructs outside of biology.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob A. Salamon
Member
Member # 503
|
posted 10. July 2003 23:49
As a matter of fact many physicists and mathematicians have expressed their utter amazement that the universe is describable via beautiful and concise mathematical equations, rather than to be governed by total unpredictable chaos.
The existence of the universe in itself, even without any biological phenomena is indeed an argument for ID as well.
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 11. July 2003 01:12
Jacob
The argument you are discussing is normally referred to as a "Fine-tuning argument." Unless you are considering the entire universe as a whole and trying to argue that knocking out one solar system will cause the rest of it to cease functioning, it is not a case of irreducible complexity.
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 11. July 2003 02:01
Josh,
You seem to miss Jacob's argument, if I understand you correctly. Jacob says that the "fine tuning" argument is an additional argument that should be used in addition to the irreducible complex and the specified complexity arguments. I agree that the "fine tuning" supports ID. Some arguments that may be included within this framework is the orbit of the earth. If the earth was too eliptical the temperature swings would be extreme limiting the possibility of life. The distance from the sun is also an important factor. Too close, the earth would be extremely hot, but if it was too far, it would be extremely cold. The nuclear reactions within the earth are another possible fine tuning argument. The earths temperature underground is maintained nearly constant or with small variation.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rompecabezas
Member
Member # 814
|
posted 11. July 2003 10:41
quote:
The existence of the universe in itself, even without any biological phenomena is indeed an argument for ID as well.
It seems overly convenient to claim that the mere existence of the universe argues in favor of any particular theory. I wonder if any criteria whatsoever exist that would suggest a lack of intelligent design.
"I have made some estimates of the probability that a chance distribution of physical constants can produce a universe with properties sufficient that some form of life would have likely had sufficient time to evolve. In this study, I randomly varied the constants of physics (I assume the same laws of physics as exist in our universe, since I know no other) over a range of ten orders of magnitude around their existing values. For each resulting "toy" universe, I computed various quantities such as the size of atoms and the lifetimes of stars. I found that almost all combinations of physical constants lead to universes, albeit strange ones, that would live long enough for some type of complexity to form." Victor J. Stenger, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii, 'The Unconscious Quantum'(1995), chapter 8.
My point is that Stenger's argument could also be used to support ID. Whether the universe is just right for the formation of complexity or whether it could have produced complexity with virtually any other combination of physical constants, either way we have an argument for ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 11. July 2003 17:42
Jacob A. Salamon says, “It seems to me that ID concentrates too narrowly on the themes of Specified and Irreducible Complexity.” Well ... one suspects a lot of anti-ID people are not so troubled by front-loading at some far removed singularity, and physics has been moving in the direction of design. One also observes great discomfort over interventionism – in theological circles, especially, the antipathy may be insuperable. The Revolution, therefore, has its front lines in biology. But this does not preclude ID entering the picture at other levels.
As physics softens on Design – at least Design is now on the table – so will biology soften. And so will the mind sciences.
A great read is that of the atheist Martin J. Rees (Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, Basic Books, 2001) – Rees freely concedes that physics has two options: Design or Many Worlds. Though he opts for Many Worlds he is not hostile to those who don’t. And Michael Denton (Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Free Press, 2002) carries the Anthropic concept into biology.
Ideas! Challenge! Ferment! Great time to be alive!
Many found John Horgan (The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age, Broadway Books, 1997) delightful reading but depressingly pessimistic. Well, science may well be at a dead end in regard to some “Grand Unified Theory” because, as Jacob suggests, it “would have to be able to explain the existence of life (indeed all biological phenomena) as well as the laws of physics. If it does not, then it is not complete, and by definition NOT a ‘grand unified theory’.”
Yersina sees incoherence: “The fact that the laws of the universe are perfect for life is evidence for a Designer. The fact that the laws of the universe can't produce life is evidence for a Designer.”
You think you’re being illogical?!
If the laws of physics are contingent (Martin Rees is rather confident that they are but David Berlinski says it’s too early to tell) – but if the laws are contingent then they are fortuitous or they are designed. And even if designed they may still be insufficient to produce life – Bill Dembski has commented more than once on how that they are indeed insufficient. The question of design is applicable at all levels of reality, from the highest level right on down to my fumbling end-of-the-work-week post.
Being hospitable for life and having the ability to produce life are not the same thing! Consider a a work of art – a painting. The canvas was made for the painting but it did not produce the painting.
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 11. July 2003 18:30
Noel,
The point of the somewhat snarky quote is that the anthropic view *depends* on the evolutionary view in order to make an anthropic design argument. If you want life to come about via slow natural processes, then you need a very long-term, very stable universe, with stars that produce the right elements over billions of years of supernovas, etc. Within such a context, arguing that the universe was "set up" to produce life is at least a coherant view, although without much evidence IMO.
If you're going to just create via "poof", then why bother with the rest? You could just as well create a universe consisting of a stationary earth, with the sun, planets and stars orbiting it in various shells. This would look far more designed. It would then be obvious that earth and life were the point of it all, whereas at the moment it looks like life is a speck of dust in an otherwise virtually unrelenting black void (to be a bit Carl Sagan-y about it).
[ 11. July 2003, 18:31: Message edited by: yersinia ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 11. July 2003 19:21
Ah yes ... glad for the clarification, Yersina -- good point. This is why ID is so great. No a priori philosophical/religious prejudices. Is there design? No a priori committment to instantaneous "poof" creation of Cosmos, no bias against evolutionary development (as distinct from Darwinism), just the question: Can we detect design? Can we distinguish design from chance and necessity?
This is why I think theories of design based on human technology are so much superior to those derived from philosophical/religious presupposition. We know design when we see it, we know that we advance it. Can we detect it elsewhere?
Yes ... an a priori committment to the instantaneous creation of the cosmos is as bad as an a priori committment to naturalism. That is ... if what we're really after is the truth.
You bring up an excellent point. In answer I would say that ID is not impressed with Anthropic phenomena in support of front-loading into the cosmos all the physical laws and constants such that Darwin can have his day. Bill Dembski, as I mentioned (and as I recall), has repeatedly said that the physical laws cannot innovate design, cannot increase information. Design is not derivative, ID is not reductionist materialism, rather design is elemental. Thus I see such fine-tuning ... if the laws are not Platonic but truly contingent ... as evidence for design at this particular level of reality -- design that makes the cosmos hospitable for life. Let me suggest that ID considers design as foundational and looks for it in physics, in biology, and in the human mind.
Have a good weekend!
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 11. July 2003 20:16
Noel:
well, if you are not for front-loading design, you are for poof-design. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Seriously, I think mechanistically there are only 3 definable options for ID:
- long-term, "universal" front-loading (indistinguishable from naturalsm);
- short-term "local" front-loading, a la Mike Gene, also basically indistinguishable from naturalism, except for the occasional detail, here and there (molecular machines and stuff);
- "poofing", indistinguishable from old-fashioned Creationism (except for occasional details, for instance "poofing" may allow for common descent to a smaller or larger extent, depending on tastes).
I know ID is not supposed to be a mechanistic theory, at least according to Dembski, but I am wondering whether there are any alternatives. Are there?
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 12. July 2003 04:55
charlie, you left out EAM!
:-)
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 12. July 2003 17:49
kyle7 writes:
quote:
I agree that the "fine tuning" supports ID.
And is compatible with biological evolution. This is similar to Howard VanTill's suggestion that "creation" was designed or "gifted" with the capacity for both stellar formation and biological evolution. Perhaps this is an area where ID can easily co-operate with standard ideas of biological evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 14. July 2003 10:57
The design question is applicable at all levels ... at the level of the laws and constants, at the origin of galaxies, the origin of our solar system, the origin of life, the origin of species ... At the highest level the question is not so disturbing, that is, if after that we stop asking it.
And thus philosophically committed men like Howard Van Till and Edward T. Oakes are among ID's most vociferous critics.
Let us be forwarned: ID will not stop asking the question even at the most uncomfortable points. ID will not be turned into just another brand of reductionist materialism. Design does not supervene on chance and necessity, nor is it the product of soulless machines. Design is not an evolved phenomenon. Design is where innovation begins. At least this is the intuition and the claim. And it is a question that must be asked and seriously investigated at all levels. Not to do so leaves the issue of origins in the realm of philosophy.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob A. Salamon
Member
Member # 503
|
posted 14. July 2003 12:35
Regarding Charlie d's comments above, I think the point of ID is not whether design was 'poof' or front loaded per se. The main goal is to ascertain if there IS a designer. How the designer accomplished all this is a separate issue.
Even if the existence of a designer is proved, the next big question is - is it a Deistic designer or a personal one that takes an interest in the Universe.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic