However, I just read (skimmed) his discussion on the mature earth, theistic evolution and ID. It isn't a bad read, and he seems like a balanced and intelligent man. It also sounds like Steve and he would disagree about the "mature earth", the "appearance of age", etc.
Note, whether this matters to your personally or not, that he is not an empiricist, but a mathematician.
The author focuses almost exlusively upon the flagellum for his discussion of ID. It is imperative to note that since the writing of the book, two publications have drastically improved the scientific knowledge of the flagellum, and explained its origins in terms of protein homology among preexistent systems (cooption). I refer you to Matzke for the overview, and to a review article for more if you want it.
The author briefly mentions duplications, redundancy and "scaffolding", but doesn't bother to do much serious examination of them. Fine. But, these are not just "some explanations" used for the flagellum, but the standard explanations for everything in molecular biology, which we find confirmed via parahomology and "pseudogenes" and etc. -- these aren't ad hoc, IOW, and they weren't "created" for the flagellum.
One thing that made me smile was his mention of chemistry -- he gave away the logical flaw in the "beauty and symmetry" approach in his admitting: This explanation of gases based on molecular motion might seem to take the fascination and beauty out of the formula. The formula and its proportionalities become “merely” a secondary effect of the underlying reality, which is individual molecules moving around. Yet our commitment to a Christian worldview, with its affirmation of multilevel reality, should encourage us to retain the sense of fascination and beauty. God wants us to enjoy the large-scale, tangible effects, with our observations of pressure and volume, as well as to enjoy probing underlying levels... (p. 314)
He also goes on to admit that things are never as "perfect" as they seem, as he discusses VdW equation for gases, which isn't ideal at all.
Funniest thing is that he misses that all of this "beauty and symmetry" is absolutely requisite to a functioning universe in which life is possible. Show me how fundamental forces can be anything but symmetric and constant, whilst allowing life and the structures that give rise to them...?
I just thought that worth pointing out -- we couldn't exist in a universe which didn't have symmetry in all of its underlying forces (and thus particles, and thus their interactions, at thus...etc). Such a universe, one might argue, couldn't even exist -- it would be impossible for matter to occupy space and time in any conceivable way without the constancy and symmetry of the fundamental forces.
Funniest thing is that he misses that all of this "beauty and symmetry" is absolutely requisite to a functioning universe in which life is possible. Show me how fundamental forces can be anything but symmetric and constant, whilst allowing life and the structures that give rise to them...?
I just thought that worth pointing out -- we couldn't exist in a universe which didn't have symmetry in all of its underlying forces (and thus particles, and thus their interactions, at thus...etc). Such a universe, one might argue, couldn't even exist -- it would be impossible for matter to occupy space and time in any conceivable way without the constancy and symmetry of the fundamental forces.
*************************************
Yes, but that dodges the basic issue. Say I have terminal heart disease. I won't survive if I don't get a heart transplant.
But if I suddenly jump from the bottom of the donor list to the top--skipping over thousands of other heart patients higher up the list--it's reasonable to suspect that some money changed hands.
I suppose you're invoking the Anthropic Principle?
A few considerations: 1) We don't know if our universe is the only one or not. We simply don't know, either way. There is no evidence for or against it. IF a great number, or infinite number, of other universes exist, with different fundamental forces (and thus no life), ours is not "special" -- no "money has changed hands". 2) We don't know what precedes the first ability of physics to peer into the past for our own universe. The singularity may be the result of prior contractions and expansions, whether or not this particular universe will ever have a "big crunch". The cyclic universe is actually reviving amongst academic cosmologists, esp Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, who have a nice FAQ on the subject. This doesn't invoke other universes, simply other possible configurations of our own. That is, if our universe has cycled through an enormous number of configurations, it is only reasonable to expect one of those to be like ours. 3) Given all other constants are set as they are, altering one of them is catastrophic for the potential of life. However, physicists will readily admit that changing these constants in ratios is completely beyond our ability to predict the consequences of. That is, if we tweak G by a certain amount, and we tweak the property of the strong nuclear force as well in some way, and of EM, and of the weak nuclear force...no one knows what ratios would still give a universe with the properties necessary for life. No one knows.
In that sense, the "money changing hands" argument is largely predicated upon that which we do not know: i) how many universes there are ii) how many cycles our universe has gone through iii) how many configurations of the forces of our own universe would still result in life
It is imperative to note that since the writing of the book, two publications have drastically improved the scientific knowledge of the flagellum, and explained its origins in terms of protein homology among preexistent systems (cooption).
******************************** The problem with this comeback, Daniel, is that neither side ever has the last word.
The IDs make a claim, then the anti-IDs make a counterclaim, then the ID's make a counter-counterclaim, and round and around it goes.
There is a slight difference as time goes on -- knowledge accumulates. Admittedly, interpretation of said data changes.
I think this does change the nature of the debate, though. Much of the IC claim has been, "How in the world could that have happened?" The supposed positive argument for design has never survived an examination -- the UPB. Therefore, the negative claim is all that has remained as a valid claim.
As knowledge accumulates, we both know that "deniable plausibility" goes down. Yes, there are always "hidey-holes" in which one can make a "last stand" (I thought the author's mention of YEC's was accurate in this sense -- people who stand facing the wind and stake out their fighting ground). But, the credibility of these positions erodes with time, just as supernatural explanations of nearly everything in our universe have -- and have been transferred to "secondary creation" and to divine initiation.
But I understand your point, and without a background in the oft-recondite material concerned here, it really is a lose-lose battle for the public. They either appeal to scientific authorities or go with what they want to be true by going with the fractional minority view.
Do I have the delusion of grandeur that one day science will stomp out such arguments? No. I am not sure that I even wish that to happen. That would mean that tentative scientific knowledge will one day become certitude, which is almost the same as dogma. Of course, if it becomes "certain" via the right method (piles of evidence and convergence of theory), then I suppose I shouldn't be skeptical of it, should I?
WOw!
ReplyDeleteThanks for letting us know
Usually, you get what you pay for ;-)
ReplyDeleteHowever, I just read (skimmed) his discussion on the mature earth, theistic evolution and ID. It isn't a bad read, and he seems like a balanced and intelligent man. It also sounds like Steve and he would disagree about the "mature earth", the "appearance of age", etc.
Note, whether this matters to your personally or not, that he is not an empiricist, but a mathematician.
The author focuses almost exlusively upon the flagellum for his discussion of ID. It is imperative to note that since the writing of the book, two publications have drastically improved the scientific knowledge of the flagellum, and explained its origins in terms of protein homology among preexistent systems (cooption). I refer you to Matzke for the overview, and to a review article for more if you want it.
The author briefly mentions duplications, redundancy and "scaffolding", but doesn't bother to do much serious examination of them. Fine. But, these are not just "some explanations" used for the flagellum, but the standard explanations for everything in molecular biology, which we find confirmed via parahomology and "pseudogenes" and etc. -- these aren't ad hoc, IOW, and they weren't "created" for the flagellum.
One thing that made me smile was his mention of chemistry -- he gave away the logical flaw in the "beauty and symmetry" approach in his admitting:
This explanation of gases based on molecular motion might seem to take the fascination and beauty out of the formula. The formula and its proportionalities become “merely” a secondary effect of the underlying reality, which is individual molecules moving around. Yet our commitment to a Christian worldview, with its affirmation of multilevel reality, should encourage us to retain the sense of fascination and beauty. God wants us to enjoy the large-scale, tangible effects, with our observations of pressure and volume, as well as to enjoy probing underlying levels... (p. 314)
He also goes on to admit that things are never as "perfect" as they seem, as he discusses VdW equation for gases, which isn't ideal at all.
Funniest thing is that he misses that all of this "beauty and symmetry" is absolutely requisite to a functioning universe in which life is possible. Show me how fundamental forces can be anything but symmetric and constant, whilst allowing life and the structures that give rise to them...?
I just thought that worth pointing out -- we couldn't exist in a universe which didn't have symmetry in all of its underlying forces (and thus particles, and thus their interactions, at thus...etc). Such a universe, one might argue, couldn't even exist -- it would be impossible for matter to occupy space and time in any conceivable way without the constancy and symmetry of the fundamental forces.
Daniel Morgan said...
ReplyDeleteFunniest thing is that he misses that all of this "beauty and symmetry" is absolutely requisite to a functioning universe in which life is possible. Show me how fundamental forces can be anything but symmetric and constant, whilst allowing life and the structures that give rise to them...?
I just thought that worth pointing out -- we couldn't exist in a universe which didn't have symmetry in all of its underlying forces (and thus particles, and thus their interactions, at thus...etc). Such a universe, one might argue, couldn't even exist -- it would be impossible for matter to occupy space and time in any conceivable way without the constancy and symmetry of the fundamental forces.
*************************************
Yes, but that dodges the basic issue. Say I have terminal heart disease. I won't survive if I don't get a heart transplant.
But if I suddenly jump from the bottom of the donor list to the top--skipping over thousands of other heart patients higher up the list--it's reasonable to suspect that some money changed hands.
I suppose you're invoking the Anthropic Principle?
ReplyDeleteA few considerations:
1) We don't know if our universe is the only one or not. We simply don't know, either way. There is no evidence for or against it. IF a great number, or infinite number, of other universes exist, with different fundamental forces (and thus no life), ours is not "special" -- no "money has changed hands".
2) We don't know what precedes the first ability of physics to peer into the past for our own universe. The singularity may be the result of prior contractions and expansions, whether or not this particular universe will ever have a "big crunch". The cyclic universe is actually reviving amongst academic cosmologists, esp Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, who have a nice FAQ on the subject. This doesn't invoke other universes, simply other possible configurations of our own. That is, if our universe has cycled through an enormous number of configurations, it is only reasonable to expect one of those to be like ours.
3) Given all other constants are set as they are, altering one of them is catastrophic for the potential of life. However, physicists will readily admit that changing these constants in ratios is completely beyond our ability to predict the consequences of. That is, if we tweak G by a certain amount, and we tweak the property of the strong nuclear force as well in some way, and of EM, and of the weak nuclear force...no one knows what ratios would still give a universe with the properties necessary for life. No one knows.
In that sense, the "money changing hands" argument is largely predicated upon that which we do not know:
i) how many universes there are
ii) how many cycles our universe has gone through
iii) how many configurations of the forces of our own universe would still result in life
Daniel Morgan said...
ReplyDeleteIt is imperative to note that since the writing of the book, two publications have drastically improved the scientific knowledge of the flagellum, and explained its origins in terms of protein homology among preexistent systems (cooption).
********************************
The problem with this comeback, Daniel, is that neither side ever has the last word.
The IDs make a claim, then the anti-IDs make a counterclaim, then the ID's make a counter-counterclaim, and round and around it goes.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThere is a slight difference as time goes on -- knowledge accumulates. Admittedly, interpretation of said data changes.
I think this does change the nature of the debate, though. Much of the IC claim has been, "How in the world could that have happened?" The supposed positive argument for design has never survived an examination -- the UPB. Therefore, the negative claim is all that has remained as a valid claim.
As knowledge accumulates, we both know that "deniable plausibility" goes down. Yes, there are always "hidey-holes" in which one can make a "last stand" (I thought the author's mention of YEC's was accurate in this sense -- people who stand facing the wind and stake out their fighting ground). But, the credibility of these positions erodes with time, just as supernatural explanations of nearly everything in our universe have -- and have been transferred to "secondary creation" and to divine initiation.
But I understand your point, and without a background in the oft-recondite material concerned here, it really is a lose-lose battle for the public. They either appeal to scientific authorities or go with what they want to be true by going with the fractional minority view.
Do I have the delusion of grandeur that one day science will stomp out such arguments? No. I am not sure that I even wish that to happen. That would mean that tentative scientific knowledge will one day become certitude, which is almost the same as dogma. Of course, if it becomes "certain" via the right method (piles of evidence and convergence of theory), then I suppose I shouldn't be skeptical of it, should I?
Best,
D