|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 19. June 2007 07:29
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AND DECISION MAKING
The decision processes involved in accepting or rejecting scientific theories are not fundamentally different from any other human decision processes. Of particular interest here, decisions regarding acceptance and rejection of scientific theories are distorted or corrupted in the same manner that other human decisions get distorted.
Any human decision process can be modeled with an algorithm of the type “Select from the set of available options the option with the highest ‘value’”. Values, for use in such a model would be calculated by a formula “W1*P1z+W2*P2z+….WN*PNz” where for each option z in the set of available options Z there is a value PKz for factor PK used in making the decision and an associated weight WK.
An optimal or near optimal decision is modeled when the full set of available options is evaluated, when the factors PK used in making the decision are appropriate, where appropriate methods are used for quantifying the factors and when appropriate weight or importance is assigned to each variable or factor. Inefficient or distorted or corrupted decisions are modeled and produced by 1) inappropriately limiting the set of option considered, 2) using inappropriate variables, 3) using inappropriate methods of assigning values, and/or 4) assigning inappropriate weights or importance to variables.
Academic science distorts or corrupts decision making regarding theories by refusing to recognize or consider teleological theories and by assigning inappropriate weight to subjective political opinions. The magnitude of the cumulative corruption produced by such distortions is rather impressive.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 19. June 2007 13:53
miosim,
I just got back from vacation and saw your post. You said a lot and it will take me awhile to digest it all. For now, I'll just respond to ethis:
quote:
“On the one hand the creationists and God-of-the-gaps evolutionists argue that nature is too UNCONGENIAL for life to have developed totally naturally and therefore supernatural input must have occurred.
On the other hand, the fine-tuners (often the same people) argue that the constants and laws of nature are exquisitely CONGENIAL to life, and so therefore they must have been supernaturally created. They can't have it both ways.”
This is a distortion of the ID position. The ID position is that both life and the laws of nature are too sophisticated and interdependent to be the result of undirected random causes.
We know and observe that life flourishes on this planet, yet nowhere at any time have we observed life self-organizing from non-life. Why is that? If "congeniality" to life is all that is necessary for the random processes to produce life, then we should see life popping into existence everywhere - since this planet is the most congenial to life of any we know of. Yet we do not observe this. It's not that "nature is too UNCONGENIAL for life", it that random processes are too uncongenial to the production of any type of sophisticated machinery - be it living or non-living.
Random processes can not produce the fine tuned universe or fine tuned biological life.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 20. June 2007 05:05
Daniel,
quote:
Random processes can not produce the fine tuned universe or fine tuned biological life.
A long time ago we decided it was more fruitful if we stopped trying to study objects' lightness/heaviness, coldness/hotness, wetness/dryness, etc., because the qualities, like being fine tuned, of objects are much to subjective.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 20. June 2007 07:15
THE BEHAVIOR OF SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
A lot of the confusion and controversy surrounding the scientific analysis of intelligent causation (and this includes human behavior, evolution and a variety of other intelligent behaviors) arises from a failure to understand the complex human social behavior we call scientific analysis.
To provide an appropriate framework, we should start by recognizing that the human social behavior of scientific analysis is not a modern discovery nor is it something that someone magically learns to perform when granted a Ph.D. Stonehenge is clear evidence that human’s acquired the ability to perform fairly sophisticated scientific analysis in what is called pre-historic times.
The starting point premise or hypothesis in analyzing the behavior of scientific analysis is that “There is a set or class of behaviors called ‘hard science analysis’ (and implicitly sets or classes of behavior called ‘not hard science analysis’ and the use of hard science behaviors materially increases the likelihood of solving complex problems”. Since we are defining intelligence in terms of problem solving, the starting point hypothesis might be expressed as “The behavior of hard science analysis materially increases human intelligence”.
I suspect that most people, or at least most scientists, accept the general validity of the starting point premise. Most people accept that the scientific method is, or at least can be, an effective and efficient method of solving problems. The issue is not the effectiveness of scientific behavior, but rather how much or how rapidly the problem solving effectiveness reduces as human social behavior departs from the optimal or idealized standards and principles of the scientific paradigm.
Of particular relevance to the discussion here, is question of “How much or how rapidly does the effectiveness of scientific analysis drop off if scientists fail to formulate appropriate testable predictive theories?” There are at least three fairly widely held lines of thought on the subject of testable theories:
1. Hard science predictive theories are a product of the later or more sophisticated stages of scientific analysis. The fact that the life sciences currently lack the knowledge or ability to formulate hard science theories may or may not currently diminish the effectiveness of life science, but sometime in the indefinite future such theories will be produced with the resulting increase in problem solving effectiveness. (This is one rationalization for the failure of life sciences to produce hard science theories)
2. There are acceptable alternatives to hard science theories (such as soft science or descriptive theories) that can be used in problem solving. While the problem solving effectiveness may be somewhat or slightly reduced by the use of alternative types of theories, the use of alternative theories can still result in effective problem solving. (This is the second major rationalization for the failure of the life sciences to produce hard science theories)
3. True scientific analysis can not be performed without the use of hard science predictive theories and most of the problem solving effectiveness of the scientific paradigm is lost when such theories are not generated or when alternative types of theories are used in analysis.
In the world today, we can actually perform hard science experimental testing to evaluate this question and determine which of the above expected results comes closest to matching actual results. We have all sorts of academic sciences performing what is called scientific analysis without actually producing hard science theories. The problem solving effectiveness of the soft science methodologies can be directly compared, under controlled conditions, to the problem solving effectiveness of hard science analysis performed using teleological theories.
The only real problems with such direct analysis of the behavior of scientific analysis, is that academic scientists are unable and unwilling to have their behavior tested using scientific methods.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 20. June 2007 13:32
IF:
quote:
A long time ago we decided it was more fruitful if we stopped trying to study objects' lightness/heaviness, coldness/hotness, wetness/dryness, etc., because the qualities, like being fine tuned, of objects are much to subjective.
That's interesting. So we cannot study the requirements for life because these requirements are subjective? This, even though these requirements are subject to direct observation and experimentation?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 20. June 2007 19:53
Mel,
quote:
So we cannot study the requirements for life because these requirements are subjective?
The requirements of life are allowed as are the requirments for death as is also the definition of the word requirement. quote:
This, even though these requirements are subject to direct observation and experimentation?
You are correct the requirements of the universe are subject to scientific inquiry just not its subjective aspects.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 22. June 2007 08:17
THE BEHAVIOR OF HARD SCIENCE ANALYSIS
IF asked earlier why, if it did, did academic science become corrupted and why or how could academic soft science depart so dramatically from the standards, concepts, principles and behaviors of hard science analysis. A big part of the answer appears to involve the communication/education processes associated with science.
An important feature of scientific analysis is its cumulative or progressive nature. Under ideal conditions, one scientist makes a discovery, reports his results, and a second scientist or group of scientists makes new discoveries building on the earlier work. At times, or under ideal conditions, this “discover, communicate/educate, more discoveries” process works extremely well. We should all be aware of instances where a single break through discovery led to an explosion of new discoveries. But even more common are situations where there are large numbers of published articles, but no real scientific progress.
To understand how and why hard science becomes corrupted and ineffective, it is useful to observe the differences between instances of ‘scientific stagnation’ and instances of ‘highly productive’ analysis. The conclusions presented here are based on my personal observations, but they could be readily confirmed by more formal study techniques.
If we look at instances of scientific stagnation, we will find clear problems both in the information generated for communication/education, and we will find clear problems in the learning/understanding of the materials communicated. A stagnating science will not involve reductions in or lack of materials generated for communications to other scientists. However, what you will find is that the materials being generated have little or no scientific value. You will find that the peer review selection process has essentially no ability to useful and useless findings. In fact, overtime the biases in the review process appear to cumulate, and after a period of time, the peer review process will begin to suppress useful analysis in favor or useless and misleading analysis. The existence of this cumulative bias and distortion can be demonstrated experimentally (if you understand and accept scientific methodologies).
The second problem/characteristic of a stagnant science is the problem of what is learned and understood from both educational and peer reviewed materials. In a stagnant science, it appears that readers and students learn little or nothing of the ‘scientific content’ of the materials taught. In a stagnant science, and possibly in all science, most readers and students only learn buzz words which become nothing more than magical incantations. Most people find it very difficult to learn and understand the relevant concepts of productive science. In stagnant sciences, where there is no feedback from people doing productive analysis, very little real useful learning ever occurs.
When you look at very successful and productive fields of science, you find very different processes for communicating useful knowledge. First, you find that only a tiny portion of the relevant knowledge is communicated via published papers and educational materials. The vast majority of useful knowledge is communicated informally by word of mouth. Even when there are relevant published articles or materials, there will be a lot of verbal communications regarding what is and what is not relevant in the published materials.
It will also be noted that this highly effective and highly efficient informal communication/education in successful sciences is not really open to everyone. It is only open to the relatively small portion of the relevant scientific community with the ability to understand the materials.
Again, the differences between productive and stagnant fields of science are readily confirmed by formal study and observation.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 22. June 2007 08:55
THE BEHAVIOR OF HARD SCIENCE ANALYSIS
The scientific analysis of intelligent causation provides an interesting interaction between a highly productive field of science along side a stagnant field of science, where both areas are supposedly addressing the same subject matter. Computer modeling and simulation of intelligent causation represents the extremely successful and effect field of science. Academic AI is the stagnant and unproductive field of science addressing intelligent causation.
Scientists and systems designers have attempted, and in most cases succeeded, in simulating some extremely complex forms of intelligent causation. Designers learned that many forms of intelligent causation, like voice recognition or walking or assembly a protein, that were believed to be simple turned out to be extremely complex. But although simulating complex forms of intelligent causation turned out to involve a wide range of very challenging technical problems, scientists and systems designers were able to find solutions.
It is an interesting to note that individuals actually involved in designing complex systems are generally familiar with the technical problems and solutions associated with simulating intelligent causation. Individuals whose training and exposure to the subject of intelligent causation is based on academic literature, appear to be unaware of the technical issues and solutions involved.
Individuals, like aiguy and IF, from the stagnant field of academic AI, apparently have no understanding or appreciation of what has actually been learned from work in the field of computer simulation of intelligent causation.
Again, it is interesting how two fields addressing the same subject matter, and with lots of contact between the individuals in the two fields can produce such different results and conclusions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 23. June 2007 15:32
miosim:
quote:
in my model our universe is hierarchically self-organized intelligent social systems (from atom to galactics). This organization is based on the intelligence of its elementary particles that collectively established and follow laws of Nature. From this point of view our universe indeed could be viewed as fine-tuned, however not by an external Agent, but from the inside, by its adaptive self-organized nature.
I'm trying to follow your logic, but am having a hard time grasping some of it. You are positing that basically everything is intelligent - correct? Is this "intelligence" anything like human intelligence? For instance, you say that intelligent "elementary particles" "collectively established and follow laws of Nature". How were these laws of Nature "collectively established"? Were they agreed upon? Voted upon? What system exists which provides any evidence of "particle intelligence"?
quote:
Suddenly, we may notice one car that is violating all traffic rules (probably because of a drunk driver) causing turmoil and all sorts of chaotic behaviors of traffic that violate deterministic laws. The greatest irony is that this car that violates “traffic laws” would be associated with emergence of life-like and goal-directed behavior (escaping from police chasing this car, for example).
Actually, the car that violates laws is most unlike life. It is more like cancer or something destructive to life. Life acts much more like the cars obeying the traffic laws - only with much more fidelity that humans do.
quote:
Because this life-like process occurs in the absence of an “organically correct” environment, it indicates that the life phenomenon doesn’t have to be based on organic material only, and could be created in any non-equilibrium chemical or physical medium.
That's quite a leap! "Life-like" does not equal "Life" by any stretch of the imagination.
quote:
Godfrey Louis, a solid-state physicist at Mahatma Gandhi University, published a paper in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Astrophysics and Space Science in which he hypothesizes that the samples, water taken from the mysterious blood-colored showers that fell sporadically across Louis's home state of Kerala in the summer of 2001 contain microbes from outer space. Dozens of experiments suggest that the particles may lack DNA yet still reproduce plentifully, even in water superheated to nearly 600 degrees Fahrenheit.
From Wikipedia:
"More plausibly, the suggestion has been made that the red raindust was the result of incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone, the particles being formed from microparticles of fly-ash or clay which coalesced around an aerosol of partly burnt organics as the incinerator plume cooled. The chemical composition of the raindust matches that of burnt organics plus clay; the fallout pattern matches with the prevailing winds; and it is hypothesized that these various organic chemicals will form cellular structures which replicate in the presence of clay."
Also:
"Further tests on the particles were carried out at Sheffield University by Milton Wainwright, who has studied stratospheric spores.[1][14] In March 2006 he said the particles were similar in appearance to spores of a rust fungus,[16] later saying that he had confirmed their similarity to spores or algae, and found no evidence to suggest that the rain contained dust, sand, fat globules or blood. He also said, “There appears to be an increasing tendency among scientists to come up with wild explanations when asked by the press to comment on unusual, novel phenomena. A good example is provided by comments about the recent Indian red rain phenomenon.”[17] A correction was printed in The Observer[18] regarding Dr. Wainwright's comment that the red rain lacked DNA. Dr. Wainwright asked in the correction to make clear that he currently had no view on whether the samples contained DNA and that it was physicist Godfrey Louis who is of that view.
A sample of the rain was also sent to Cardiff University for analysis by noted panspermia proponent Chandra Wickramasinghe. Wickramasinghe has reported on the 30th of March 2006 that “work in progress has yeilded [sic] positive for DNA”.[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala
So there are at least two other competing explanations for these "alien" life forms.
As to your other examples of "weird life", I'm interested to see what they actually find. You have to realize though that these things tend to get blown way out of proportion. Any evidence that something is "life-like" is hailed as a "major discovery" or a "breakthrough in understanding" of how life was formed, etc. What they don't tell you are all the drawbacks and negatives that separate these discoveries from real cellular life. They find one thing (meteoric "cell" membranes for example) and postulate the emergence of an entire cell - without any acknowledgment that a real cell is as complex as a small city. They may find the pieces, but they're a long, long way from connecting the dots.
quote:
In other words, you want me to demonstrate other living systems that are superior to the already known.
Or just other living systems.
quote:
The destructive character of natural selection is entirely adequate from the natural development of point of view. However, it is absolutely unacceptable from the Design perspective. Could you imagine a machine in which its parts compete and even destroy each other.
You mean like a car engine burns (destroys) gasoline in order to translate it into usable energy? Yes, I can imagine it. In fact it's common amongst designs.
quote:
If life was designed, how wasteful is this design?
I can find flaws with any design. Why is my chair not more comfortable? Why doesn't my car fly? And etc... These types of arguments don't take into account the overall effectiveness of the designs and their place within a larger system. Have you ever heard of a TV show called "Extreme Makeover Home Edition"? It's a show where they "makeover" a needy family's home in a week. They almost always begin by demolishing the original home and building a new one in it's place. This too is common in design.
quote:
Human-beings, eventually become the most powerful, and proclaimed themselves the only intelligent and conscience beings on this planet that justify a genocide over other species...
If this Life indeed resulted from Intelligent Design, the Designer wasn’t intelligent enough, or maybe John Davison is right that this Life was created as a Game and bad Joke only.
If you want to really analyze it, you are right - humans are "out of step" and are destroying the balances of nature on this planet. Remove man from this world and the overall balance of nature will return. That does not mean that they are not designed though. In fact it is perfectly in keeping with what would be expected if one holds to the Christian God perspective. Man is a fallen creature and is essentially in rebellion against the laws of God and nature.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 23. June 2007 15:39
IF:
quote:
Mel,
I'm Daniel.
quote:
quote:
So we cannot study the requirements for life because these requirements are subjective?
The requirements of life are allowed as are the requirments for death as is also the definition of the word requirement.
Agreed.
quote:
quote:
This, even though these requirements are subject to direct observation and experimentation?
You are correct the requirements of the universe are subject to scientific inquiry just not its subjective aspects.
All of the elements of "Fine-Tuning" are testable. None are subjective. These are, as LE would say, "Hard Science" tests and experiments. We can find the limits of hotness/coldness in which carbon based life can survive by direct experiment. Nothing subjective about it. The same is true for all the parameters of life. I'm interested in knowing specifically which of these parameters you find "subjective"?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 23. June 2007 19:13
Daniel,
quote:
All of the elements of "Fine-Tuning" are testable.
I looked up the definition of the word "fine-tune" and could not see how it could be used in a natural or biological sense! I thought you were using it in the same sense as words like wonderful, beautiful, exciting, etc. i.e. subjective qualities, no? Also, it seems that the dictionary definition also implies a human attempt to improve things it produces almost like the word "twiddle" in some contexts.
quote:
None are subjective. These are, as LE would say, "Hard Science" tests and experiments. We can find the limits of hotness/coldness in which carbon based life can survive by direct experiment. Nothing subjective about it. The same is true for all the parameters of life. I'm interested in knowing specifically which of these parameters you find "subjective"?
I guess I mis-understood how you were using the word since I agree that everything in nature is subject to tests, analysis, examination, etc.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 24. June 2007 14:51
Denial, quote:
You really need to read the book rather than look at excerpts. The book is 454 pages long and covers a wide range of topics …
I finally got the book “Nature’s Destiny” and after few chapters of reading I couldn’t force my self to continue, but instead read only the conclusion of each section and some selective paragraphs related to those conclusions. The whole book - almost 500 pages - filled with banal facts claimed by author to be remarkable, unique, ideal, amazing, incredible, and astonishing. This book probably intended for the readers who just want to reinforce their belief in Creation.
quote:
p.12
“… If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be much smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and the life span of about one year-far too short a time for a complex life to develop and flourish …”
Do you think that the trillion times difference represents fine-tuning or even coarse-tuning? We may need a new definition of what tuning is, just for this book. If you really want to understand the fine-tuning argument and its development, just follow “Anthropic principle” and its multiple links in Wikipedia.
quote:
p. 30
“Remarkable, the very high surface tension, because it tends to draw water into the narrow cracs and fissures, assists in the process of weathering and washing chemicals from the rocks. Also when it freezes, the rocks are fragmented, which in turn also assists the weathering process and the formation of soils”.
What is so REMARKABLE in this banal weathering process? Do you think that the weathering process is unique to our planet?
quote:
p. 253
“If inertia had been less, then the wind could well have set a boulder in motion. In such a world we would be subjected to a continual bombardment by all types of objects in our environment. However, if inertia had been much greater, then unless the strength of muscles was much greater, we would have profound difficulty even in starting to move our finger”
In this example the author just humiliates our ability of critical thinking.
quote:
p. 232
“It is remarkable fact that the great majority of the atom used in their synthesis are derived from only three very simple molecules that are available freely and in great abundance on the a surface of the earth: water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen.”
A similar REMARKABLE fact is that humans use to build their dwellings mostly from a material “freely and in great abundance” available to them: woods, stone or clay.
It is interesting that Michael Denton avoids mentioning God, as a creator of the universe, while his indirect implication to God and particularly Christian God is obvious:
quote:
p. 2 & 3
“The presumption that the entire cosmos was man-centered … was the overriding axiom upon which the whole civilization of medieval Europe was built. Not even the slightest deviation from such an all-embracing man-centered teleology was compatible with the Christian revelation. For the Bible implied that the grate drama of human history was central to purpose of God in creation. The earth was the unique and divinely chosen stage for the drama, and God himself had taken on the form of a man to bear the sins of creation…”
“…The anthropocentric vision of medieval Christianity is one of the most extraordinary-perhaps the most extraordinary-of all the presumptions of humankind. It is the ultimate and in a very real sense, the ultimate conceit. No other theory or concept ever imagined by man can equal in boldness and audacity this great claim-that everything revolves around human existence-that all the starry heavens, that every species of life, that every characteristic of reality exists for mankind and for mankind alone. It is a simply the most daring idea ever proposed. … In the last decades of twentieth century, its credibility is being enhanced by discoveries in several branches of fundamental science.”
Michael Denton’s careful avoidance of mentioning God makes me think that this book pretends to be an independent (from religion views) scientific inquiry into the recent discovery of fundamental sciences that, according to this book, “enhances credibility” of Creation. Because the fundamental sciences suggest quite an opposite, this book became just another agenda driven tool to mislead readers.
Daniel,
quote:
Later he [Michael Denton] adds this bold statement: "Just one clear case where a constituent of life or a law of nature is evidently not unique or ideally adopted for life, and the design hypothesis collapses."
This is not a bold statement, but a circus trick instead, because he probably knows that there is no proof of non existence: if this is a God, Alien, and especially such an illusive category as UNIQUE or IDEAL. By the way, can you explain to me what IDEAL is in the destructive nature of Life I described in the last posting, where “designed machines” destroy each other to just reuse their raw materials – does it make sense from the Intelligent Design point of view?
In conclusion I would like to quote two reviews from Amazon.com.
FLAWED FACTS AND ARGUMENTS , May 15, 2002
“… Not only are the arguments put forth in this book extremely weak, but Denton is in over his head when he addresses scientific subjects outside of his specialty of genetics…
For those who are interested in intelligent design creationism, Darwin's Black Box is a much better book - better argued, and Behe knows what he's talking about when he discusses biochemistry. If you don't believe me, take a look at the creation/evolution literature, and you'll see that Nature's Destiny is never cited, while works by Behe, Dembski and Johnson frequently are. “
ANOTHER ASSAULT ON FAITH, October 1, 1999
“For years, people have been trying to square the circle, create perpetual motion machines, and scientifically prove the existence of God. Most have concealed the logical fallacies of their arguments better than Denton, but the end result is always the same -- they fail…
… Scientific objectivity and religious faith can coexist quite happily. But knowledge of God cannot be sought in an objective study of the physical world. Only those lacking faith search there, and they will ultimately search in vain every time.”
Daniel,
I am done with this book, but if you want to consider some particular argument from it, I can hold this book until July 6.
Regards,
Mark
P.S. I will respond to your 23. June:32 posting later.
[ 24. June 2007, 17:07: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. June 2007 00:34
IF:
quote:
I guess I mis-understood how you were using the word since I agree that everything in nature is subject to tests, analysis, examination, etc.
I used the term "fine-tuning" as a general description of the close correspondence of the laws of nature to the parameters and limits within which life can exist - as in "The universe seems to be fine-tuned for the existence of life".
When you challenged the testability of fine-tuning, I assumed you were challenging the testability of those parameters and limits - which I now see you were not.
I guess we were basically talking past each other.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. June 2007 00:47
miosim:
quote:
Denial,
Was this intentional?
quote:
I finally got the book “Nature’s Destiny” and after few chapters of reading I couldn’t force my self to continue, but instead read only the conclusion of each section and some selective paragraphs related to those conclusions. The whole book - almost 500 pages - filled with banal facts claimed by author to be remarkable, unique, ideal, amazing, incredible, and astonishing. This book probably intended for the readers who just want to reinforce their belief in Creation.
OK. I take it you didn't like the book then? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It seems that you are not impressed at all that the universe, this world, and life's systems are just as they are. You're taking a lot for granted, in my opinion.
Let me ask you this: Do you find anything about life or the universe "remarkable", "amazing" or "incredible"?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. June 2007 01:22
miosim:
quote:
What is so REMARKABLE in this banal weathering process? Do you think that the weathering process is unique to our planet?
It's not just the weathering process -- (in fact it's not the weathering process at all!) -- it's all the properties of water he finds so "remarkable". This is one sentence out of a whole chapter about water. Isolating one particular property of water and proclaiming it (in your opinion) "unremarkable" does not alter the fact that water has many, many unique properties that are uniquely fit for life on this planet. It also does not in any way negate his argument.
To negate his argument, you must show that water is essentially unremarkable and not any more fit for life than some other chemical.
By the way, the main reason Denton's book is not cited by proponents of Creationism is because he is not a Christian and he argues in favor of evolution and common descent. You might think you detect a "Christian", but - as a believer who can readily detect the signature signs of other believers in their writings - I can assure you, Michael Denton is no closet Creationist. He's just not hostile to the idea of "God" - like so many atheists are.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
