tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post5923837232317504369..comments2023-05-19T23:14:02.829+12:00Comments on Born on State Highway One: DC: The Improbability of EarthUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-19400198815468345652008-01-16T16:13:00.000+13:002008-01-16T16:13:00.000+13:00Sweet as, will do.Sweet as, will do.Ryan Sproullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11222455658493463011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-67811384550958994322008-01-16T15:34:00.000+13:002008-01-16T15:34:00.000+13:00RyanOn page 180 of The Divinity Code you'll see a ...Ryan<BR/><BR/>On page 180 of The Divinity Code you'll see a story recounted involving a US sociologist and theologian. Perhaps you can tell me a credible "natural" explanation for the story. You don't need to do it yet, but you can keep this in mind for when you get to that part of the book.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05470121888188717798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-61205446155113720822008-01-16T13:35:00.000+13:002008-01-16T13:35:00.000+13:00Ian,All you are saying is that you admit that whil...Ian,<BR/><BR/>All you are saying is that you admit that while science trumps supernatural explanations at every testable issue, you fall back on untestable issues and claim their very untestability (unique, unreproducable) makes them "hugely significant" and thus somehow outweigh the overwhelming tendency for scientific explanations to trump supernatural explanations <I>practically every single time</I>.<BR/><BR/>In the analogy of the thousand men and the lie detector, what you're saying is that after 999 men were found to have lied in their lives, it's reasonable to believe that the now dead and untestable 1000th man had never told a lie. Why? Precisely because he's dead and untestable - making him unique and a million times more significant than the others, and thus unlikely to follow the established pattern.<BR/><BR/>And come on. You don't seriously think "the fact that we haven't seen another universe spring up in 15 billion years lends weight to it not being part of natural ongoing processes." You know perfectly well that if universes were springing up, we by definition would not be seeing them.<BR/><BR/>It is <I>possible</I> that the most accurate explanation for the existence of the universe (if such a notion is intelligible) or abiogenesis is a supernatural one. And it is possible that the most accurage explanations are scientific ones. But you seem to think that the fact that they're both <I>possible</I> puts them on an even footing, and the choice is a matter of taste/bias.<BR/><BR/>It's not. It's not an even footing. Naturalistic explanations have repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly trumped supernatural ones. It has never been the case in the experience of the human race that if one assumes there is a naturalistic explanation for some physical phenomenon, you will be proven wrong. It has never been the case in any testable situation in the history of the human race that if one assumes there is a supernatural explanation for some physical phenomenon, you will be proven correct.<BR/><BR/>Supernatural explanations are on the back foot. All you have done is retreated to untestable phenomena, declared them "significant" and so worth more points than the whole history of science's triumphs, and claimed that it's petty bias not to believe a big invisible being is the correct explanation this time.<BR/><BR/>It's not faith to believe that if something has happened a million times before, it'll happen again this time. It's the only reasonable attitude. It could be wrong. This could be the one time. But it is unreasonable to believe that. If you apply the term "faith" equally to expecting unprecedented exceptions to rules and expecting things to conform to rules, I really don't know what you mean by the word at all.Ryan Sproullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11222455658493463011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-47792133824058898782008-01-16T12:34:00.000+13:002008-01-16T12:34:00.000+13:00Ryan...just picking up on a couple of things.First...Ryan...just picking up on a couple of things.<BR/><BR/>Firstly the "purpose" issue. If God created humans for his purposes, then yes, your life has a purpose independent of what you might percieve that to be.<BR/><BR/>Divine plaything, a means "to someone else's end"? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, and that's the whole reason Christianity hangs on a choice for faith, rather than a decree.<BR/><BR/>God doesn't force you to accept him.<BR/><BR/>God's purpose for your life might be the best purpose possible for you. You may choose not to embrace it, as is your right under free will.<BR/><BR/>Yes I did read your post, but it got caught up in the wider issue here.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't be too swift to authoritatively declare that science has disproven demonic possession or influence on mental health. I've seen some of these things first hand...and I've seen reports that a growing number of psychologists/psychiatrists are taking seriously the importance of religious faith in curing some of these issues where drugs have failed. <BR/><BR/>Even so, we agree that God is not causing lightning, (although this doesn't rule out his capacity to cause a lightning strike in a particular circumstance by divine fiat), or other natural phenomena.<BR/><BR/>However, as I said earlier and you are evading it, the comparisons you draw are several orders of magnitude away from the creation of the universe and the creation of life. Those events are singularities of huge significance. The fact that we haven't seen another universe spring up in 15 billion years lends weight to it not being part of natural ongoing processes..<BR/><BR/>Regardless, you actually missed my main point. Yes, I argue that the probability of all this points to God, but I acknowledge in the book that this is my interpretation of the hard data. Equally I point out that naturalists argue for a natural origin based on their reading. WHAT I AM GETTING AT HOWEVER, is that naturalists are in the end using a faith-based argument, just as you are, to defend their end-case scenario.<BR/><BR/>Nothing wrong with that per se, as long as we all recognise THAT IT IS NOT A "SCIENTIFIC" ARGUMENT. It is an appeal to Science of the Gaps in exactly the same way I might appeal to God of the Gaps (you claim). <BR/><BR/>To be fair, you recognise this in the bigger sense, that the argument cannot be proven one way or the other. Good, we agree on that. But suggesting that simply because science can explain the routine, that therefore it is likely to be able to explain singularities (when the arguments are getting more ridiculous and desperate by the year) - frankly I don't think you're in a strong position to confidently make that analogy.<BR/><BR/>All you are doing is masking your appeal to Science of the Gaps in the grounds of probability...which is exactly what I'm doing. Both of us still have to believe our respective conclusions on faith, however, regardless of how much evidence we mount.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05470121888188717798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-65266422359231624232008-01-16T00:09:00.000+13:002008-01-16T00:09:00.000+13:00Ian,I explained why Science of the Gaps rather tha...Ian,<BR/><BR/>I explained why Science of the Gaps rather than God of the Gaps. (I'm assuming you read <A HREF="http://statehighwayone.blogspot.com/2008/01/life-on-earth.html" REL="nofollow">today's response</A> to your reply.) God has lost every contest in which winning is possible. You've written a book about an unwinnable contest that can never be conclusively decided and declared the gap must be filled by God. You are asking us to believe that despite scientific explanations trumping supernatural explanations at every trumpable turn, on this issue, we have to give supernatural explanations the benefit of the doubt.<BR/><BR/>I ask again: what are the odds of that? I know, they're not precisely calculable, but you're usually such a big fan of betting with the odds, and history does have a pretty strong bias in favour of chemistry over alchemy, psychiatry over demon possession, neurology over faerie lore, etc.<BR/><BR/><I>Given the physics required for interstellar spaceflight (and I cover this in The Divinity Code too), it may actually be impossible for us to reach another star system, let alone send back intelligible data within a useful timeframe.</I><BR/><BR/>Given the physics required for interstellar spaceflight, the universe could give rise to many different instances of life at various times and places, and none of them would ever have the chance to meet. There is some middle ground between "life on earth is unique!" and "you shouldn't be able to crack a telecope out without seeing life in the skies!"<BR/><BR/>And finally...<BR/><BR/><I>I would have thought that, objectively, if you were created by a divine being, it automatically gave your life purpose regardless of whether the created thing thinks so or not.</I><BR/><BR/>There's no such thing as "objectively... purpose". You can't derive an ought from an is. If you think being created by a big divine being means you <I>should</I> act some particular way, you must have started off with the position that you should do what divine beings want you to do if they happen to create you.<BR/><BR/>Consider your example:<BR/><BR/><I>A dumb machine made by a human still has a purpose for its existence, regardless of whether it recognises it.</I><BR/><BR/>Look at what "purpose for its existence" means. It means something the human wants to use it for - a means to fulfilling some desire of the human. That's not a purpose in any existential sense - it's simply being the object of another being's desire.<BR/><BR/>Is that really what you mean by purpose when you speak of the purpose of your own life? A means to someone else's end?Ryan Sproullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11222455658493463011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-5831932819526841942008-01-15T23:46:00.000+13:002008-01-15T23:46:00.000+13:00Ryan, I appreciate the point you are trying to mak...Ryan, I appreciate the point you are trying to make, but when you emphatically state "Life is not made meaningful by the introduction of an enormous powerful creator", I'm fighting (and failing evidently) the urge to say, "Says who?"<BR/><BR/>I would have thought that, objectively, if you were created by a divine being, it automatically gave your life purpose regardless of whether the created thing thinks so or not.<BR/><BR/>A dumb machine made by a human still has a purpose for its existence, regardless of whether it recognises it.<BR/><BR/>Dominic, the danger of responding to witty absurdities is that the debate can take on a life of its own well and truly out of its original context.<BR/><BR/>In The Divinity Code, I tackle a similar line of argument from Dawkins, in regard to the possibility of multiple universes - we just happen to live in the one universe where the highly improbable happened.<BR/><BR/>Richard Carrier, of Infidels and (I think) the Rational Response Squad, tried to develop the argument further.<BR/><BR/>My publisher will kill me, but I've extracted the particular section below:<BR/><BR/>...Before leaving this section, it is worth examining what another of atheism’s “rock stars”, Richard Carrier at Infidels.org, has to say about the cosmological scientific evidence for God. Carrier, a historian studying for his Ph.D. and currently working as a librarian’s assistant, is a strident opponent of any claims that God had a hand in anything. Naturally, this fine-tuning issue is like swallowing a sea-urchin intact for Carrier, and he argues strongly that we shouldn’t leap to conclusions.66<BR/><BR/>“While the creationist thinks God explains the “fine tuning” of the universe, he fails to see that every possible universe which can contain intelligent life will appear “fine tuned” no matter what its cause.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t know that I accept his reasoning. Look at it another way. The reason science is increasingly getting excited about the “fine tuning” is because we appear to be alone. A universe teeming with life on every planet would not raise suspicions about fine tuning; if life arose here, there and everywhere then there would appear to be nothing particularly special about the residents of Planet Earth.<BR/><BR/>Carrier’s argument is only valid if the “every possible universe” he talks of turns out to have just one planet with life on it. In that case, I agree, the residents of every universe would have reason to feel suspicious and ‘fine-tuned’. But employing the multiple universe theory is the scientific equivalent of reaching for an old alchemy textbook, or perhaps Hogwart’s Invisible Book of Invisibility. We can’t see any other universes. We can’t reach any other universes because, by definition, the laws that govern this universe prevent that. Nor is there a shred of evidence that any other universe can, or does exist. And even if it does, as cosmologist Paul Davies notes, it only pushes the first cause problem back from “who created the universe?” to “who created all these universes?”<BR/><BR/>Carrier, funnily enough, doesn’t want to admit that he has a problem here.<BR/><BR/>“We already have evidence that universes exist (we live in one), and so we already have some grounds for positing multiple universes to explain the parameters of ours, e.g. there may be a million universes with different parameters and only one has life (and thus we are in it, since that is the only place we could be). This is no more ad hoc than positing God, and is arguably less so, since there is less reason to invoke an unknown type of entity (a god) than a known one (a universe).”<BR/><BR/>Again, sounds plausible. For a nano-second.<BR/><BR/>We know “universes exist”, he says, because “we live in one” [my emphasis, really it should be “we know a universe exists because we live in it”, because there is not the slightest piece of scientific evidence that universes exist, or are even capable of existing] therefore it is reasonable to assume millions of universes exist. <BR/><BR/>On that logic, my clone could be God. After all, I exist so there could be billions of me and, using Dawkins’ dodgy math, one of the other Ian Wisharts is actually quite likely to be God. Or maybe I’m a “universe” in one of my other lives. Do I hear faint yelps of “Flying Spaghetti Monsterism”67 in the darkness? There is a point...<BR/><BR/> (Footnote 67 A favourite atheist argument is to claim the universe could equally have been created by a “flying spaghetti monster”, which is really an appeal to the absurd to make the idea of a divine Creator sound equally daft. Appealing to invisible, undetectable other universes, however, is equally a question of belief, not science. Anyone who appeals to multiverse theory is explicitly admitting the need for a Creator to explain the Big Bang. It is, in essence, an appeal to “Science of the Gaps”<BR/><BR/>...when atheists, too, must face the reality that their own religious beliefs transcend scientific evidence and begin to make a mockery of true science. That’s fine, if Richard wants to call his god “Multiverse Theory”, that’s his business. But let’s not pretend it is “science” in any accepted definition of the term....<BR/><BR/><BR/>HERE endeth the extract. In appealing to the possibility of invisible aliens waiting to be discovered, the diehard atheist makes exactly the same appeal to faith that a religious person does. He or she is appealing to Science of the Gaps: the possibility that we "might" discover this in the future.<BR/><BR/>Given the physics required for interstellar spaceflight (and I cover this in The Divinity Code too), it may actually be impossible for us to reach another star system, let alone send back intelligible data within a useful timeframe.<BR/><BR/>Which then leaves us with the real question: Why Science of the Gaps instead of God of the Gaps?<BR/><BR/>If the scientific explanations on origins were remotely convincing, I'd possibly give them the benefit of the doubt. But they're not, and science knows it. Ryan can drag out mental illness, germs or a host of minor scientific discoveries (in comparison) that are naturalistic, but they're not really comparable to the big ones under discussion. The analogy is unconvincing.<BR/><BR/>But then when you throw in the evidence in favour of religious belief, the scales start to tip in my view. Ockham's Razor suggests the God Hypothesis is a more logical explanation than the twisting contortions we are currently being offered as scientific alternatives.<BR/><BR/>I may be wrong, but I don't think even Hume was suggesting that his argument re miracles negated the need for a first cause creator.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05470121888188717798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-17088690781070536032008-01-15T23:26:00.000+13:002008-01-15T23:26:00.000+13:00People just misunderstand the limits of science. T...People just misunderstand the limits of science. They mistakenly think that because science is very very good at working out how things happen, it should therefore be applicable to questions like, "How should I live?" and, "What is the purpose of my life?"<BR/><BR/>There is no such thing as a scientific way of living, but people are under the impression there is.<BR/><BR/>It's understandable, I suppose, considering religion has been overstepping its own bounds for thousands of years. Religion's job is to tell people how to act and why they're here, not the cause of mental illness or the origin of life. And similarly, science's job is to tell us how stuff works and how we can make it work for us, not whether or not abortion is right or what kind of values to instill in our children.<BR/><BR/>Religion's about good/bad. Science is about true/false in the physical world. Never the twain should meet.Ryan Sproullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11222455658493463011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-68080568211416126962008-01-15T22:04:00.000+13:002008-01-15T22:04:00.000+13:00i agree with youUhm, you do? In a backwards sorta ...<I>i agree with you</I><BR/><BR/>Uhm, you do? In a backwards sorta fashion I guess ;). <BR/><BR/>But sometimes I think that "<A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm" REL="nofollow">rational science</A>" needs a kick in the pants.bruddahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897131063512083646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-90108665955856019462008-01-15T21:44:00.000+13:002008-01-15T21:44:00.000+13:00Hey, Peasant. Happy New Year to you too!I think it...Hey, Peasant. Happy New Year to you too!<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>I think it's a little misguided to attempt to "prove" God, and ID arguments are inherently metaphysical. Nonetheless ID offers an alternate answer to the big existential questions, whereas secularists glibly deny that there is no WHY, things are just "there" for no reason other than mindless physical processes. This is spiritually and intellectually inadequate.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that neither ID nor rational science even address existential questions. The word "why" can mean two different things - "what is the cause?" and "what is the purpose?" ID and rational science are answering the question, "What is the cause?" It is not the place of science (nor of pretend science) to answer questions about the meaning of life. It's beyond their scope. Life is not made meaningful by the introduction of an enormous powerful creator and life is not made meaningless by naturalistic explanations.<BR/><BR/>In other words, yes, I agree with you.Ryan Sproullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11222455658493463011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-40481283692123579692008-01-15T18:20:00.000+13:002008-01-15T18:20:00.000+13:00Hi Ryan, happy new year. I think it's a little mis...Hi Ryan, happy new year. <BR/><BR/>I think it's a little misguided to attempt to "prove" God, and ID arguments are inherently metaphysical. Nonetheless ID offers an alternate answer to the big existential questions, whereas secularists glibly deny that there is no WHY, things are just "there" for no reason other than mindless physical processes. This is spiritually and intellectually inadequate.bruddahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897131063512083646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-45367699884731469902008-01-15T18:16:00.000+13:002008-01-15T18:16:00.000+13:00And while I'll leave the bulk of your comment, 'in...And while I'll leave the bulk of your comment, 'investigate', to Ryan (as is only fair, I think) I'm concerned about one point. The challenge you quote gave the following argument:<BR/><BR/>- If an all-powerful god made the world so that Cambridge Cosmologists would thrive<BR/>- Then Cambridge Cosmologists would thrive<BR/>- Arguably Cambridge Cosmologists do thrive<BR/>Conclusion: An all-powerful god made the world so that Cambridge Cosmologists would thrive.<BR/><BR/>And called it vacuous. And your comment was that the context of the original argument (that this one criticises) wasn't considered.<BR/><BR/>You then seem to be say that you consider such an argument, only with "the only sentient species on the planet, on the only planet capable of sustaining sentient life in our solar system" replacing "Cambridge cosmologists" would be, and is, acceptable. Is that actually your position? (In good faith, I'd hate to misconstrue your position here.)<BR/><BR/>Because, more vitally than the argument essentially being a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth" REL="nofollow">vacuous conditional</A>, it also <I>badly</I> begs the question.<BR/><BR/>Look again:<BR/><BR/>- If <B>an all-powerful god made the universe such that the only sentient species on the planet, on the only planet capable of sustaining sentient life in our solar system would thrive</B>,<BR/>- Then [blah blah blah].<BR/>- Arguably [blah blah blah].<BR/>Conclusion: Then <B>an all-powerful god made the universe such that the only sentient species on the planet, on the only planet capable of sustaining sentient life in our solar system would thrive</B>.<BR/><BR/>All the premises except the first do no work, and the argument provides no reason to accept the first premise other than the conclusion. It's a trusim. It's A implies A.<BR/><BR/>So, I think such an argument can't be used to establish <I>any</I> position, regardless of which particular propositions you're considering.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the criticism given by the person you were responding to was an bad paraphrase of your original argument? I don't really see how it's relevant to the Ryan-Sproull-world argument in the original post.<BR/><BR/>In any case, is there any real purpose in criticising the "Cambridge cosmologists" form of the argument as having its "context [...] set too vaguely" when it is supposed to be an ad absurdum, and so is <I>supposed</I> to be unconvincing? Isn't the point of the critique that the original argument, regarding all the people on Earth, might also have its context set too vaguely, and may be ignoring other possible sentient life?Dominichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09366737907767111143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-8317317567332950802008-01-15T17:47:00.000+13:002008-01-15T17:47:00.000+13:00For a few seconds, I thought this might have been ...For a few seconds, I thought this might have been about DC's <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths" REL="nofollow">Crisis on Infinite Earths</A>. Obviously, if there are infinite earths, any one is pretty improbable!<BR/><BR/>You can imagine my disappointment upon finding out what it was actually about. I was expecting rigorous, balanced scholarship about comic books dammit!<BR/><BR/>How very sad.Dominichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09366737907767111143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-24691635532172398082008-01-15T17:02:00.000+13:002008-01-15T17:02:00.000+13:00Just jumping in on one quick little point, Ryan.. ...Just jumping in on one quick little point, Ryan.. your argument about the uniqueness of Ryan Sproull was raised with me (in the context of Cambridge astronomers) a week or so ago, so I assume it is a generic argument doing the rounds.<BR/><BR/>The point I made there, privately, is worth making here also. The context is set too narrowly. You exist, but so do I and six billion others.<BR/><BR/>Here's the challenge to me and my response:<BR/><BR/>"Very interesting and shows a vast range of reading. However, If I may say, I have serious reservations about your approach.<BR/>"1. It is NOT scientifically established that the Universe was "created" in the sense you mean.<BR/><BR/>[It can never be "established" one way or the other. It was a singularity, unrepeated in history. What I am arguing is that the event fits the biblical picture and that leading scientists are acknowledging as much. What I am arguing is that the leading naturalistic arguments are ultimately appealing to a faith-based answer (unprovable by empirical science), meaning readers can make of that what they will. ]<BR/><BR/>"2. The Fine-Tuning argument is patent wishful thinking<BR/> It goes like this;<BR/> - If an all-powerful god made the world so that Cambridge Cosmologists would thrive<BR/> - Then Cambridge Cosmologists would thrive<BR/> - Arguably Cambridge Cosmologists do thrive<BR/> Conclusion: An all-powerful god made the world so that Cambridge Cosmologists would thrive.<BR/><BR/>"The problem with this argument is that Cambridge Cosmologists can be replaced with anything (including yours truly or tape-worms) and therefore is vacuous."<BR/><BR/>[Your context is set too vaguely. If Cambridge Cosmologists, and only Cambridge Cosmologists, appeared to exist, this would be a closer analogy to the situation we currently find ourselves in...It was Dawkins himself who chose to invoke "great numbers" in the probability debate. Under those big numbers however, we find ourselves as the only sentient species on the planet, on the only planet capable of sustaining sentient life in our solar system. We find not only one convenient accident had to take place for our survival, but a whole string of such things where the coin could have flipped one way but went ours instead. (I use coins only as an analogy, not a real example of probability because the 50-50 odds on a coin are far better than the ones laid out in TDC.)<BR/><BR/>There comes a point where, even in scientific debate, the laws of statistical probability must enter into the debate itself, rather than remain as the elephant in the room.<BR/><BR/>Sure, all these things could have happened by "chance". Perhaps we're the luckiest species in cosmic history because the universe fluked it and threw up possibly the only species capable of appreciating it.<BR/><BR/>But the odds against this are so astronomical they make the vastness of space and time irrelevant. Not nil, but so near to nil that the best supercomputers on the planet would still write the number as zero.<BR/><BR/>And even if you cling to that next to nil chance of the random origin of human life, that doesn't get around the other factor in the equation: the existence of the universe itself without appealing to religious scientism.]<BR/><BR/><BR/>NOW, that was my response to the individual who emailed me. You raise a good point about earth-life, Ryan, but I do in fact cover that off in the book. Chemists are confident that we have a very solid knowledge of the atomic table in regard to all the stable elements that could possibly exist (and thus support self-replicating and evolving patterns of any kind). If you know anything about atomic structure you'll know their logic is sound - add protons, neutrons and electrons and you are dealing with a different element, so up the table we go.<BR/><BR/>It is possible that there are some radioactive substances remaining to be discovered, but for fairly obvious reasons (their inherent instability) they are unlikely in the extreme to form a basis for life.<BR/><BR/>Chemists have further figured that the elements most likely to support self-replicating patterns are going to be either carbon-based, or silicon based.<BR/><BR/>Experiments with silicon have found it to be a magnitude more unlikely to support life structures than carbon.<BR/><BR/>If one debates this at a kind of scientific fiction/fantasy level, without recourse to chemistry, physics and the atomic table, one can theorise that there might be all sorts of planets with different conditions favouring different kinds of life.<BR/><BR/>But the reality is, the stardust we and earth are made from is the same stardust infesting the rest of the universe. The laws of physics and chemistry don't magically change once you leave earth.<BR/><BR/>The point of these chapters is that cutting edge, top of their field types like Shapiro, Crick etc are acknowledging the size of the problem. If it was as easy as wishing up a totally new kind of lifeform base, don't you think they would have published to that effect? <BR/><BR/>Even Shapiro, in his "rock" theory of metabolistic evolution is not suggesting that rocks are actually alive, merely that rigid structures might provide a stable enough environment for organic material to develop.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, he admits that such a path if proven (and it hasn't been) would lead nowhere near DNA.<BR/><BR/>The best brains in science are working on these issues. If life could arise in other forms, you would expect to see it here on earth. There is such a vast biosphere from bacteria to humans that there is surely room for other types of self-replicating patterns to co-exist. But we don't see them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05470121888188717798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-75589742404026211642008-01-15T11:40:00.000+13:002008-01-15T11:40:00.000+13:00I like the Pratchett line. Excellent.This one's mo...I like the Pratchett line. Excellent.<BR/><BR/>This one's more grounded in referenced argument, yes. Though, being a biologist, you'd probably be a better judge of that stuff than I am.Ryan Sproullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11222455658493463011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35712159.post-30606880905649587462008-01-15T11:29:00.000+13:002008-01-15T11:29:00.000+13:00The venerable Terry Pratchett after talking about ...The venerable Terry Pratchett after talking about anthropic principles and related thinking:<BR/><BR/><I>The universe clearly operates for the benefit of humanity. This can be readily seen by the way the sun comes up in the morning, just when people want to start their day</I><BR/><BR/>You make a good point about whether life is something so unusual we need to go to a special effort to explain it. There are plenty of physicists that seem to think that once particles started condensing out the big bang then elephants where more are less inevitable. Being a biologist I don't quite take that view (it would rather limit my ability to find a job for one) but it is true that at it's most basic level life is just chemistry - there is no need to imagine a <I>vis vitae</I> running through all life and setting it apart from the rest of the world. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, those are my thoughts. It seems to me, from what I can gather, that <I>the DC</I> is a little ahead of <I>Eve's Bite</I> for scholarship. I read the evolution chapters of the latter in a bookshop and was appalled and amused in equal parts by the lack of understanding of what was being argued so decided to not press on and see how all those 'isms' were going to do-in Western Culture where this one appears to be slightly more grounded in fact?David Winterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09704684760112027351noreply@blogger.com