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]

I would agree with what furrowed Brow has said and add that Denton is making a case for fine tuning. The problem with this is once again, fine tuning can be applied to life in general through adaptation, etc..., but he has no cause to claim it is fine tuning by the gentle hands of God specifically for mankind alone. Even if he could validate his claim of Gods gentle hand behind this fine tuning, it would once again be in regards to life in general.

He exaggerates further in Chapter 4 when he makes such a bid deal about all the organic compounds in space the "quantities are immense-up to 200 million solar masses in our own galaxy. The cosmos is literally overflowing with the basic constituents of carbon-based life". While this may be facinating, two issue:

1) How does he propose these organic materials make it through the earths atmosphere to be of use? If God created these elements on earth to come together to create life, then why are they in space? Why would he waste resources by letting them float around for no apparent reason?

2) All these wonderful materials he makes reference to may seem great now, but if they were all to come through the earths atmosphere at once, the result would be toxic: a global killer.

Now on to a point that is irking me from almost all of his chapters thus far, is it possible for him to quote sources from, hmmm, lets see, anytime after 1985? He opens each chapter with quotes from the 1800's, then seems to me as if he compares models considered outdated against his current models in an attempt to make his sound more credible. Ex: Beginning of Chpt 4, opening paragraph from John Ray: The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Words of creation:

This, as most other atheists' arguments, proceeds from a deep ignorance fo Natural Philolosophy; for if there were but half the sea that now is, there would also be but half the quantity of vapors, and consequently we would have half as many rivers as now there are to supply all the dry land we have at present, and half as much more; for the quantity of vapors which are raised, bears a proportion to the surface whence they are raised as well as to the head which raised them.

This is from 1701. Why????? How about some recent resources?

[otseng]

A biocentric model, not an anthropocentric model. Life in general means nothing to theists unless their is proof that the universe was created specifically for man, not life in general. Thus far, he has not done this.

Proof is too strong of a word. And I don't believe anywhere does Denton state that he is trying to "prove" either biocentrism or anthropocentrism.

But, I would agree that the book doesn't really provide strong arguments for anthropocentrism. But, for biocentrism, I think his arguments are compelling.

Not that it was created for life, but that life was able to form and evolve because of its ability to adapt.

Actually, yes, it was created for life. That is, change the properties, and life as we know it would not exist. Could other forms of life come about? Could any life be based on anything other than water, carbon, and light? Could be. But we cannot give any reasonable scenarios on what it would be.

Life then would require these physical attributes. Without it, life would not be able to form, much less evolve.

I am always reading where they find life in places they would never expect it.
They pop up in extreme conditions.

One of these days, we'll have to debate on extremophiles.

On many issues I guess UV and Infra Red radiation can be said to be harmful to life. But then some organism seem to take advantage of UV and IR light.

I don't debate this. But, the main point of his argument is the narrow range of EMR that is emitted by the sun, of utility for life, and can penetrate the atmosphere. These properties just line up correctly in order for life on earth to exist.

This is why is is skewed 2 - some conditions in every respect imaginable will be harmful to life, say inside a black hole. Where conditions are not completely fatal, then if and when complex life finds purchase, it will thrive in areas that are not too warm, not too cold etc. Goldilock conditions.

But are there other conditions that any life can exist? It might be "warm porridge" and be just right for us. But to say that something else could survive on "hot porridge" or "cold porridge" would be conjecture.

A christian theist, who believes God made man unique in the universe, is going to have difficulties with the implications of this thesis, if ever such a strong point in favour of Nature's Destiny were to emerge. Because the thrust of Nature's destiny, if nature really does have a destiny would then to be the creation of complex life at all possible opportunities, and making those opportunities universally abundant.

Actually, I don't agree with his conclusion that man is the destiny of evolution. And I think his argument for it is weak. And Denton actually admits that it is weak. But, I defer that for later.

I have already made the point that life really sits atop a hill, and is not balanced on a tightrope.

Whether it is a "hill" or a "tightrope" still demonstrates a level of design necessary for life to exist.

In this sense microbes are the lowest common denominator of life. So really it would be far more accurate and pertinent to write a book arguing Nature's Destiny is microbiotic life.

He does go into arguments beyond microbial life at some points in the book. But, even if one just accept his arguments for biocentrism, then I'd consider his arguments to be a success.

[otseng]

About chapter 4, I thought it was a weak chapter.

One interesting point was "there is a very striking correlation between the abundance of the elements and their utility for life" (page 78). But the rest of the chapter on radioactivity, plate tectonics, geophysical and geochemical condition, and the hydosphere lacked the depth to convince me of their importance.

[Confused]

Confused wrote:
A biocentric model, not an anthropocentric model. Life in general means nothing to theists unless their is proof that the universe was created specifically for man, not life in general. Thus far, he has not done this.
Otseng wrote:
Proof is too strong of a word. And I don't believe anywhere does Denton state that he is trying to "prove" either biocentrism or anthropocentrism.

Pg XI: "

The aim of this book is ,first, to present the scientific evidence for believing that the cosmos is uniquely for life as it exists on earth and for the organisms of design and biology very similar to our own species, homo sapiens, and second to argue that this "unique fitness" of the laws of nature for life is entirely consistent with the older teleological religious concept of the cosmos as specifically, designed whole, with life adn mankind as its primary purpose"................" as I researched more deeply into the topic and as the manuscript went through successive drafts, it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature were fine-tuned for life on earth to a remarkable degree and that the emerging picture provided a powerful and self-evident support for the traditional anthropocentric teleological view of the cosmos".

[otseng]

Confused wrote:
A biocentric model, not an anthropocentric model. Life in general means nothing to theists unless their is proof that the universe was created specifically for man, not life in general. Thus far, he has not done this.
Otseng wrote:
Proof is too strong of a word. And I don't believe anywhere does Denton state that he is trying to "prove" either biocentrism or anthropocentrism.

Pg XI: "

The aim of this book is ,first, to present the scientific evidence for believing that the cosmos is uniquely for life as it exists on earth and for the organisms of design and biology very similar to our own species, homo sapiens, and second to argue that this "unique fitness" of the laws of nature for life is entirely consistent with the older teleological religious concept of the cosmos as specifically, designed whole, with life adn mankind as its primary purpose"................" as I researched more deeply into the topic and as the manuscript went through successive drafts, it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature were fine-tuned for life on earth to a remarkable degree and that the emerging picture provided a powerful and self-evident support for the traditional anthropocentric teleological view of the cosmos".

I'm not saying that he's not arguing for anthropocentrism, rather simply that he doesn't attempt to "prove" it. He uses the words "present the scientific evidence" and "provided a powerful and self-evident support", but never "prove".

Perhaps I'm quibbling over semantics, but my only disagreement with your point is in the use of the word "prove".

Denton shares a bit on "proof" that near the end of the book.

... no hypothesis can be finally proved. All we can do with the hypothesis is attempt to refute it. The longer it resists our attempts, the better the theory. Consistency with the facts is the best we can hope for, even in the most powerful scientific theory.

And again, I would actually tend to agree agree with you that the book doesn't argue much to support anthropocentrism, but rather primarily supports biocentrism.

[otseng]

Chapter 5 talks about the fitness of the carbon element.

Some excerpts:

Carbon is unique among the elements in the number and variety of the compounds which it can form. Over a quarter of a million have already been isolated and described, but this gives a very imperfect idea of its powers, since it is the basis of all forms of living matter. Moreover it is the only element which could occupy such a position.

The vast and unique plentitude of organic compounds can only be exploited by living systems within a temperature range of approximately -20 C to 120 C.

It is surely a highly suggestive coincidence that the chemical reactivity of the one great class of compounds, uniquely fit in so many other ways to serve as the build blocks of life, is of optimal utility for the complex atomic and molecular manipulations associated with life in precisely that temperature rang - 0 C to 100 C - in which water the one fluid supremely fit to serves as the matrix for carbon-based life forms, exists as liquid at sea level on the earth.

We can conclude that the weak bonds are only of utility for holding organic compounds into complex 3-D forms, within the terperature range of approximately 0 C to 100 C.

There are other points made in the chapter, and overall, I thought the chapter did a good job in arguing that carbon is the fittest element on which to base life.

[Confused]

About chapter 4, I thought it was a weak chapter.

One interesting point was "there is a very striking correlation between the abundance of the elements and their utility for life" (page 78). But the rest of the chapter on radioactivity, plate tectonics, geophysical and geochemical condition, and the hydosphere lacked the depth to convince me of their importance.

I consider it weakest because if all this organic matter is floating in the universe as he states (78), then why did God waste the resources by throwing them in space if as Denton claims, "only the earth is fit for a biosphere containing a rich and complex variety of carbon based life forms" (80). It would appear that this abundance of elements is spread out more in space than on earth.

[Confused]

Chapter 5 talks about the fitness of the carbon element.

Some excerpts:

Carbon is unique among the elements in the number and variety of the compounds which it can form. Over a quarter of a million have already been isolated and described, but this gives a very imperfect idea of its powers, since it is the basis of all forms of living matter. Moreover it is the only element which could occupy such a position.

The vast and unique plentitude of organic compounds can only be exploited by living systems within a temperature range of approximately -20 C to 120 C.

It is surely a highly suggestive coincidence that the chemical reactivity of the one great class of compounds, uniquely fit in so many other ways to serve as the build blocks of life, is of optimal utility for the complex atomic and molecular manipulations associated with life in precisely that temperature rang - 0 C to 100 C - in which water the one fluid supremely fit to serves as the matrix for carbon-based life forms, exists as liquid at sea level on the earth.

We can conclude that the weak bonds are only of utility for holding organic compounds into complex 3-D forms, within the terperature range of approximately 0 C to 100 C.

There are other points made in the chapter, and overall, I thought the chapter did a good job in arguing that carbon is the fittest element on which to base life.

I do concede that though there are other hypotheses about other elements being fit for life, they are weak at best and the overall consensus is that carbon is the fittest element.

There was a point I wanted to bring up in this chapter, but I can't seem to find my notes. I will find them and post tonight on rotation.

[otseng]

Chapter 6 talks about the fitness of oxygen and carbon dioxide and how higher life forms are dependent on these gases.

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.

So, oxygen is the most fit element for life for obtaining energy through chemical reactions.

"Oxygen is ... the only element in the most appropriate physical state, with a satifactory solubility in water and with desirable combinations fo kinetic and thermodynamic properties."

"the evolution of large complex forms of life on Earth was only possible due to the advent of atmosphereic oxygen and the subsequent evolution of oxidative phosphorylation. This requirement significantly reduces the probability of the evolution of complex life forms on some remote planet."

Photosynthesis is the reverse reaction of oxidation.

water + carbon dioxide = oxygen + reduced carbon

Nearly all complex plant and animal life on earth depends upon it. It generates all the fuel ... which energize complex life on earth.

So, though we take these two chemical reactions for granted, it reveals an elegant design of complex life. Oxygen and carbon dioxide are gases at earth temperature range and atmospheric pressure. Water is abundant. And life is based on carbon.

it highlights one of the main arguments of the book, namely that the laws of nature are fit for only one specific type of life - that which exists on earth.

[otseng]

Chapter 7 is about DNA and RNA. And Denton admits that it's more difficult to demonstrate that DNA and RNA is the optimal solution.

Although the current evidence is insufficient to establish absolutely the unique fitness of DNA and RNA for their respective biological roles, all the available evidence is at least consistent with this position.

Though it cannot be conclusively shown that it is optimal, there can be no question that it is an elegant solution.

It has the ability to self-replicate. "Every living system replicates itself, yet no machine yet possesses this capacity even to the slightest degree" (pg 147).

Though it contains a lot of information, it is extremely compact. "The information necessary to specify the design of all the organisms which have ever existed on the planet, a number according to GG Simposon, of approximately 1 billion, could be easily compacted into an object the size of a grain of salt!" (pg 154)

It is quite stable, yet able to be split. "it is more stable than the great majority of laboratory biochemicals." (pg 153) "Although the two strands of the helix bind strongly, their affinity is not so great that they cannot be pulled apart and manipulated by the biochemical machinery of the cell." (pg 153)