Nature's Destiny - Michael Denton

[otseng]

This thread is to debate the book Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton.

The following debaters are allowed to participate:
Cathar1950
McCulloch
Confused
Furrowed Brow
otseng

Here is the agenda:
- Start off with background info of the author and book.
- Clarify any terms used.
- Cover one chapter at a time and debate the points made in that chapter. We might skip some chapters if we agree to it.
- Give closing arguments and final thoughts on the book.
- Go out for a drink.

[Confused]

Denton is the one claiming they are the superior designs. If I can point to as many flaws in the design that currently exists, as I have already done, then I effectively diminish the potency of his claim.

However, I do not think Denton makes this claim.

Rather, what he does say is:

We have seen that, in the case of water, the carbon atom, the process of oxidation, the light of main sequence stars, the earth's hydrosphere, etc., the evidence suggest strongly that each is uniquely and optimally fit for its particular biological role. If the teleological position is correct, the DNA-protein system should also be uniquely and maximally fit for the advanced type of cellular life that exists on earth today.

... it seems hardly conceivable that there could be any other two molecules as mutually fit, or more perfectly adapted to play the fundamental roles of "information bearer" and "constructor device" in a self-replicating automaton as complex and intricate as the cell.

Dentons argument has yet to show how the universe adapted for life as opposed to how life adapted to the universe.

As I've mentioned, none of the things presented so far can be explained as life adapting to the universe. All the things presented have been the basic components that are the building blocks of life. All these are necessary before even the first life could come about.

And before the first cell spontaneously appeared, life would ultimately lead to being based on light, Earthlike atmosphere, carbon, water, oxygen, and even possibly DNA and proteins. The fact is that anything else would be suboptimal or not even possible.

Thus Nature’s Destiny never manages to move off the base of a weak anthropic principle - things look the way they are because that’s the way we find them.

The book addresses this charge:

It is sometimes claimed by critics of the design hypothesis that the universe is bound to look as if it is designed for our existence because we could only be here if the universe was adapted for our existence. There is abviously an element of truth in this line of argument, for indeed the universe must be adapted to some degree for life but rather on the far stronger claim that the cosmos is otimally adapted for life so that every constituent of the cell and every law of nature is uniquely and ideally fashioned to that end.

The design hypothesis can, of course, be refuted ... For example, the discovery of an alternative liquid as fit as water for carbon-based life, or of a superior mean of constructing a genetic tape, better than the double helix, of alternatives superior to oxidation, superior to proteins ...

I am currently reading The Cosmic Landscape by Leonard Susskind which addresses many of the things you have raised. Give me a few days to finish it, so I can get reference. My thought process can't seem to get past the fact that Denton is spending 75% of his book trying to lead the reader to come to one and only one conclusion. He is presenting science 101, but it seems like he is leaving a lot out, intentionally. But I can't pinpoint it. I just know when I am being led around by a leash, and that feels exactly what he is doing. So I need some other perspective before I can move on.

[Furrowed Brow]

It is sometimes claimed by critics of the design hypothesis that the universe is bound to look as if it is designed for our existence because we could only be here if the universe was adapted for our existence.

I don’t know who these critics are but they could have put things better, and in reality Denton has already phrased things so to - as Confused puts it - lead us by a leash. OK lets play along with Denton for a moment. Say the Carbon atom is the only element that in Denton’s phrase is fit for life. No other element can be turned into life. And no other universe configured in a completely different way to this one could ever produce life. It’s carbon or nothing. Even if that were true the universe is still not designed for our existence, and the universe is not adapted for our existence either. This language is already loaded. All that can be said is that if and where there is a universe with Carbon in it, then that universe stands a chance of bearing life. And if life in that universe occurs, then they will see they are made of carbon. Words like design and adaptation have absolutely no bearing.

Ok now say there is more that just Carbon. Lets add to the list. Write down anything you want. Make the list as long as you want. And then lets for argument sake concede to Denton that all these things and only these things are fit for life. Denton gains no more ground. We come back to the same fundamental point. If there is only one unique universe with a very rare balance of precise conditions that could ever support life, then if there is life they will see those conditions.

So when Denton offers the retort to his critics...

However, the conclusion to design is not based on evidence that that [1] the laws of nature are adapted to some degree for life but rather on the far stronger claim that [2]the cosmos is optimally adapted for life so that every constituent of the cell and every law of nature is uniquely and ideally fashioned to that end.

...he is purveying the kind of intellectual slight of hand that drives me nuts.

The weak anthropic principle does not admit 1. There is no “adaptation”. It is not the case that we see the universe the way it is because its rules are adapted to allow some degree of life. We’re here! - so we see the universe with principles sufficient for us to be here to see them. Even if we concede that there are a plethora of unique conditions that are necessary for life. Observers, if they exist, are still going to find themselves observing those conditions. Again absolutely no need to introduce the words “ideally“, “adapted”, “designed” or “fashioned”. This argument is smoke and mirrors.

[QED]

The weak anthropic principle does not admit 1. There is no “adaptation”. It is not the case that we see the universe the way it is because its rules are adapted to allow some degree of life. We’re here! - so we see the universe with principles sufficient for us to be here to see them. Even if we concede that there are a plethora of unique conditions that are necessary for life. Observers, if they exist, are still going to find themselves observing those conditions. Again absolutely no need to introduce the words “ideally“, “adapted”, “designed” or “fashioned”. This argument is smoke and mirrors.

But isn't their argument resting upon the fact that we only see one universe and from this observation is drawn the assumption that this is the only universe (an observation aided and abetted by a linguistic convenience) -- and hence for it to be so well constituted for life in so many highly improbable ways leads to the conclusion that it must have been selected with care.

So it seems to me that this whole argument rests entirely upon the enormous statistical errors involved in a "sample of one".

[Furrowed Brow]

The weak anthropic principle does not admit 1. There is no “adaptation”. It is not the case that we see the universe the way it is because its rules are adapted to allow some degree of life. We’re here! - so we see the universe with principles sufficient for us to be here to see them. Even if we concede that there are a plethora of unique conditions that are necessary for life. Observers, if they exist, are still going to find themselves observing those conditions. Again absolutely no need to introduce the words “ideally“, “adapted”, “designed” or “fashioned”. This argument is smoke and mirrors.

But isn't their argument resting upon the fact that we only see one universe and from this observation is drawn the assumption that this is the only universe (an observation aided and abetted by a linguistic convenience) -- and hence for it to be so well constituted for life in so many highly improbable ways leads to the conclusion that it must have been selected with care.

So it seems to me that this whole argument rests entirely upon the enormous statistical errors involved in a "sample of one".

Yep. So the argument is very very very weak on two counts. Poor stats, and the puddle who thinks its hole is designed just for him.

[otseng]

And if life in that universe occurs, then they will see they are made of carbon.

This is precisely what Denton is saying.

For life we need the carbon atom and water, and for complex life we neeed oxygen, we need carbon dioxide, we need bicarbonate, we need the transitional metals, we need an atmosphere like that on earth, and we need all the chemical and physical properties precisely as they are. And for life anywhere in the cosmos it will be the same. For there is no alternative.

It is not the case that we see the universe the way it is because its rules are adapted to allow some degree of life

The issue is that if the properties were not adjusted, set, positioned for what they are, then life would not be possible at all.

Take the point where the density of water is lower in solid state than in liquid state. This anomoly is required for any marine life to exist. If water behaved like any other liquid, there would be no marine life. Fortuitous chance that this anomoly occurs for water? It's possible. But, what we see is a multitude of fortuitous chances. And as the evidence mounts, the conclusion of intentional design strengthens.

The strength of any teleological argument is basically accumulative. It does not lie with any one individual piece of evidence alone but with a whole series of coincidences all of which point irresistibly to one conclusion.

It lies in the summation of all the evidence, in the whole long chain of coincidences which leads so convincingly toward the unique end of life, in the fact that all the independent lines of evidence fit together into a beautiful self-consistent teleological whole.

But isn't their argument resting upon the fact that we only see one universe

Any observation would be based on only one universe. Whether we are talking about physics, science, mathematics, history, etc. To base our understanding on what we observe on the "one" universe we have is all we can go upon.

and from this observation is drawn the assumption that this is the only universe

I think it is a fairly solid assumption. Especially considering the fact that there is no evidence that there are any other universes.

So it seems to me that this whole argument rests entirely upon the enormous statistical errors involved in a "sample of one".

Denton's arguments rests upon the scientific facts that we observe in our universe. And makes a conclusion that applies to our own universe. The fact that he only observes our own universe does not diminish his argument.

[Furrowed Brow]

Sorry Otseng. But from this…

what we see is a multitude of fortuitous chances.

This does not follow.

And as the evidence mounts, the conclusion of intentional design strengthens.

Ok the definition of fortuitous is in my dictionary on my lap “happening by chance rather than by design” This is an encyclopaedic Readers Digest Word power dictionary. From fortuitous chance only fortuitous chance follows - you never get design.

For sake of argument I have conceded Denton all the ground he wants, and still the design argument gains zero purchase. That was the point of my previous post. Stack up all the precise condition you want as high as you want. Cutting through all the loaded language, cold logic dictates that this stack of criteria is no evidence for design. The argument Denton puts forward is bereft of merit, and that he has the cheek to put it forward as a serious contribution really gets my goat. (Sorry goat).

Let me go one further step. Say there really is a designer, That all those multitude of chance conditions have been designed. They are still not evidence of that. Why? Take two apparently identical universes. One designed by intelligence one the outcome of chance. There is no way of saying which one is designed unless the universes are different in some important respect. The respect being that the designed universe contains something, some aspect, some principle that chance cannot produce.

I think your choice of the word “fortuitous” is suggestive of another word like “fortunate” and thus your defence of Denton hints at luck playing some role. So it could seem as if those chances conditions are too lucky a coincidence to be believed. If there is any notion like that lurking behind the idea of a “multitude of fortuitous chance” then we need to ask where did the notion of “luck” creep in to the discourse. Ok it is perhaps humble to think humanity are lucky to exist considering that some slight variation in the conditions of the universe might mean not just us, but all life might not exist. But that sobering thought, still gives zero credence to the notion that there was some hand behind how the universe is. And we still never leave the same old point that carbon, light seeing life forms will see, if they come to exist, that they are made of carbon and use light to see, and are made from molecules that have a form that allow them to exist as carbon light seeing forms.

[otseng]

From fortuitous chance only fortuitous chance follows - you never get design.

Quite right. And I don't believe it is by chance or being fortuitous. My point is that if one believes all of those coincidences are by chance, then it's hard to explain the multitude of coincidences except by design.

For sake of argument I have conceded Denton all the ground he wants, and still the design argument gains zero purchase. That was the point of my previous post.

I understand this is your point, but I fail to see your argument explaining why.

Denton has argued that before life even started, we can predict how life would be like. This point Denton presents convincingly.

Now, the next step is then does this point to design? I would say yes.

Suppose we see an arrow on a wall in the middle of a bullseye. Is this a sign that someone has good aim? Not necessarily. It could be he shot an arrow and then painted a target around it. But, if he painted a target first, then shot and hit the bullseye, then it would be a sign he's a good shot.

Same thing here. It's not that life came about and then we say based on because we are here that we are designed. It's the fact that the target was painted before we got here. Even before the first cell even got here. The necessary conditions, the target, was painted even before life came about. And then life hit the target. Because of this, it is evidence for design.

Some definitions of design:
- to conceive or fashion in the mind; invent
- to have as a goal or purpose; intend
- to create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner

We can see how life was conceived even before life arrived. We can know from the laws of physics and chemistry what life would be like. We can see the goal even before it got started. We can see how the optimal components were used to create life.

It is not a result of chance that we are here, but of purposeful design.

[QED]

Many theists see the anthropic coincidences as evidence for purposeful design to the universe. They ask: how can the universe possibly have obtained the unique set of physical constants it has, so exquisitely fine-tuned for life as they are, except by purposeful design--design with life and perhaps humanity in mind? Edward Harrison has stated it this way:

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God--the design argument of Paley--updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one."

The fine tuning argument is a probabilistic one, as was Paley's. The claim is that the probability for anything but external, intelligent design is vanishingly small. However, based on the data, the number of observed universes No = 1 while the number of observed universes with life NL = 1. Thus, the probability that any universe has life = NL / No = 1: 100 percent! Admittedly, the statistical error is large. The point is that data alone cannot be used to specify whether life is likely or unlikely, and no probability argument can be made that rests on data. It can only rest on theory, and, as we will see, neither physical nor cosmological theories, as we currently know them, require design.

Ultimately fatal to the design argument is the unwarranted assumption that only one type of life is possible--a chemistry-based life such as we have here on earth. This would not exist except for the narrow range of parameters in our universe. Ross typifies this narrow perspective on the nature of life:

"As physicist Robert Dicke observed thirty-two years ago, if you want physicists (or any other life forms), you must have carbon. Boron and silicon are the only other elements on which complex molecules can be based, but boron is extremely rare, and silicon can hold together no more than about a hundred amino acids. Given the constraints of physics and chemistry, we can reasonable assume that life must be carbon based."

Carbon would seem to be the chemical element best suited to act as the building block for the type of complex molecular systems that develop lifelike qualities. However, other possibilities than amino acid chemistry and DNA cannot be ruled out. Given the known laws of physics and chemistry, we can imagine life based on silicon or other elements chemically similar to carbon.

Now, if we're being really strict, this creates a problem for everyone. No matter how tempted we are to insist on gaining meaning from our statistical sample of one (one universe, one base for life) no statistician would (or should) ever be content with that setup. The statistical error simply renders any conclusion worthless. This should, I think, be a great source of humility for commentators on both sides of the argument.

If we are to discount multiple universes or multiple systems for life we have to do more than simply point to their apparent absence. In fact, in the same way that Hoyle used the Anthropic Principle to predict the resonance of the carbon nucleus at around 7.7 MeV we might predict the existence of multiple universe from the existence of carbon based life in our own. But I think that would be bending things too far in the opposite direction to Nature's Destiny. At best Denton's conclusion can only stand as an also-ran with naturalistic interpreations like Stenger's.

[QED]

From fortuitous chance only fortuitous chance follows - you never get design.

Quite right. And I don't believe it is by chance or being fortuitous. My point is that if one believes all of those coincidences are by chance, then it's hard to explain the multitude of coincidences except by design.

Hard is a relative term otseng. It's hard for you if your consciousness is not already raised by the potential for the Weak Anthropic Principle to deliver the coincidences. The only defense you have against this contending explanation is to demonstrate that the observable universe is, or can be, the only extant region of spacetime. This, as I have pointed out, is already ruled out as we know that we're seeing a horizon imposed by the speed of light rather than a physical boundary. Design is just another hypothetical option along with several other contenders. All of it's attraction stems from complex human factors that are incidental to the external actuality. None of these factors actually compel us to break the symmetry of the ambiguity.

For sake of argument I have conceded Denton all the ground he wants, and still the design argument gains zero purchase. That was the point of my previous post.

I understand this is your point, but I fail to see your argument explaining why.

Perhaps I might have a go at explaining it then. We can take any mathematical treatment we like for assessing the probability (and there are some pretty cute ones!) that the universe should have the properties it does but we will always arrive at a finite figure -- no matter how large. This figure then invites an explanation. Setting aside the possibility that there are unseen inter-dependencies and treating all factors as independent (the worst case for a naturalistic treatment) all we do is increase the size of the probabilistic state-space from which our universe is drawn. If an anthropic coincidence multiplies the improbability by six orders of magnitude, we can argue that the state-space must be six orders of magnitude greater in extent. That's why FB can concede an entire encyclopedia of anthropic coincidences and still reject the design argument as being the only possible explanation.

Denton has argued that before life even started, we can predict how life would be like. This point Denton presents convincingly.

Now, the next step is then does this point to design? I would say yes.

The prediction is simple. It's the next step that's problematic. Any universe that we, as carbon-based life, can look out upon today will necessarily have looked as it did long before nucleosynthesis started churning out our carbon. Whether it was designed to do so or just happened to spontaneously break its initial symmetries in those particular ways -- we would be presented with the exact same set of observations today. There is absolutely nothing in this kind of hindsight -- a point upon which I fail to see how you can refrain from conceding (except by doing the impossible and proving the precise context for our existence). Spontaneous symmetry breaking in countless other domains may be coming up with the failures you're expecting so you have no way if knowing whether your expectations are being met or not.

We can see how life was conceived even before life arrived. We can know from the laws of physics and chemistry what life would be like. We can see the goal even before it got started. We can see how the optimal components were used to create life.

It is not a result of chance that we are here, but of purposeful design.

If only it were that simple. Without the full context of what we're seeing we're quite helpless in drawing such a grand conclusion. Unfortunately we have to resort to psychology in order to understand why there is such a compulsion to state such things as though they were fact.

[Furrowed Brow]

It's not that life came about and then we say based on because we are here that we are designed. It's the fact that the target was painted before we got here. Even before the first cell even got here. The necessary conditions, the target, was painted even before life came about. And then life hit the target. Because of this, it is evidence for design.

For sake of argument lets say that bulls eye is a very small area of possibility. However it is not a target, it is just a small area of possibility. Now take a zillion blind archers and point them in any direction; eventually one of them is going to hit that very small area of possibility. The arrow lands by chance, but that small area was not the target, for there was no target. It would be just as correct for all the other zillions of arrows to say “fancy landing here, that can’t be an accident”. The analogy you propose presupposes life being the target or purpose of the universe.

But lets run with this. If the possible area for life is very small, then we can say all those other arrows are dead arrows, and so don’t get to ask the question. Thus the question “Wow life! There’s only one way that could have happened. Surely the odds are zillions to one?” Well no. That one result is a zillion to one shot, but enough blind arrows were fired to bring down the odds.

However, this last response is inadequate, because it still to some degree buys into the notion that life is a preferential state over all the other possible results. Lets toughen up this scenario. Reduce the blind archer to one. And he gets one shot. And he manages to hit the spot fit for life. “Woah! That is a zillion to one shot.” Says the Arrow Head. “That can’t have happened by accident.”

Well no. It is a one to one shot. One shot was fired, and it hit one spot. To presume it is a zillion to one shot is to presume that spot is special in some respect. Which is to presume that life was a special result.

Counter: “Well it landed on the spot that resulted in a universe where life could ask a question” so that makes the result unique.

Counter to the Counter: “Well unique yes. Just as every other possible result was unique. Special no. Ask yourself the question why is a universe with life mathematically special? The answer is it is not. Psychologically or aesthetically we might see it as special. But to then offer logical, statistical, or scientific arguments for life as special result is to conflate concepts, and the logical permiter of the debate.

Thus, even if you accept that life is as finely balanced as Denton suggests, which I don’t, the argument for design presupposes that life is a special result. And to do that then requires accepting that there is something more than chance at play. And to do that requires presupposing a designer, which requires life being a special result, which requires it being a preferred result to all the other possibilities. Thus Denton relies on an implicit premise “life is special result” to infer the evidence proves “conditions fit for life are special result”. But that results already presumes the logically faulty premise.

Now many may look at the universe with life in it and say “Wow! That is special”. But to try and back that up by arguments against chance and for a designer, is to misunderstand why life seems special. It is to lose sight of the math, and to presume that one result is not just unique, but uniquely special.

Denton whether he realises or not is purveying an aesthetic as a scientifc/logical argument. So he is confused. The fact that he uses such loaded slippery language, as I say empties the book of any seriour merit.