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 agree with your overall assessments of chapters 6 and 7 but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs. While both chapters do show how the elements work in such great harmony and balance and how RNA and DNA work in such great harmony, Denton attempts to lure to the reader into accepting this as evidence of an overall design that works in harmony and balance. The problem is that while he is so busy distracting the reader by pointing to all the fine tuning in the universe, earth, and life itself, he evades pointing out how often the elements don't balance or work in such harmony which leads to destruction of life rather than promotion of life. All of the processess are interdependent upon one another. If one of the processes is interrupted, say for instance an asteroid hits the earth leading to dust etc coating the earths atmosphere leading to no sunlight for an extended period of time so photosynthesis can't occur, global temperatures can't be maintained, and life is essentially suppressed and many plant and animals become extinct, then all the subsequent processes cannot occur. He points to water being so essential, but fails to point out that most of what is found on earth (oceanic salt water) isn't suitable for land life. For example, hurricane Ivan hit us here in Florida. The salt water destroyed most if not all plants within 5-8 miles inland. Land creatures can't drink ocean water. We can't use it to irrigate agriculture. If it is as Otseng implies:

an elegant design of complex life.

then it isn't an intelligent design. Now that is just water. But look at the climate and atmosphere required for this elegant design. It must be maintained within narrow parameters. Sure, this is elegant design, but not very intelligent. Too warm waters with too cool atmosphere leads to destructive hurricanes, too cool air in too warm atmosphere leads to massive thunderstorms and tornados. Too much gas pressures in the earths core leads to volcano eruptions and earthquakes. Once again, elegant design, but not very intelligent.

Now looking at DNA and RNA.

Otseng:

page 160 wrote:
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.

Considering the fact that mutations occur, I am not sure it is elegant. And considering that fact that though most mutations are insignificant, the fact that those that are consist of more fatal mutations rather than beneficial mutations once again demands the acknowledgment that regardless of how elegant Denton wants to make this, it certainly isn't intelligent and most would consider it fairly incompetent to a degree when you factor in the inefficiency and unpredictability of the system as a whole.

[otseng]

I agree with your overall assessments of chapters 6 and 7 but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs.

To show that they are not the best design requires you to give a plausible alternative that is superior. Otherwise, it is an unsubstantiated claim.

All of the processess are interdependent upon one another. If one of the processes is interrupted, say for instance an asteroid hits the earth leading to dust etc coating the earths atmosphere leading to no sunlight for an extended period of time so photosynthesis can't occur, global temperatures can't be maintained, and life is essentially suppressed and many plant and animals become extinct, then all the subsequent processes cannot occur.

Of course if a cataclysmic event occurs, then there will be a major disruption in life. But, I fail to see how this has any relevance to his argument.

He points to water being so essential, but fails to point out that most of what is found on earth (oceanic salt water) isn't suitable for land life.

This is true also, but again, how is the fact that land life cannot live in saltwater relevant?

But look at the climate and atmosphere required for this elegant design. It must be maintained within narrow parameters.

I think this is another evidence of fine-tuning.

Too warm waters with too cool atmosphere leads to destructive hurricanes, too cool air in too warm atmosphere leads to massive thunderstorms and tornados. Too much gas pressures in the earths core leads to volcano eruptions and earthquakes.

I don't recall anywhere where Denton argues for a "perfect" atmosphere.

But, actually I would agree that the current atmosphere is not "perfect". And I believe the atmospheric conditions prior to the flood were superior to current conditions.

And considering that fact that though most mutations are insignificant, the fact that those that are consist of more fatal mutations rather than beneficial mutations once again demands the acknowledgment that regardless of how elegant Denton wants to make this, it certainly isn't intelligent and most would consider it fairly incompetent to a degree when you factor in the inefficiency and unpredictability of the system as a whole.

I would agree that detrimental mutations vastly outnumbers beneficial mutations. But, I do not see this as evidence against design.

Just because viruses can infect Microsoft Vista does not mean that the Vista was not intelligently designed. Or if rust appears on a Cadillac, it doesn't mean the car wasn't intelligently designed.

[McCulloch]

I would agree that detrimental mutations vastly outnumbers beneficial mutations. But, I do not see this as evidence against design.

Just because viruses can infect Microsoft Vista does not mean that the Vista was not intelligently designed. Or if rust appears on a Cadillac, it doesn't mean the car wasn't intelligently designed.

Perhaps, but it does argue against the omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence of Microsoft and General Motors.

[otseng]

Perhaps, but it does argue against the omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence of Microsoft and General Motors.

Microsoft is not omnipotent?! Heresy!

[otseng]

Denton covers proteins in chapter 8.

As the constructor devices of the cell, it is the proteins that carry out all the atomic manipulations upon which life depends.

However, like DNA, Denton doesn’t conclusively show that proteins are the best solution.

While there could perhaps be “alternative” proteins of very different amino acid sequence and perhaps even basic design which are functionally equivalent to hemoglobin or collagen, if the teleological position is correct, then no “alternatives” should be fitter than the natural products. Unfortunately, protein chemistry is not sufficiently advanced to provide any clear answers. Consequently, the teleological position cannot be subjected to a vigorous test.

But, current evidence shows that no other class of molecules approaches the diverse range of functionality as proteins.

Within the context of current scientific knowledge proteins are, as far as we know, the only available molecular constructor devices possessing, first, the capacity to carry out a vast diversity of structural and functional chemical roles, involving every imaginable type of specific atomic and molecular manipulations and, second, the capacity to assemble themselves automatically without the help of an external agent.

In the entire realm of science no class of molecule is currently known which can remotely compete with proteins. It seems increasingly unlikely that the abilities of proteins could be realized to the same degree in any other material form.

[QED]

Electromagnetic radiation from gamma rays through X rays to ultraviolet rays is all harmful to life. Similarly, radiation in the far infrared and microwave regions is also damaging to life. Just about the only region of the electromagnetic spectrum which is harmless to life apart form the visible and the near infrared is the region of very long wavelength radiation - the radio waves. So the sun not only puts out all its radiant energy in the tiny band of utility to life but virturally none in those regions of the spectrum which are harmful to life.

Add to this the interesting fact that atmospheric gases absorb EMR outside of this range.

I'd just like to point out that this typifies the problem with the conclusions drawn by the author. Our star is a normal main sequence G2 type, one of over 100 billion stars in our own Galaxy. There are many other different types of stars some of which pour intense Gamma rays into their vicinities. Obviously we wouldn't find ourselves in orbit around any of those. It's simply not appropriate to draw any teleological conclusions from Anthropic observations.

If we went through the book paragraph by paragraph with a big red marker pen and eliminated all such worthless observations what would we be left with?

[otseng]

I'd just like to point out that this typifies the problem with the conclusions drawn by the author. Our star is a normal main sequence G2 type, one of over 100 billion stars in our own Galaxy. There are many other different types of stars some of which pour intense Gamma rays into their vicinities. Obviously we wouldn't find ourselves in orbit around any of those. It's simply not appropriate to draw any teleological conclusions from Anthropic observations.

You'll have to explain in more detail why not.

If we went through the book paragraph by paragraph with a big red marker pen and eliminated all such worthless observations what would we be left with?

Feel free to bring up the paragraphs that you're referring to and we can discuss.

[Greenbeard]

To show that they are not the best design requires you to give a plausible alternative that is superior. Otherwise, it is an unsubstantiated claim.

This is upside down. The burden of proof is on those attempting to show that the implied design, or excellence of design, is inevitable. That's exactly the subject of debate. To beg the issue, and simply assume that there is design or excellence of design and expect 'proof' of the negative is a useless pursuit. The unsubstantiated claim is that of design.

Matt

[otseng]

The burden of proof is on those attempting to show that the implied design, or excellence of design, is inevitable. That's exactly the subject of debate.

Yes, the burden of proof is upon Denton. And I think he does a good job arguing for his position in the book. He has provided quite detailed arguments and evidence for his position. So, if you have specific arguments against what Denton presents, please present those.

To beg the issue, and simply assume that there is design or excellence of design and expect 'proof' of the negative is a useless pursuit. The unsubstantiated claim is that of design.

No, I'm merely challenging Confused's statement "but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs." It is this statement that needs to be supported.

As for the evidence for design, I've already presented the arguments for light, water, carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, DNA, proteins, and some others. And I'll be continuing on with the other chapters as time permits.

[Confused]

The burden of proof is on those attempting to show that the implied design, or excellence of design, is inevitable. That's exactly the subject of debate.

Yes, the burden of proof is upon Denton. And I think he does a good job arguing for his position in the book. He has provided quite detailed arguments and evidence for his position. So, if you have specific arguments against what Denton presents, please present those.

To beg the issue, and simply assume that there is design or excellence of design and expect 'proof' of the negative is a useless pursuit. The unsubstantiated claim is that of design.

No, I'm merely challenging Confused's statement "but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs." It is this statement that needs to be supported.

As for the evidence for design, I've already presented the arguments for light, water, carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, DNA, proteins, and some others. And I'll be continuing on with the other chapters as time permits.

Sorry, been out with flu. Will get up to speed and respond promptly by tonight.