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.

[QED]

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.

Yet if life is a product of a self-organizing process then we should expect it to follow principles of least action and therefore automatically select the richest set of elemental combinations out of all the different possibilities available. This is the same fundamental symmetry/ambiguity that we keep bumping up against. We need something other than our philosophical predilections to resolve ambiguities like this.

If we were to find life based on boron and liquid ammonia, say on Saturn's moon Enceladus, we know in advance that those elements are the optimal candidates for the formation of complex molecules far from the warming effects of the Sun. So we could either marvel at the apparent ingenuity in the choice of those particular elements or simply acknowledge that there wasn't any other practical alternative for a self-organising process tied to principles of least action.

It appears that Denton is simply revealing his deep-down conviction that life is a product of deliberate design rather than supplying any useful observation that could dispel the ambiguity between it being deliberate or unintentional.

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.

We're often drifting from one level of "creation" to another here, but the arguments are ultimately the same. In the case of the assembly of living organisms from complex chains of molecules it's probably a fact that the complexity isn't optional. For something like a human being to be capable of discussing the issue we will necessarily see complex molecular biology. That in itself doesn't tell us anything about the route to that complexity and hence if it was deliberate in any way.

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.

Why would a self-organizing process take a route other than that determined by least action? Natural selection is an optimising process at the level we're discussing here.

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.

Maybe, but what kind of intelligence? There's a common misconception that natural processes of self-organization are in some way blind and will make "design choices" that are entirely random. But that's not even possible. A degree of what we recognise as intelligence will always be a parent as the principles are forced to operate with feedback from the environment. Any restructuring will be tested against the external reality of the laws and forces acting in the environment -- the ultimate BS detector. Any move is likely to look "smart" because of this.

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.

We drifted from the apparent design of life to the apparent design of the universe. We did so because to say that the elements (forces, laws etc.) appear to be carefully contrived for the production of life requires that we have a firm handle on the fact that this is the only arena in which those elements (forces, laws etc.) exist.

But even if we know this for sure, then surely the strongest statement we can make is there is some guiding principle that results in the appearance of elements like carbon -- how would we know that we were meant to be the ultimate benefactors? Carbon is known to have a crucial moderating influence on stellar formation for example. Perhaps stars are the ultimate objective?

But more likely is something like Smolin's suggestion that it's those stars that end up as black-holes, which in turn generate white-holes on the "other side" of the singularities (i.e. new universes starting out with big-bangs). This would give a reason for the apparent tuning to carbon -- if laws are inherited with slight variations (Cosmic Natural Selection). In other words, there are plenty of natural alternatives to a supernatural agency for the process that drives everything along.

Now while all these alternatives may only exist as wild speculation it highlights a fundamental problem that Denton and everyone else faces. Until we can identify the proper context for our own local observations, we are powerless to infer deliberate acts from apparent coincidences. Making those inferences without knowing the full context is every bit as speculative.

In other words it's all very well reminding ourselves of what we do know, of reigning in the speculation, but in doing so we should acknowledge that we may be imposing artificial boundaries from within which coincidences may be interpreted in unsafe ways. The more uncertain we are about those boundaries, the more wary we should be about assigning meaning to any apparent coincidences we see within them.

[Confused]

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

He does presuppose this in failing to consider the possibilities of other universes with different properties, different chemistry, different cosmological constants: therefor different possible building blocks for life. However, since this is in the realm of theoretical physics rather than experimental at this point in time, I can hardly use anymore concrete proof that these "pocket universes" exist than he can give me proof of the anthropic principle. That still doesn't mean they don't exist. More on this further down.

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

Otseng wrote:
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.

Confused wrote:
But Denton is attempting to use science to validate his book.

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

You missed the point. Denton is using known biology/chemistry to validate his claim of an ultimate designer. He is using natural to conclude supernatural. If he is allowed to validly do this, then I am just as valid as using the known to conclude the unknown. In other words, if you say he is justified in using what is currently known about the universe to validate "fine tuning" or an ultimate "designer" (both of which involve the supernatural as an explanation), then how is it any less valid for me to say that theoretical physics can use the knowns of the universe and validate the megaverse theory (currently more provable with theories/equations and has more viable opportunities for being proven/disproven with the advancement of technology in the future).

And he abuses verifiable science, not uses it. He presents what is known then attempts to say that since we can't currently prove it is otherwise, then it must be due to a "designer" and/or "fine tuning". That is abusing science by taking the natural and using it to try to validate the supernatural.
When I say he leads to reader to find no other conclusion but the one he presents, I say he does this with the wrong purpose IMHO. He successfully avoids the facts that science isn't meant to point to what he is attempting to make it point to. He also presents many fallacies in logic by narrowing his argument to include only what is on the surface of science to "prove" to the reader that "because of X, it must be Y because we currently have no other solution". He fails to demonstrate why Y is the only alternative. He also attempt to make this all look elegant in its design (a principle that he would have known that higher levels of science such as physics and cosmology want the most esthetic design). Yet he fails to show how the universe is anything but elegant and in many instances can be determined to have an infinite amount of outcomes. To the average Joe Blow on the street, they might say, "wow, of all these outcomes, we got the best, we can't be that lucky. This guy Denton is right, this is a very elegant design for all these things to work so well together". Of course, Joe Blow doesn't know that his very comments defy the concept of esthetic to be considered elegant. If you are going to give information on physics/cosmology, you should give all the information. Not just the highlights that present your case. It is misleading and falsely guiding the reader down a narrow path that will only lead to YOUR conclusion. He should include the highlights on why the universe isn't so orderly, so esthetic, so elegantly designed. How chemistry isn't really compatible with the Standard Model of physics, how the Standard Model of physics isn't compatible with gravitational forces, how the particles we used to think made up all of matter aren't really elementary particles, but can be further broken down into quarks, gluons, neutrinos, etc.... He fails to provide the reader with the fact science is evolving, not remaining stagnant. We learn new things all the time that change the order or completely negate the previous order. In doing so, we don't rely on the supernatural as a final cause of something simply because we don't know different yet. If we did this, all progress would stop and the world would become stagnant. Everyone would do exactly as Denton is attempting to convince them to do: accept the anthropic principle with fine tuning and some great designer and go home. This is what I meant when I said he is narrowly focusing the reader. He is setting the reader up to not see outside his box because it might get them thinking that "perhaps it doesn't have to be Y, instead it could be something we haven't proven yet, perhaps I should read more into this." This is not only misleading the reader, but abusing science.

Yes, I already know that you are going to counter with your typical "you must prove that there are alternatives to discredit Dentons". And I will still say that I don't, I must only prove that his aren't the only ones. This is something done easily with theoretical physics. Then you will say, those aren't provable. Then I will say, neither is "fine tuning" or "an intelligent designer".

Otseng wrote:
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.

Your right, we have only proposed modifications. I notice that none of what Denton has presented thus far leads to his position of "fine tuning". I also notice that you will accept nothing that isn't provable by current science to counter his "science" presentation (ie theoretic/experimental physics, cosmology) but you will accept his position of supernatural explanations. Not only is that as narrow minded as Dentons book, but it is also an abuse of science (IMHO).

[Confused]

Otseng wrote:
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.

There also isn't any proof that they haven't on this planet, on other planets, in other universes. Denton provides no more prove that other attempts haven't been made than he does that God is the only conclusion.

[otseng]

Yet if life is a product of a self-organizing process then we should expect it to follow principles of least action and therefore automatically select the richest set of elemental combinations out of all the different possibilities available.

You'll need to clarify what "self-organize" means.

If you mean self-organize in that the components were "pre-programmed" to be of optimal utility for life, then I would agree with it. But, if you mean that the precursors to life were to "self-select" and "adapt" among the number of components around it, then I would disagree.

An example is the self-folding of proteins. Proteins fold only because of their chemical and physical properties. It is by the properties themselves that allow for proteins to self-fold not by any type of "selection" process.

If we were to find life based on boron and liquid ammonia, say on Saturn's moon Enceladus, we know in advance that those elements are the optimal candidates for the formation of complex molecules far from the warming effects of the Sun.

However, no scientists ever considers any other liquid besides water for life. Water would still be the optimal liquid for any type of life. Even in regards to Enceladus, "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now" says Carolyn Porco, head of the imaging team for the Cassini mission to Saturn.

It is by the properties alone of water that it is considered optimal for life, not simply that we have an abundance of it here on Earth. And even if any other liquid would be more abundant on another planet, it would not therefore make it optimal.

It appears that Denton is simply revealing his deep-down conviction that life is a product of deliberate design

Actually, this is not true. But, even if he was biased when he wrote the book, it would not be relevant to the truth of his argument.

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.

We're often drifting from one level of "creation" to another here, but the arguments are ultimately the same. In the case of the assembly of living organisms from complex chains of molecules it's probably a fact that the complexity isn't optional. For something like a human being to be capable of discussing the issue we will necessarily see complex molecular biology. That in itself doesn't tell us anything about the route to that complexity and hence if it was deliberate in any way.

However, Denton is not arguing simply that something is "complex" makes it optimal. Or that humans can discuss it makes it optimal. Rather, it is by analyzing the fundamental components of life and looking at other possibilities and then determining that they are optimal. The alternate components are analyzed and determined to be sub-optimal.

Natural selection is an optimising process at the level we're discussing here.

Natural selection only applies after life first arrives. Before life comes about, there is no natural selection. And all that we've covered so far have been the components that exist prior to life coming about.

Maybe, but what kind of intelligence? There's a common misconception that natural processes of self-organization are in some way blind and will make "design choices" that are entirely random.

Again, if you're referring to natural selection, it would not apply if there is no life yet. So, determining what components to use would not entail natural selection.

I think the hope is finding some sort of pre-life natural selection counterpart. But, so far, there is not such a thing. The only thing that would be available is random chance.

So, if there is an apparent design, there would only be two ways to explain it - intelligence or random chance.

[otseng]

He does presuppose this in failing to consider the possibilities of other universes with different properties, different chemistry, different cosmological constants: therefor different possible building blocks for life. However, since this is in the realm of theoretical physics rather than experimental at this point in time, I can hardly use anymore concrete proof that these "pocket universes" exist than he can give me proof of the anthropic principle.

True, he does not consider other universes. But, it would not be necessary to consider other universes. Nor would it even be possible to consider them.

He is using natural to conclude supernatural. If he is allowed to validly do this, then I am just as valid as using the known to conclude the unknown. In other words, if you say he is justified in using what is currently known about the universe to validate "fine tuning" or an ultimate "designer" (both of which involve the supernatural as an explanation), then how is it any less valid for me to say that theoretical physics can use the knowns of the universe and validate the megaverse theory (currently more provable with theories/equations and has more viable opportunities for being proven/disproven with the advancement of technology in the future).

I believe he only goes where the evidence leads. Even if it means in concluding the supernatural.

One can certainly believe that any conclusion is unknowable. But, such an explanation would not be founded on any evidence or rationale.

As for the multiverse explanation, there are no evidence to support such a view.

That is abusing science by taking the natural and using it to try to validate the supernatural.

Actually, he has no pre-set bias on trying to validate the supernatural. But, even if he did, it would not constitute an "abuse" of science. Everything that he presents uses verifiable scientific evidence. There is pure science with no hint of "abuse".

What naturalists would object to his conclusion. But, just because someone does not like the conclusion does not mean it is illogical or wrong or even abusive.

When I say he leads to reader to find no other conclusion but the one he presents, I say he does this with the wrong purpose IMHO.

In general, this is how science works. Scientists formulate their own hypothesis and present evidence to support it. There is nothing wrong with him attempting to lead the reader to his conclusion. The only thing that would be wrong is if his evidence or rationale is wrong, not in where it leads to.

He successfully avoids the facts that science isn't meant to point to what he is attempting to make it point to.

Science should only go where the evidence leads to. It should not be biased beforehand on what the conclusion should or should not be.

He fails to demonstrate why Y is the only alternative.

Actually, he does consider the other alternatives. In practically each chapter so far, he does this.

It is misleading and falsely guiding the reader down a narrow path that will only lead to YOUR conclusion.

I would dare say that practically all books do this.

In doing so, we don't rely on the supernatural as a final cause of something simply because we don't know different yet. If we did this, all progress would stop and the world would become stagnant.

Nobody is saying that science should stagnate or that all scientists should turn into theologians. Even Denton now is continuing his scientific studies. Nobody is saying that science needs to stop.

Yes, I already know that you are going to counter with your typical "you must prove that there are alternatives to discredit Dentons". And I will still say that I don't, I must only prove that his aren't the only ones. This is something done easily with theoretical physics. Then you will say, those aren't provable. Then I will say, neither is "fine tuning" or "an intelligent designer".

Yes, you read my mind.

I will say that noone is "proving" anything. Denton is simply presenting his hypothesis and the evidence to back it up. And based on the evidence he presents, he has a very strong case.

Not only is that as narrow minded as Dentons book, but it is also an abuse of science (IMHO).

If I'm called "narrow minded" that's fine. But, it is on the strength of the evidence that is important, not if the conclusion, or the author, happens to be "narrow-minded".

[otseng]

Chapter 9 goes into the fitness of the metals. I'm not going to spend much time in this chapter, but I'll just quote one part on calcium.

In biological systems, it is calcium which is preeminently used where chemical information must be transmitted at great speed, as in the triggering of muscle contraction, transmission of nerve impulses across the synapse, triggering hormone release, the changes following fertilization, etc. As Williams point out in his review, "Amongst the metal ions available to biology only calcium can be high in concentration, can diffuse rapidly, can bind and dissociate strongly."

[otseng]

Chapter 10 talks about the fitness of the cell.

It is these remarkable specks of organized matter that have constructed every multicellular organism that ever existed on earth.

They can do anything, adopt almost any shape, obey any order, and seem in every sense perfectly adapted to their assigned task of creating a biosphere replete with multicellular organisms like ourselves.

Then he describes lipids and how they are fit for life.

Lipids are found in all living things. They have many different functions. They are a major source of cellular energy. They function as electrical insulators and as detergents.

The fact that many types of lipids are insoluble in water is of great biological significance.

If there were no carbon compounds insoluble in water, such as lipids, organic chemistry would not be fit for life.

The hydrocarbon chain length of most of the lipids which occur in the cell is generally between 16 and 18 carbon atoms long. This chain length is fit for a number of reasons. Chain lengths of more than 18 carbon long are too insoluble to be of biological utility - they cannot be mobilized at all in water - but less than 16, they are too soluble. Fortuitously, lipids containing chains of this length are also fluid or near fluid over the temperature range in which most metabolic processes occur in living things.

Then he relates about lipids and the cell membrane.

One of the most important structures in the cell, which is largely composed of lipids, is the cell membrane.

But, the interesting thing is the properties of the lipids allow the cell membrane to form automatically.

The beauty of it is that everything arranges itself ... simply because of their intrinsic chemical nature phospholipids naturally and spontaneously self-assemble to form a bilayer in a watery solution... It is, as it were, "the nature of the beast" for them to do so.

No other material is known which could substitute for this particular structure.

It is surely highly suggestive of design that a soup of these basic vital ingredients at precisely the concentration required to carry out the miracle of self-replication surrounded by the lipid bilayer should have, coincidentally, precisely the suite of biophysical properties of viscosity, density, excitability, etc, ideally and uniquely suited for the cell to carry out its designated task of building a biosphere of multicellular life.

The prefabrication of parts to a unique end is the very hallmark of design. Moreover, there is imply no way that such prefabrication could be the result of natural selection. Design in the very components which make an organism possible cannot be, as Carl Pantin pointed out some time ago, the result of natural selection. The many vital mutual adaptations in the constituents of life were given by physics long before any living thing existed and long before natural selection could have begun to operate.

[Confused]

Otseng wrote:
If I'm called "narrow minded" that's fine. But, it is on the strength of the evidence that is important, not if the conclusion, or the author, happens to be "narrow-minded".

Missed it again. I am horrible at explanations. Let me try this again.

Otseng wrote:
I believe he only goes where the evidence leads. Even if it means in concluding the supernatural.

One can certainly believe that any conclusion is unknowable. But, such an explanation would not be founded on any evidence or rationale.

As for the multiverse explanation, there are no evidence to support such a view.

No, that is just it. He presents a strictly narrow view of his "evidence". Just as you claim that there is no evidence to support the view of a multiverse, I will claim there is no evidence to support the supernatural because of the limitations placed on the natural. Dentons claim is that the universe is so well tuned for life: not that life is so well tuned for the universe. It is one of those "duh" things that makes one say "of course these are perfect parameters, building blocks, etc.... for life, because without them, life wouldn't have evolved". It doesn't in any way state that the universe was created for life. One could easily say that life was nothing more than a byproduct of these parameters, building blocks, etc.... It was nothing but chance that allowed life to form. This requires no such supernatural belief. Why? Because it places no significant importance on life. Only Denton is trying to make it appear as if life was the reason for such a universe. He is placing a self imposed importance on life.

Otseng wrote:
In general, this is how science works. Scientists formulate their own hypothesis and present evidence to support it. There is nothing wrong with him attempting to lead the reader to his conclusion. The only thing that would be wrong is if his evidence or rationale is wrong, not in where it leads to.

There is a difference between using science to support you view rather than abusing it to slant your view. Denton does just as you insist on doing by debating chapter by chapter. His presentation breaks his book into two parts, each with many chapters. In part one he presents natural science. Mostly irrefutable facts. Ok, I have no problem with this when deception isn't at the very core of these facts. Just as you wish us not to jump ahead into other chapters, Denton limits the view of the reader by narrowing them down to observing the facts, then slams them in part two of his book by further narrowing these facts to take them out of the realm of natural and into the realm of supernatural.
You keep saying that no one has refuted the basis for life. You are correct. One cannot refute it because to do so would require going beyond the realm of natural into supernatural (or physical into metaphysical). We would be guilty of the same abuse of science that Denton is guilty of. Instead of remaining in the natural world, we go into the "theoretical world" we we start seeing megaverses. It is no more natural science than Denton is trying to lead the reader towards.

If we only look at each individual piece of life (or nature), then we can conclude nothing but the erroneous outcome that Denton wishes to imply. That makes them no more valid than any theoretical physicists claim is until it can be applied to experimental physics. What makes Denton all the more despicable is the fact that his applications of science misleads the reader by leading them into a position in which his final outcome can never be experimented. My problem isn't with the first part of this book (though Denton does continue to lead the novice reader into thinking that the universe was created for life rather than the premise that life is nothing more than a byproduct of the universe, which is equally if not more valid). It is with his blatant disregard for presenting science within the realms of science and misleading his readers by assuming they are all ignorant and unable to pick up on where he is intentionally disguising his views as scientific as opposed to what they truly are, malicious.

Perhaps this is an overly harsh and critical judgement of this author and you might feel that it is his character I am assassinating, not his information. If so, then you are still not grasping my point and as long as we can only view this chapter by chapter, you will continue unopposed because the opposition isn't with the explicit information, but his implicit undermining of that information to lead the uneducated reader into his own narrow universe that consists of just as little proof of existing as theoretical physics presents.

[Confused]

Chapter 10 talks about the fitness of the cell.

It is these remarkable specks of organized matter that have constructed every multicellular organism that ever existed on earth.

They can do anything, adopt almost any shape, obey any order, and seem in every sense perfectly adapted to their assigned task of creating a biosphere replete with multicellular organisms like ourselves.

Then he describes lipids and how they are fit for life.

Yes, he provides great information on the cell structure and how lipids are so well adapted for cells to limit the permeability of the cell that makes the environment of the host of that cell favorable for life. But this in no way proves that the target of the cells were specifically for the advancement of life rather than life is nothing more than a consequence of the cell.

[QED]

The prefabrication of parts to a unique end is the very hallmark of design. Moreover, there is imply no way that such prefabrication could be the result of natural selection. Design in the very components which make an organism possible cannot be, as Carl Pantin pointed out some time ago, the result of natural selection. The many vital mutual adaptations in the constituents of life were given by physics long before any living thing existed and long before natural selection could have begun to operate.

In this paragraph I assume that Denton is referring to the fundamental properties of the atomic nucleus and its various bonding habits. First I would like to point out that it is not, as Pantin suggests, impossible for this to be a result of natural selection. Lee Smolin has already explained how such fundamental properties of our universe could come about through a process of Cosmological Natural Selection. There is nothing absurd in such a notion and I think there is a certain narrow view of what natural selection can be that is unhelpful in raising our awareness of the variety of different things that can lead to the appearance of design.

However, there are other potential forms of selection which make the conclusion that deliberate design alone could select the properties totally unsupportable. This is why we brought the context of our universe into the discussion. Denton's conclusion is totally dependant on the assumption that our universe is the only instance of a region of space-time with a "personality" made up from a particular set of laws/forces etc. It doesn't look as though Denton is aware of this as it should be acknowledged as an assumption at the outset. Rule number one in declaring your conclusions: always list your assumptions.