Extraterrestrials could have started life on Earth …

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 25, 2011

Extraterrestrial life, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Martian flying spaceship in this alien clipart funny picture.

Donald E. Johnson compiled a handy list of people who, beginning over a century ago, have suggested that extraterrestrials could have started life on Earth:

S. Arrhenius., Worlds in the Making, 1908.
Francis Crick, “The Origin of the Genetic Code” J. Mol Biol: 38, 1968, p. 367-379.
Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, 1983, pp. 16-17.
Bernstein. Max, Jason Dworkin, Scott Sandford, George Cooper, and Louis Allamandola, “Racemic amino acids from the ultraviolet photolysis of intestellar ice analogue,” Nature”: 416, 3/28/02

– from Probability’s Nature and the Nature of Probability, p. 32.

Even Richard Dawkins has stated that such intelligent design ay be possible (Ben Stein, Expelled: The Movie, 2008.), p. 32

And if so many great scientists entertain the idea, it must be substantial, so there.

Comments

Elizabeth Liddle:
Mung: how would you investigate the nature of the designer you infer from the patterns in biology?
Ah. I managed to divine that this was not you quoting me but rather your way of showing who you were talking to. I'd prefer not to discuss it until we have actual agreed upon evidence of design in biology. But as a tease for the future, I'd say that one thing that could be inferred is that "the designer" could make choices. cheers.Mung_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

GUN, "As you mention, the methodology is the same whether one is looking for intelligent design of God, or from aliens. Dawkins apparently acknowledges this fact because it was he that brought up the example of aliens in an interview that was clearly focused on ID and God. So I’m guessing that you’re suggesting that the problem Dawkins has with the ID research is that the researchers believe that the design is from God?" Yes, that's a fair summary of my position. "If the ID Movement was led by a bunch of UFO enthusiasts instead of Christians, I think Dawkins would be saying pretty much the same things about it (minus the charge that it’s a front for Creationism). He would still be saying that the material they’ve released is a bunch of bunk that doesn’t deserve a place in the classroom." True, but he would not be warranted to make such a charge without having some understanding of what they are saying. So this is entirely irrelevant. If Dawkins were to say: "I won't believe in aliens unless there is some scientific evidence for such." And then when someone presents some such evidence, he says: "I don't accept such evidence because it comes from people who are motivated to find it by reason that they're a bunch of UFO kooks;" He wouldn't be warranted to make such a charge without first looking at the evidence. He may be reasonably suspicious of such evidence, but he'd still have to consider it to even make the charge. But Dawkins doesn't deal in that manner with ID theory. He makes the charge without considering the evidence; believing that ID theorists are only motivated by their religious beliefs; and yet he offers a methodology by which he thinks design detection might contribute to science: exactly what ID theorists are doing. "I still haven’t seen anything from Dawkins suggesting that design detection is inherently unscientific." Exactly the point! But then he says things like: “What is wrong, then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between evolution and creationism or “intelligent design” (ID)? And, by the way, don’t be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution’s mandate for separation between church and state….” R. Dawkins This is an indication that he doesn't consider the evidence, only the motivation behind finding the evidence. You'll notice that he doesn't see the difference between ID and creationism. That's the first sign of his ignorance on the matter. Also, that he talks about detecting a signature when ID is suggested to him by Stein, he indicates further ignorance on exactly what ID is doing. He doesn't believe that ID has developed the sophistication to go so far as attempting to detect such a signature. He also seems to be painfully ignorant that ID allows for a conclusion of panspermia. "There is no contradiction." Apparently you would really like to believe this, but the facts are against you.CannuckianYankee_{June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, As you mention, the methodology is the same whether one is looking for intelligent design of God, or from aliens. Dawkins apparently acknowledges this fact because it was he that brought up the example of aliens in an interview that was clearly focused on ID and God. So I’m guessing that you’re suggesting that the problem Dawkins has with the ID research is that the researchers believe that the design is from God? If the ID Movement was led by a bunch of UFO enthusiasts instead of Christians, I think Dawkins would be saying pretty much the same things about it (minus the charge that it’s a front for Creationism). He would still be saying that the material they’ve released is a bunch of bunk that doesn’t deserve a place in the classroom. “If design detection is legitimate for a conclusion of panspermia, but not legitimate for a conclusion of God, this stems from Dawkin’s atheism, and not from his expertise as a biologist.” --I still haven’t seen anything from Dawkins suggesting that design detection is inherently unscientific. I believe for Dawkins it’s his view of the quality of the work coming from ID researchers that he has a problem with. I think Dawkins would have viewed Behe’s work the same way if he wasn’t a Christian and instead suggested that the flagellum came from aliens interfering in our evolution. Yes, Dawkins also questions the motivations of Behe and other ID researchers because they are Christian and often attribute the design they believe they’ve found to God, but still none of this means that he believes that design detection is unscientific. There is no contradiction.goodusername_{June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

GUN, "–Well, your description of ID is hardly be anything new – it’s the same argument as Paley’s. The only thing new would be the specific arguments from the ID Movement (e.g. irreducible complexity of the flagellum)." That seems to be a rather dismissive attitude when you haven't apparently read the important and relevant material. Paley's argument was actually quite enlightened, but he didn't have access to evidence, which could confirm his intuition. ID provides the evidence, which makes such an intuition reasonable. Paley didn't consider, nor have access to the current arguments and evidence regarding irreducible complexity or biological information; so the charge that ID is nothing more than an updated rendition of Paley's argument, with nothing new to contribute, is a gross mischaracterization of ID. If you're relying on sources such as Wikipedia or other anti-ID writings, then I don't think you're getting the whole picture. It's great that you have ID writings on your list. I think it would behoove you to actually read and understand them before commenting further. Then we could have a discussion on the relevant issues.CannuckianYankee_{June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

There seems to be some misunderstanding here regarding Stein's interview with Dawkins in "Expelled." First of all, I think the understanding stems from a basic misunderstanding of what ID theory entails. This is perhaps due to the further inferences that most ID theorists and supporters make regarding the existence of God. That inference is metaphysical and not scientific. The detection of design is not. GUN and Lizzie, I think you will find this best explained in SITC, but allow me to point out some of the main thrust of the arguments therein: Dawkins made the charge that seeking a signature of design is not unscientific in the case of confirming or ruling out panspermia. That is his basic belief as exemplified in the interview. He didn't mention "ruling out," but that can be inferred from his statement. If there is no such "signature," then panspermia can reasonably be ruled out. Thus design detection at least as it relates to the idea of panspermia or any other design is falsifiable. The issue here is that ID allows for panspermia as a possibility for the origin of life on Earth. That most ID theorists and supporters don't accept that as true has nothing to do with the science, and more to do with their reasonably held metaphysical beliefs. Whether Dawkins accepts panspermia or not is irrelevant here. He believes that panspermia might be acceptable as science if the methodological conditions are met - namely, detecting a "signature." This does not imply that he believes it, only that it would be a logically valid and scientific hypothesis if such a signature were detected. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that Dawkins contradicts due to his metaphysical beliefs. If design detection is legitimate for a conclusion of panspermia, but not legitimate for a conclusion of God, this stems from Dawkin's atheism, and not from his expertise as a biologist. Again, you don't reach conclusions until you consider the evidence. So if you are following a correct methodology with the evidence, Dawkins concurs; as long as you come to the "correct" metaphysical conclusion.CannuckianYankee_{June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Chris Doyle: “Certainly, most people in Britain have no idea about this crucial feature of ID theory (and I think we agree on that point).” --Well, your description of ID is hardly be anything new – it’s the same argument as Paley’s. The only thing new would be the specific arguments from the ID Movement (e.g. irreducible complexity of the flagellum). “Francis Collins explicitly opposes ID theory for the following reasons:” --I agree with that list for the most part. But I do disagree with this: “There is no doubt that Francis Collins thinks “that looking for ‘design from intelligence’ is inherently unscientific”.” For one thing, I’m pretty sure that he himself believes there IS scientific evidence for intelligent design (or, should I say, ‘design from intelligence’) in nature (e.g. the fine tuning of constants in physics). It’s the quality of the work that he sees a problem with. I believe this to be Dawkins’ complaint as well. I don’t believe the list you gave applies to looking for ‘design from intelligence’ in general, just to what has come from the ID Movement thus far (e.g. irreducible complexity of the flagellum). As Collins says: “it now seems likely that many examples of irreducible complexity are not irreducible after all, and that the primary scientific argument for ID is thus in the process of crumbling” (thank you google books). From what I’ve seen, he believes that the arguments from ID researchers ARE scientific – but that the science is faulty (I believe Dawkins would agree with that). I believe you may be making the same mistake with Collins as you are with Dawkins – interpreting criticism of the ID Movement and their arguments as believing that the search for ID is itself inherently unscientific. “The crucial difference between Dennett’s “unlikely possibility” and Dawkins “intriguing possibility” is that Dennett is dealing in fanciful thought experiments and imaginary worlds while Dawkins is dealing in scientific possibilities and scientific verification of those possibilities.” --I don’t think Dawkins sees it as any more likely than Dennett. Dennett uses an example (other than the “service manual” one) as a distinct scientific possibility (even adding a disclaimer that even if such a thing is found it wouldn’t be a blow against Darwinism since the “origin of species” would still be via Darwinism, and even if life on earth were seeded by aliens, THEIR origin would ultimately be from naturalistic means – the same disclaimer Dawkins put on his website when discussing the interview.) And in fact the point of the example was HOW we would identify such alien fiddling in a scientific way. I too would call the possibility of aliens “intriguing”, although I’d bet the ranch against it, as I’m sure Dawkins would. I think his 30 years of writings makes it clear that he believes that life came about via chemistry on Earth and the word “intriguing” doesn’t change that. I think he was just making it clear that it’s not something impossible. “He also believes that there are no “designs that cannot be approached by a gradual stepwise redesign process”. The appearance of design therefore is just an illusion. There is no real possibility of design for Dennett. In his books, Dawkins starts off from the exact same position.” -- Actually, I think Dawkins and Dennett believe that there are quite a few hypothetical designs that would not be possible via a gradual stepwise process, and the fact that (in their opinion) no such “designs that cannot be approached by a gradual stepwise redesign process” have been found is one of the reasons they feel so strongly that Darwinism is the answer. Dennett actually gave an example of such just before the quote above (unfortunately the actual example was cut off in my hatchet job, and I’m at work right now and don’t have the book handy) - but the point is both he, and Dawkins who used Dennett’s example (and there’ve been other examples), believe that it is possible to detect intelligent design, and that there are such hypothetical designs that aren’t possible via Darwinism. I believe that’s part of the reason Dawkins used Dennett’s example. Dawkins wanted to make it clear that it IS possible to find intelligent design (or, should I say, “design from intelligence”) in nature – it’s just that we haven’t done so thus far. “If you read Meyer’s SITC and just kept Dawkins’s aliens in mind, you would find that SITC provides all of the empirical basis that is needed to flesh out Dawkins “intriguing possibility”.” --Unfortunately I haven’t been able to read that book yet, but it is on my list. “As CannuckianYankee pointed out, it is a major reason why TalkOrigins want to buy the film in the hope that they will uncover footage to REDEEM Dawkins!” --I’ve read all of Dawkins’ books, and I didn’t bat an eyelash at the example he gave. There is even a precedent for the example (Dennett). The only thing surprising about it for me was Stein’s reaction (and the subsequent reaction from ID folks and Creationists). I don’t think Dawkins’ claimed to have been unfairly edited in the film, and I don’t see any reason for him to do so; but I believe others in the film have complained as such, so if they are looking for material that was edited out, it probably isn’t for Dawkins, and I haven’t found anything suggesting that it is for Dawkins.goodusername_{June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Hello again goodusername, The crucial feature of Intelligent Design theory is being able to look at nature – things like the cell, for example – and being able to identify hallmarks of design, indeed a signature that can only come from an Intelligent Designer. ID theory stops well short of identifying the Intelligent Designer but at the same time recognises that the theory is supportive of belief in a Creator; just as the theory of Evolution is supportive of atheism. Certainly, most people in Britain have no idea about this crucial feature of ID theory (and I think we agree on that point). Francis Collins explicitly opposes ID theory for the following reasons: 1. It is just an “argument from personal incredulity” and a “God of the gaps” theory. 2. It “fails in a fundamental way to qualify as a scientific theory” because, he claims, it does not “predict other findings”, nor “suggest approaches for further experimental verification”. 3. It “proposal of the intervention of supernatural forces to account for complex multicomponent biological entities is a scientific dead end”. 4. It lacks a “robust foundation for its primary claim of irreducible complexity” There is no doubt that Francis Collins thinks “that looking for ‘design from intelligence’ is inherently unscientific”. He says “this ship is not headed to the promised land; it is headed instead to the bottom of the ocean. If believers have attached their last vestiges of hope that God could find a place in human existence through ID theory, and that theory collapses, what then happens to faith?” The crucial difference between Dennett’s “unlikely possibility” and Dawkins “intriguing possibility” is that Dennett is dealing in fanciful thought experiments and imaginary worlds while Dawkins is dealing in scientific possibilities and scientific verification of those possibilities. Dennett knows there are no “service manuals attached”. He also believes that there are no “designs that cannot be approached by a gradual stepwise redesign process”. The appearance of design therefore is just an illusion. There is no real possibility of design for Dennett. In his books, Dawkins starts off from the exact same position. However, Dawkins goes much further in the interview talking of the “intriguing possibility” that life was seeded on this planet. He says it is “possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature, of some sort of designer and that designer could well be an intelligence from elsewhere in the universe”. So, although you may be right that Dawkins had Dennett’s example “pre-thought out and tucked away just FOR such an occasion as presented itself at the interview” the expression of that example went badly wrong for Dawkins. He ended up saying something that was, for him, incredibly sympathetic to ID proponents. His wide open acceptance of an extra-terrestial source for ID in nature serves to validate all of the fundamental propositions that ID theory makes. If you read Meyer’s SITC and just kept Dawkins’s aliens in mind, you would find that SITC provides all of the empirical basis that is needed to flesh out Dawkins “intriguing possibility”. That is why atheists hate that interview, because Dawkins made such a huge gaffe. As CannuckianYankee pointed out, it is a major reason why TalkOrigins want to buy the film in the hope that they will uncover footage to REDEEM Dawkins!Chris Doyle_{June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

Mung, as you rightly said on another thread, we seem to be talking past each other. We don't seem to use words in the same way. I think I'm getting better at inferring your meaning now, and I hope the same is true of you of me. So let's go on from here.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
However, a scientist, not being concerned with the supernatural, having inferred design in a pattern, goes on to investigate the nature of the designer. Mung: how would you investigate the nature of the designer you infer from the patterns in biology? I had understood (but perhaps misunderstood) you to say that this question wasn’t in the domain of ID. If so, can you explain why not? If not, can you say how you think the nature of your inferred designer could be investigated?
Was that something I wrote?Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Mung, I did NOT “allege that ID was creationism”, at any time.
Not in those exact words, no. But I hearken back to what for me was my first introduction to you here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/no-fossil-rabbits-in-the-precambrian-but-what-about-complex-cells/ A month ago to the day (more or less) :) Imagine that.
I don’t think I understand the problem either. I always thought that those who point to the Cambrian “explosion” as evidence against “Darwinism” did so because they interpret it as evidence that a huge variety of living forms were created ab initio at that time. I’d have thought evidence of a precursor from which that “explosion” might have radiated would have tended to infirm that interpretation rather than support it. So is the OP suggesting that eukaryotes were created ab initio in the Pre-Cambrian, and the Cambrian critters descended from those?
Now it is true that you did agree with me that ID is not Creationism:
I do understand that ID is not creationism, however, I know of very few theories as to how ID might actually have been implemented, and it strikes me that evidence that is claimed by IDists as infirming “Darwinism” (for example the OP of this thread) also constrains possible implementations of ID, including, for example, theories that postulate living things were created by an Intelligent Designer already complex at a particular time point.
It's difficult to say whether you knew that all long, or changed your mind, or what.
Ab initio complex creation by an Intelligent Designer would predict, perhaps, something like the Cambrian explosion...
Especially since you continued to speak of creationist theories as "ID theories." ME: Such theories are not ID theories. I hope you understand why that is the case. YOU: No, I don’t, I’m afraid! Can you explain? That's in post #53. That thread was my introduction to you. Folks can go there and read all about the Intelligent Designer and my efforts to set you straight. Example: ME: 3. Why speculations that have nothing to do with detecting design are not ID theories. YOU: Thanks. I don’t understand number 3, though.Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

CY:
You may be correct about where Dawkins drew his answer from. However, this does not diminish the fact that he contradicts himself when he allows one instance of design detection but not ultimately ID. Also, the difference between Collins and Dawkins is their reasons for rejecting ID. Collins would seem to object to certain theological implications of ID. Dawkins objects to certain metaphysical implications of ID, and there is quite a difference there. Taking a closer look at Dawkins; he doesn’t object to the kind of design detection that doesn’t threaten his metaphysical views (panspermia), but he does clearly object to the type that does threaten them (ID). With panspermia you still have Darwinian evolution – only it started elsewhere. With ID you don’t have Darwinian evolution, period. His distinctions in this regard make it quite clear that his objections to ID are metaphysical and not scientific.
Clearly put, but I disagree. He does not contradict himself, precisely because his objections to ID are "metaphysical". Or rather, because they are, as I would say, methodological I know people here disagree, but I consider the case sound: the reason science cannot entertain supernatural hypothesis (i.e. an alien designer is fine, but a Divine designer isn't) isn't because scientists are prejudiced against the Divine, but because scientific methology simply does not cover Divine causes. Not won't, can't. If you posit God as an alien larger than the universe, that's fine - we go out and look for the properties of that alien. But then it isn't God. God doesn't have discoverable properties, by definition (or by most definitions). If God did, s/he wouldn't be omnipotent. Sure, Dawkins then concludes God doesn't exist. But that's not scientific reasoning. That's his position, given that he thinks there is no evidence for God. Whoopsies - just seen a flaw in Dawkins argument! Yeah, you are right - he booboo'd. He can't claim he doesn't believe in God because there's no evidence, AND say that evidence of God wouldn't be scientific. He has to pick one. Still, not the booboo he is accused of making. There's nothing unscientific in principle about an ID inference. He's right about that.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

GUN, Prepare to be surprised once again: This from Chris' post at 47: "What is wrong, then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between evolution and creationism or “intelligent design” (ID)? And, by the way, don’t be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution’s mandate for separation between church and state…." R. Dawkins "Don't be surprised by the disingenuous euphemism," that is unless the euphemism is used in support of a non-religious conclusion such as panspermia. Then it wouldn't be disingenuous. Gotta wonder why Dawkins is so concerned to write anti-religious screed such as "The God Delusion." How many other biologists do you find writing books about religion? I gather the percentage is quite small. This lends even more support to the realization that Dawkins is concerned about more than science.CannuckianYankee_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

GUN, You may be correct about where Dawkins drew his answer from. However, this does not diminish the fact that he contradicts himself when he allows one instance of design detection but not ultimately ID. Also, the difference between Collins and Dawkins is their reasons for rejecting ID. Collins would seem to object to certain theological implications of ID. Dawkins objects to certain metaphysical implications of ID, and there is quite a difference there. Taking a closer look at Dawkins; he doesn't object to the kind of design detection that doesn't threaten his metaphysical views (panspermia), but he does clearly object to the type that does threaten them (ID). With panspermia you still have Darwinian evolution - only it started elsewhere. With ID you don't have Darwinian evolution, period. His distinctions in this regard make it quite clear that his objections to ID are metaphysical and not scientific.CannuckianYankee_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Chris, That's a really great post at 71. I think you also answered what I tried to draw KF's attention to, quite well. It was my concern that markf thought (as MG did as well) that design detection only works by rigorous calculations, and that when that rigorous calculation is applied you always end up with the same result - in this example; murder. However, KF will probably chime in eventually as well.CannuckianYankee_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

But what kick started this analogy in the first place was the fact that Lizzie was pressing for an ID explanation to the nature of the designer.
Assume the medical examiner rules the death a homicide. The medical examiner does not then conduct the investigation for the perpetrator(s). He hands it off to the detective(s). Consider ID to be the ME.Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle: “Hey GUN, I completely disagree. Look at the second paragraph of my quote. That is unequivocally concerned with ID theory. The first is too really: you’re reading far too much into the speech marks (which are just there to introduce the subject to British Guardian readers, most of whom are clueless on this subject).” --What “subject” aren't the readers familiar with? The idea that there's design in nature? That's hardly a new topic - in fact, most of the readers probably believe it themselves! But actually I agree with you - many probably are not familiar with "ID theory" – an idea from a particular recent movement in America. To use Francis Collins again, you probably won't hear him say that he supports "intelligent design" because it's now a loaded term. He may have used those words years ago but not now. It's now a specific "thing" – something that he opposes, it’s not merely the idea that there's "design from intelligence" – something that he VERY much believes in and believes that there is evidence of such in nature (this is why “Intelligent Design” is often capitalized or put in quotes). Again, the two shouldn’t be conflated. Just because someone is opposed to “ID”, that doesn’t mean they think that looking for “design from intelligence” is inherently unscientific. Daniel Dennett in his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" uses EXACTLY the same example that Dawkins uses in the Stein interview. He brings up the “possibility” (albeit “unlikely”) that aliens seeded or fiddled with life on early Earth, and then just like Dawkins, asks how we’d look for such a thing in the genetic blueprints. This could hardly be called a "gaffe" from Dennett - it wasn't an off-the-cuff example in an interview. This is a book - and the example goes on for FIVE pages (314-318). To quote Dennett (this is very much a cut-up-and-paste-together job since the example is very long): “Imagine a world in which actual hands from another galaxy supplemented the "hidden hand" of natural selection. … Then, let's suppose, they absconded. Now, would their handiwork be detectable by any imaginable analysis by biologists today? If we found that some organisms came with service manuals attached, this would be a dead giveaway. … Are there designs that simply could not be erected without the help of this particular crane? If there are designs that cannot be approached by a gradual, stepwise redesign process in which each step is at least no worse for the gene's survival chances than its predecessor, then the existence of such a design in nature would seem to require, at some point in its ancestry, a helping hand from a foresightful designer.” Was Dennett “endorsing Intelligent Design” also? If one merely means that it’s possible to look for such design in nature, than yes. But just like Dawkins, he’s never indicated otherwise. I’m fairly convinced that Dawkins got his example FROM Dennett. The examples are too close – and in his further explanation of the example (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394) even brings up Dennett and “cranes”. And so far from being an off-the-cuff gaffe or a moment of “unguarded honesty”, I think he actually had this example pre-thought out and tucked away just FOR such an occasion as presented itself at the interview.goodusername_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Hi Mark, There is no disagreement between us as far as one thing is concerned: there are all sorts of different ways and circumstances in which people die. The majority of them are obvious, some less obvious and occasionally frankly baffling (like spontaneous combustion). But what kick started this analogy in the first place was the fact that Lizzie was pressing for an ID explanation to the nature of the designer. I wanted to point out that she was getting ahead of herself and I tried to illustrate that by analogy: first of all, lets establish whether or not a murder has been committed before we launch a murder hunt. Furthermore, being able to establish murder with complete certainty does not always lead to identification, motives or even means of the murderer. Some crimes will forever remain unsolved. But that doesn't alter the fact that murder happened in the first place. Now Mark, I can see where you're trying to go with this. Life is like a dead body that may have been murdered or may not: it's debatable. However, I maintain that, actually, the evidence for Intelligent Design in life is overwhelming. So overwhelming that even Dawkins admits that life gives the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Evolutionist explanations attempt to explain away the appearance of design as an illusion of random mutation and natural selection. As you know, I maintain that they fail, miserably in their attempts. Now I know that you like the mathematical slant of ID arguments, Mark, as do many ID proponents too. I like them, but, for me, they are merely the icing on the cake and I could take them or leave them. If I look at Stonehenge, someone who has been stabbed to death or the miraculous super-computer/super-factory that is the cell the fact that Stonehenge was built, that someone murdered the stabbing victim and that the cell is a product of some incomprehensibly vast Intelligence is plainly obvious to me. If someone can calculate the odds of these things happening by mere chance and show that those odds exceed the probabilistic resources of the universe, then that's fascinating stuff and more power to those who calculate it all. But I don't need any of that to know. The evidence before my eyes is overwhelming. So, the ID case is not at all "like saying there is a mathematical calculation that we can do on the body that results in a property that is always associated with murder." It is much simpler than that. Some deaths are obviously murders and they just don't happen by accident or natural causes. The cell (along with virtually everything else in nature) was obviously designed because something that mind-boggling sophisticated could not possibly have made itself. If Darwin knew then what we know now about the cell, he would agree with me.Chris Doyle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, I hope you're paying attention to this! markf: "The ID case is like saying there is a mathematical calculation that we can do on the body that results in a property that is always associated with murder." markf, the reason I'm drawing KF's attention to this is because I'm sure that he could address this better than I can, and I don't want to misspeak. However, I do find that there's a problem with this argument, and I feel that you've misrepresented ID here. True, analogies are not always perfectly applicable, but I think you are correct that Chris' analogy is a good one. I just have strong doubts that your conclusion here is correct. My doubt concerns "is always associated with murder." KF, you'll have to read a few related posts from Lizzie and Chris.CannuckianYankee_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

#68 etc Chris - I think the analogy is quite a good one. But the key point is you don't establish murder by ruling out natural causes or by some universal sign of murder on the body. If someone dies for no obvious reason that is death for reasons unknown. You only establish murder if there are signs of a specific cause of death and we can reasonably deduce a murderer did it based on our knowledge of people and what they typically can do and want to do. For example: (1) If an elderly person is found dead then we generally deduce natural causes such as a heart attack because that is far the most likely explanation. We might investigate murder if there other suspicious circumstances such as murder, presence of drugs which could have caused heart attack, etc. (2) If a young healthy adult is found dead for no discoverable reason then natural causes, murder, suicide etc are all possibilities. (3) If that adult has a broken windpipe and serious bruising round the neck then murder is suspected because it is well known that people can and do murder people that way (4) If the victim is found in a locked room with their brain turned to mush, but the skull intact, it will be a total mystery as to what happened because humans do not as far as we know have the ability to inflict death that way but nor do we know any natural cause. The ID case is like saying there is a mathematical calculation that we can do on the body that results in a property that is always associated with murder.markf_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Narrowboat? Luxury! I've just finished mowing the lawn and have a school fete to look forward to... think of me as you bask on the river! :-(... I think my final point is this: we both agree that it looks like murder. The difference is, I think there really is a murderer. You think that it was death by natural causes and the appearance of murder is an illusion. Where do we go from here? Well, with the help of Stephen Meyer's SITC, I show that natural causes are not capable of accounting for the dead body. I go on to show that the only possible explanation is that there is a murderer out there somewhere. You won't even consider the possibility of murder until I give you the identity and motive of the murderer so natural causes MUST be the explanation no matter what I say! Eat your heart out, Columbo :-)Chris Doyle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

Chris: yes, the weather is lovely here too! Might go out on our narrowboat later :) But you misunderstood me: all arguments by analogy must be treated with caution, which is why I tried to get back to biology. But I agree that the crime detection analogy works; I just think it supports my case not yours :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

Sure Mark, but the majority of deaths are by natural causes and this can be established at the scene most of the time.Chris Doyle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

Ah, *now* the argument by analogy is misleading! I disagree, it is perfectly fitting because the methodology of design detection applies universally, but, it's far too sunny outside to take this any further just now so catch you later.Chris Doyle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

Chris #62 and #60 There is a difference between: "death by natural causes is established" which does indeed rule out murder and accident and suicide and "death by natural causes is not ruled out" which would not prevent a murder investigationmarkf_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

But, because argument by analogy can be misleading, the way I'd approach the biological question is this: Yes, we seem to have a pattern that cannot have arisen by chance - some kind of selection process has clearly been at work. Not only that, but the patterns are such that the result is co-ordinated functional system that is both self-preserving and self-replicating. Monod calls this teleonomy - an intrinsic purposefulness whereby a system functions to preserve and propagate the system (as opposed to teleology, which might refer to a system that functions to benefit some agent outside the system). And we could refer, perhaps in scarequotes, to the "purpose" or "design" of a teleonomic function - we can say that the "purpose" of a wing is to enable a bird to fly, and that it is "designed" to be optimised for gliding, in the case of an albatross, or for hovering, in the case of a hummingbird. So the question then becomes: given that the purpose of the entities functions is ultimately self-preservation and self-propagation (which we can collapse into a single construct, something like self-persistence, either by means replication, or renovation), how were they designed to optimise that function? Which I would rephrase as: by what process did it come about that such exquisitely effect functions (so well fitted for their purpose) arose? Well, the process must be both creative (must come up with "ideas") and selective (must choose from the best of those "ideas"). I guess a theoretically infinitely brilliant designer might do both at once - conceive of a creative system that was necessarily the best, and required no further selection, but that's not how human designers work - they come up with ideas, then refine them, then come up with more, then refine those, etc, as we can see if we look at, for example, designs of aeroplanes from the Wright Brothers to the Space Shuttle - clearly the Space Shuttle is in the lineage of the first biplane, but has undergone both incremental and radical refinements since then. So our postulated process is likely to include both the production of novelty, and the selection of what works best. Then we want to say: does the "design" process (keeping the scarequotes for now) show evidence of simulation processes, or is there more evidence that every idea is tested to destruction? In other words, do we see a series of incremental prototypes, or are only the best ideas selected for prototype construction and testing? Well, I'd say that we have good evidence that a large number of prototypes are constructed, because we have lots of evidence of incremental transitional series in the fossil record, and good reasons for interpolating transitions where the record itself is gappy. But, of course, where we don't have evidence for such a transition (yet!) and may never have, is for the first modern cell (complete with DNA, ribosomes, tRNA and all). So that might be a point at which we might want to say: some kind of simulation process - some kind of intentional process might have been required. However, I think that from that point onwards, we have a fairly good candidate for a "design" process, in the form of Darwinian processes, in which "candidate" variants are produced (by various stochastic mechanisms intrinsic to the replication process) including substitution of single nucleotides, repeats of sections DNA, splicing and recombining sections of DNA from either parent in the case of sexual reproducing species, etc. So we have mechanisms for the production of "ideas", as it were - prototype variants; then, because the systems are teleonomic (the functional criteria is to perpetuate the organism) we also have a built in selection mechanism, which is, simply, that the more effective a variant of function is at perpetuating/replicating the organism, the more that functional design will itself be perpetuated! This is what we call "selection" but no selecting agent is involved; it is simply the inevitable outcome from a population in which replication results in variance, and the variants vary along dimensions that affect reproductive success. So, IMO, we need look no further for a designer, once we have the basic self-replication architecture in place. What may be the case (and I will continue with Meyer's book as I understand it is the case he is making) that we need to invoke some other process - a scare-quote-free Designer to account for that basic architecture, because no prototypes are in evidence. In other words, chasing both design and designer leads me to a good (I would argue) account of The Origin of Species, but not (possibly) to an account of the Origin of Life. For that, conceivably, we may need to invoke a Designer, rather than merely a "designer process". I don't think so, but I will continue to read Meyer with an open, if skeptical, mind. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

You're appealing to a small minority of deaths while ignoring the majority of them, Lizzie. Most deaths are cut and dried: death by natural causes (such as old age or poor health), death by suicide (drug overdose, slit wrists in the bath tub), death by accident (he fell into the mincing machine) or murder (by stabbing, shooting, strangling, etc). If death by natural causes, suicide or accident is established - often at the scene, there and then - then there will be no murder investigation. If a murder has been established, then (and only then) does the murder hunt begin. Sometimes that murder investigation will not result in a conviction. We may never know who did the crime or why. But that doesn't alter the fact of murder. What we never do is look at a dead body that gives the overwhelming appearance of having been murdered but then rule out any possibility of murder because there is no way that old Mrs Smith did it (she hasn't got a criminal record, so our systems can't flag it)! Which sounds very similar to the objections you are expressing here, Lizzie.Chris Doyle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

But that isn't true, Chris. Typical news reports will say something like "Mr Smith was found dead at his home on Thursday morning. Police are treating the death as suspicious." That's well before any inquest, and, indeed, an inquest is at liberty to bring in a verdict of murder at the hands of a specific person, not just "person or persons unknown". You don't first rule out suicide and then start investigating a murder - you might maintain suicide, accidental death, and murder as alternate hypotheses throughout the investigation.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

You're getting ahead of yourself Lizzie. A murder investigation doesn't even begin unless other forms of death have been ruled out (ie. it didn't just happen by accident, natural causes or by itself through suicide). Go where the evidence leads and don't rule out suspects too soon.Chris Doyle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

Not really, Chris, normally the two things go hand in hand. Things certainly go better if the do. Knowing the MO of a murderer may be an important factor in distinguishing, in a given case, whether a death was murder. And I think the same is true in biology.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

Morning Lizzie, Surely you should establish that Intelligent Design has taken place before worrying about who the Designer is. It works for forensic science.Chris Doyle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply