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]

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.

The problem with Dentons claims is that he is looking back and using history to say this equals this which equals this which equals this etc.......... This is great, except it presupposes that there was no other way for it to happen. He does a great job of defining the elements, etc.. of this universe and how they are needed for life. But he negates the fact that it might be possible for life to have evolved in different conditions. Example: The healthy person uses the level of CO2 in their bloodstream as their drive to breathe, not the amount of oxygen. Now, a person with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) uses just the opposite. The amount of O2 in their blood is what regulates their drive to breathe, this is why when we get a patient with COPD, if we have to go higher than a 50% ventimask (provides 50% O2), then we are likely going to have to intubate and put them on a breathing machine because the more O2 we provide artificially, the more the body thinks it has, so the less breathing it does which increases their CO2 levels that leads to Resp acidosis. Hence: failure. Now the average person O2 level is 92-100%. Their CO2 levels are 35-45. If O2 is less than this range, the person can suffer from hypoxia leading to irreversible hypoxic brain injury. If their CO2 levels are less than 35, the go into a state of alkalosis in which their blood Ph is greater than 7.45. If their CO2 is greater than 45, the blood Ph goes acidotic to less than 7.35. Now, in a patient with COPD, they live quite adequately with arterial O2 levels of 60-80% and CO2 levels of 45-65. They compensate metabolically. This is one of the human bodies many various compensation mechanisms. It is also one in which could allow life to evolve under different circumstances.

So why is it life couldn't have adapted to this environment as opposed to the environment being designed specifically for life? Denton takes science and narrows the scope to lead the reader to see only the defined parameters he cites. The average Joe Blow off the street would pick up the book and read through it and say "wow, things finally fit". But Denton is attempting to use science to validate his book, hence it isn't Joe Blow who must evaluate the validity of the book, but John Doe who is familiar enough with science to say "wait a minute" what I am reading makes sense, but something is missing" at which point he steps outside the box Denton has led him into and sees the missing links.

[otseng]

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.

However, the argument that Denton presents is not as simple as saying that we have only one universe and only have life on Earth to sample. Rather, it is based on the known properties of chemistry and physics to make his argument. We look at the properties of carbon, oxygen, EMR, carbon dioxide, water and conclude that these are the optimal components to constitute any complex life.

Suppose a prosecutor only brings in one suspect to the courtroom. The defense cannot simply argue that the prosecutor has no case since he only has one suspect. What makes the case admissible are the evidences that the prosecutor brings in that shows the suspect is guilty. It is on the evidence alone that the case would rest on, not the number of suspects.

He is not arguing that since we only see one type of life in this universe that therefore that can be the only one type of life. If he simply claimed that, it wouldn't be worth considering.

What Denton does do is analyze the evidence, the components of life, and argues successfully that they are the optimal components and that any complex life would have to be similar to life on earth.

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.

This is not assumed in the book. Rather, it is what he concludes in the book and presents arguments to support it.

So, rather than being an unwarranted assumption, it is a supported conclusion through the evidence that he presents.

[otseng]

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.

Really the only assumption that I see is that the laws of chemistry and physics are the same throughout the universe. If we make observations based on what we see here, it should be applicable throughout the universe. Carbon would still be carbon. Water would still be water and so on.

As for the observable universe horizon, it would not be relevant. As long as the laws of chemistry and physics are the same outside of the horizon, the claims would still apply.

Design is just another hypothetical option along with several other contenders.

What are the other contenders that you mention?

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.

Whoa, that passed directly over my head. Could this be rephrased in more simplistic terms?

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.

I guess I'm a bit too simple-minded, but I fail to grasp your argument.

Perhaps it'd be easier for me to understand your point if you could present the other possible explanations for the apparent design that we observe.

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.

OK. I think on this point we agree. Life as we have now will necessarily have come out the way it has. There is no alternative. Denton further claims that any other lifeform on another planet will also necessarily be the same. We see that the physical/chemical properties can only allow life like ours to come about.

So, I guess the only point of contention is whether this shows design or not. Again, I would say yes.

If there was no other way for life to form and only one way for it to exist, then it would fall under the definition of design. It would show that the end would've been preordained. The goal of life would've been set at the very beginning. It would show that Earth-like life is special and unique because it would be the only life that could come about. All of these would be the hallmark of design rather than chance.

Without the full context of what we're seeing we're quite helpless in drawing such a grand conclusion.

What would be the "full context"?

[otseng]

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.

However, there has not been a zillion archers, but only one. We have no evidence of life (or any attempts of forming life) based on anything but the components that life is currently based on.

we can say all those other arrows are dead arrows, and so don’t get to ask the question

However, there is no record of any "dead arrows". We have absolutely no evidence of any life attempting to form that is not based on DNA/RNA. Or not based on carbon. Or not based on water.

That one result is a zillion to one shot, but enough blind arrows were fired to bring down the odds.

Do you have though any evidence of any blind arrows that were shot?

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.

What are the other possible results that you mention?

To presume it is a zillion to one shot is to presume that spot is special in some respect.

I think Denton argues well that the spot is special. In fact, the majority of the content of the book is simply presenting the scientific evidence of why the components and conditions for life are optimal.

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.

I don't recall Denton specifically stating that life is "special", so I doubt he presupposes that.

But what he does state is that life is comprised of the optimal components. And the physical laws of the universe was constrained for life to come about the way that it did.

[Furrowed Brow]

However, there has not been a zillion archers, but only one. We have no evidence of life (or any attempts of forming life) based on anything but the components that life is currently based on.

Yep. But your target analogy, and Denton's claims about conditions being optimal or fit for life rely, on the target being missable or the conditions being different. For that claim to amount anything more than a statement of the blimmin obvious, and the weak anthropic principle, the logic of his argument relies on the coincidences being improbable. And you don’t get an improbability unless you are abstracting into statistical probability. To say the one archer hit his target is meaningless unless missing the target is a real possibility - those possbilities represented by alternative archers. Now if one discards those archers, then one is ignoring the statistical argument that gives any credence to the conclusion that hitting the target is too much of a coincidence.

I don't recall Denton specifically stating that life is "special", so I doubt he presupposes that.

But what he does state is that life is comprised of the optimal components. And the physical laws of the universe was constrained for life to come about the way that it did.

But again that is the weak anthropic principle, unless unwarranted emphasis is put on the word constrained. If the laws are constrained that means they could have been otherwise. Which means, even without evidence of any alternative, Denton’s argument relies on those constraints looking too much of a coincidence. But to be too much of a coincidence, a result has to be improbable. Thus the argument slips into one of probabilities as I suggest. And then Denton is wide open for the criticism that he is conflating a unique result with a "uniquely and also special" result.

[otseng]

except it presupposes that there was no other way for it to happen.

I do not think he presupposes this. But, what he does argue is that any other way would be suboptimal, if even possible.

In the example you gave still shows that humans use oxygen. What Denton is arguing is the there is no other element that is suitable for providing energy for complex carbon based life.

All higher organisms obtain their energy supply from one of the most important chemical reactions on earth - the complete oxidation of reduced hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water:

reduced carbon compounds + oxygen = water + carbon dioxide

This key reaction provides many times more energy than any of the multitude of aternative energy-generating reactions.

Oxygen far surpasses any other chemical element except flourine in the amount of energy liberated in the process of combining with other elements. Fluorine is, however, dangerously reactive at ambient temperatures. Also ... when fluorine reacts with hydrogen, the product hydroflouric acid is one of the most dangerously reactive of all acids.

Denton takes science and narrows the scope to lead the reader to see only the defined parameters he cites.

Of course. That's the goal of the book. But, to argue against it would require showing how any other component for life would be better. And he argues that these "narrow" parameters is both optimal and what we find in life.

But Denton is attempting to use science to validate his book

I think that is the strength of the book. Rather than relying on philosophical arguments or hypothetical scenarios, he uses verifiable science.

I've noticed that nobody in this debate has so far had any problems with the scientific facts that Denton has brought up. Nobody has disagreed with any scientific points he has presented. And nobody has offered any alternatives to carbon, water, oxygen, light, carbon dioxide, etc. The only "alternatives" proposed have been modifications within these components, not other components.

[QED]

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.

However, the argument that Denton presents is not as simple as saying that we have only one universe and only have life on Earth to sample. Rather, it is based on the known properties of chemistry and physics to make his argument. We look at the properties of carbon, oxygen, EMR, carbon dioxide, water and conclude that these are the optimal components to constitute any complex life.

The conclusion that is in contention is that these things are evidence of a deliberate act of creation by virtue of their apparent optimisation. Optimisation is a concept that is inextricably linked to the statistical landscape of possibilities and probabilities. To specifically infer deliberate design from the observation that so many improbable things have come together for our existence is to imply that you know for sure that no other attempts have been made elsewhere/before. If you have that knowledge then you can make that claim. We do not have that knowledge.

Suppose a prosecutor only brings in one suspect to the courtroom. The defense cannot simply argue that the prosecutor has no case since he only has one suspect. What makes the case admissible are the evidences that the prosecutor brings in that shows the suspect is guilty. It is on the evidence alone that the case would rest on, not the number of suspects.

Where's the inference in this case? This evidence is of the sort where the suspect is seen doing something. If no witness or forensic evidence testifies to the suspects involvement then we should also be concerned about the potential of other suspects to be the guilty party.

The evidence Denton is submitting does not bear witness to an act of deliberate creation as it has nothing to distinguish it from an alternative possibility. His conclusion rests on the probability for the coincidences which, in the absence of the full context for our observations, amounts to nothing better than a guess.

He is not arguing that since we only see one type of life in this universe that therefore that can be the only one type of life. If he simply claimed that, it wouldn't be worth considering.

What Denton does do is analyze the evidence, the components of life, and argues successfully that they are the optimal components and that any complex life would have to be similar to life on earth.

The suitability he observes follows from the particular constitution of our universe. How many other universes have been constituted? The certainty with which you can draw his conclusion is directly related to the certainty you have that this is the only region of space-time that has ever existed.

[QED]

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.

Really the only assumption that I see is that the laws of chemistry and physics are the same throughout the universe. If we make observations based on what we see here, it should be applicable throughout the universe. Carbon would still be carbon. Water would still be water and so on.

As for the observable universe horizon, it would not be relevant. As long as the laws of chemistry and physics are the same outside of the horizon, the claims would still apply.

There's your problem. There's nothing to say these things are the same throughout the Cosmos. The laws are undertsood as arising from the spontaneous breaking of higher-energy symetries. This looks like a very repeatable process, except for that the spontenaity would almost certainly lead to an entirely different set of laws, partcles etc.

Design is just another hypothetical option along with several other contenders.

What are the other contenders that you mention?

There are many different principles for self-organization. When a complex structure is observed sometimes it's the product of deliberate design, sometimes it's not. Most of the self-organised patterns we see are simple ones but that's not to say that more complex patterns can't arise from similar principles. The suggestion that the intricate revolution of the heavenly bodies is evidence of design is unsupportable in the face of Newtonian Mechanics (any half-decent computer simulation can turn a diffuse cloud of gas into a fully loaded solar system these days) so we should accept that there are more than one contender.

If you wish to argue that Newtonian Mechanics was designed to produce solar systems in the first place then we're back to our context for the symetry breaking and the apparent arbitraryness of the process itself.

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.

Whoa, that passed directly over my head. Could this be rephrased in more simplistic terms?

Denton is drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence. One has to explain why this would be so. Yes the evdence is tantalizing but it's neither complete or unambiguous. If his observations of evidence for design were of a more direct nature (e.g. if he had found "comments" alongside all the DNA code) then we be looking at only one rational explanation.

I guess I'm a bit too simple-minded, but I fail to grasp your argument.

Perhaps it'd be easier for me to understand your point if you could present the other possible explanations for the apparent design that we observe.

It migth save us a bit of time and effort if we could nail this down - I have mentioned self-organizing systesm in general and, in particular, we have natural selection that acts on any structure that is repeatedly assembled from an inherited plan prone to random alterations. Do you not accept that these things (Newtonian mechanics, Natural Selection. Wind Erosion etc.) are capable of generating the appearance of design?

OK. I think on this point we agree. Life as we have now will necessarily have come out the way it has. There is no alternative.

I don't agree with that at all. Sure Carbon is the most probable base for life in our "Goldilocks" range but there are many other ranges in the universe and these other ranges make alternative bases a real possibility. Where's the principle that shows it's "Carbon or bust"?

Denton further claims that any other lifeform on another planet will also necessarily be the same. We see that the physical/chemical properties can only allow life like ours to come about.

So, I guess the only point of contention is whether this shows design or not. Again, I would say yes.

If there was no other way for life to form and only one way for it to exist, then it would fall under the definition of design. It would show that the end would've been preordained. The goal of life would've been set at the very beginning. It would show that Earth-like life is special and unique because it would be the only life that could come about. All of these would be the hallmark of design rather than chance.

Without the full context of what we're seeing we're quite helpless in drawing such a grand conclusion.

What would be the "full context"?

[Furrowed Brow]

Yep. But your target analogy, and Denton's claims about conditions being optimal or fit for life rely, on the target being missable or the conditions being different. For that claim to amount anything more than a statement of the blimmin obvious, and the weak anthropic principle, the logic of his argument relies on the coincidences being improbable. And you don’t get an improbability unless you are abstracting into statistical probability.

The conclusion that is in contention is that these things are evidence of a deliberate act of creation by virtue of their apparent optimisation. Optimisation is a concept that is inextricably linked to the statistical landscape of possibilities and probabilities.

QED says it more succinctly but this point is I think a done deal. Without question Denton’s argument is predicated on probability.

[otseng]

The conclusion that is in contention is that these things are evidence of a deliberate act of creation by virtue of their apparent optimisation. Optimisation is a concept that is inextricably linked to the statistical landscape of possibilities and probabilities. To specifically infer deliberate design from the observation that so many improbable things have come together for our existence is to imply that you know for sure that no other attempts have been made elsewhere/before. If you have that knowledge then you can make that claim. We do not have that knowledge.

There are no evidence that any other attempts have been made on Earth. So, from what we can observe, we have no signs of any other attempts.

Could other attempts have happened on other planets? There could be. But, based on the arguments of the book, if they are any different, they would not optimally make use of the physical and chemical laws. Other life could potentially form based on silicon, but we know that it could not form as much compounds as carbon. Life could potentially use liquid hydrogen, but it would not be as optimal as water. Life could draw energy from radioactive elements, but it would not be as optimal as radiation around the visible light spectrum.

The premise of the book is that it is these components that are optimal. The optimization is then evident in that life makes use of these optimal components.

The evidence Denton is submitting does not bear witness to an act of deliberate creation as it has nothing to distinguish it from an alternative possibility. His conclusion rests on the probability for the coincidences which, in the absence of the full context for our observations, amounts to nothing better than a guess.

I'm not sure what you mean by the alternate possibilities.

His conclusions doesn't rest on the probability of coincidences, but on the fact that we can determine based on the physical laws what the optimal components for life would be. This can be established even before any life would arise.

If we know the optimal components for life before any life came about, and life happened to come about any other way, then it would show that life would not have come about by intelligent design, but by random chance.

For example. Suppose a student takes a 100 problem true/false test. If he answers every one correct, we can safely say that he studied for the test. We know before when he took the test what the optimal answers would be. But, if he only gets 50% correct, then we can say that he probably just guessed at the answers.

Likewise, before life came about, we know based on the physical laws what would be the optimal components for life. And life came about by matching these components. Therefore we can conclude that it was a result of an intelligent cause.

How many other universes have been constituted? The certainty with which you can draw his conclusion is directly related to the certainty you have that this is the only region of space-time that has ever existed.

The conclusion would only apply for our own universe since that is the only thing that we can draw evidence from.