Would naturalism insist 500 fair coins 100% heads on a table could not possibly emerge from a random process (like random coin flipping)? How about a buzzillion fair coins being 100% heads after an explosion from a terrorist event at a bank? If naturalism won’t exclude such improbable events (events statistically indistinguishable from miracles), then naturalism doesn’t exclude miracles.
It just seems to me, philosophical naturalism (sometimes equated with atheism) is just a statement that says statistically or physically improbable events can’t be attributable to God even though miracles are possible (like through a hypothetical multi-universe process). God is just rejected as an explanation as a matter of principle according certain definitions of naturalism.
This line of thinking was inspired by Niel DeGrasse Tyson arguing for the possibility of Godless Intelligent Design of the Universe. I’m not saying there is a right or wrong answer, but just I’m suggesting naturalism allows for the possibility of miracles (albeit godless ones). This could lead to Godless ID or Godless Special Creation theory.
The exceptional quality of life and the origin of life problem does not arise for ignorance (an argument from ignorance) but via proof by contradiction. If one argues the Rube Goldbergesque design of life is highly probable, it is contradicted by theory and empirical evidence. It would seem whether one believes in God or not, life is a miracle, or at least almost one (ala to Francis Crick).
NOTES:
One dictionary definition of Naturalism
1. (in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail.
2. a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
The Tyson statement only shows in the end what really matters in science, which is evidence. He hasn’t the evidence, so it’s really a bunch of idle speculation (and hardly new), just as it would be with God.
And “naturalism” is just a compromise that was made with religion, so that science wouldn’t say that religion was actually wrong and religion would leave science alone (we wish, anyway). “…Everything arises from natural properties and causes…” only brings up the question of what is “natural,” which could vary considerably, conceivably including gods.
The belief that life is a miracle or nearly so is not based on any evidence. Why is Crick’s word supposed to matter, because he lucked out on discovering a structure that a number of others could have discovered if not pre-empted?
Glen Davidson
Glen Davidson
contrast with:
Yeah, yeah. You keep insisting life is highly probable with no evidence.
It’s not about specific sequences! It’s about the multiplicity of the class of squences. There are 501 classes of sequences:
500 tails
499 tails, 1 head
…..
250 heads, 250 tails
…..
499 heads, 1 tail
500 heads
The probability of each class follows the binomial distribution, the expectation is for 50% heads, not 100% head nor 100% tails. 100% heads is far more improbable than 50% heads according to the binomial distribution.
The law of large numbers says:
Skilled Gamblers bet on reward weighted expected outcomes. How do you like them apples! 🙂
I corrected such misunderstandings by your associates a couple years ago. Perhaps you need a refresher in elementary math:
Sal, tell you what.
You pic any specific sequence, and I pick the sequence that results in 500 heads.
Which is more unlikely?
In DNA you are not interested in the count of nucleotides, you are interested in the sequence.
Completely false.
But don’t let that stop you. It seems never to.
Glen Davidson
Moved a comment to Guano.
Show me an organism where your “class of sequence” has any biological meaning.
It’s all specific sequence, and the chance of any specific sequence is the same as any other.
OK petrushka changed its post
Sal, I think you confuse improbable with impossible. 500 heads is improbable. Turning water into wine is impossible. See the difference? You also seem bent on absolutes. If I saw 500 heads resulting from an explosion, I would certainly suspect something other than a random result of flipping 500 fair coins, given the very low probability of such a thing. I would not however suspect that God had caused a miracle, given the even lower probability that God exists or would do any such thing if he did. Nor can you just assume that the origin of life is so improbable that it’s also a miracle, no matter what sound bite you can find from Francis Crick.
Not any nucleotide sequence will produce a functioning protein. So that would biological meaning just as Crick said decades ago, ie the specific nucleotide sequence that represents a functioning protein.
John Harshman,
We don’t have to assume the naturalistic OoL is so improbable. No one can show it is feasible meaning it doesn’t deserve a seat at probability discussions.
But suppose I am a billionaire and make a will leaving all my wealth to anyone who tosses 500 coins in some specific sequence. Now do your explosion, and film it in slow motion so you can track the sequence of coins landing.
Biology is not poker. Sequence matters; poker hand distributions do not determine viability or fecundity.
Something is determining the sequence. The question is what.
IDists should first learn some biology before applying math stupidly.
Long amino acid monomers to have folding stability and other nice features must have a class of sequences of 100% L-amino acids (for the chiral variety) to work the way they work. The expectation from a pre-biotic soup after thermal agitation is 50% L-amino acids (assuming the acids won’t be destroyed by something) because even assuming that an astronomically improbable state of 100% L-amino existed, it won’t last long because there is an associated half-life that drives it toward the expected value of 50% amino according to the law of large numbers. A corresponding problem exists for right handed DNA.
petrushka,
Umm IDists say that sequence matters. Read “Signature in the Cell”- that is all about sequence matters. IDists say that intelligence determined the sequence. And to refute that claim all one has to do is show mother nature is capable all by itself.
Evolutionists should learn what IDists say and what ID is before applying their comments stupidly.
Sal, I recommend you take a look at my OP on McKinnon on miracles. I think it could straighten some things out for you. Perhaps the key point is that if you don’t define the term, you’re not going to have a good sense of what it takes to be a miracle.
That’s really an incredibly stupid response, Sal.
It has nothing at all to do with the sequence question.
Wow! Thanks. Just what the doctor ordered. “Miracle” is a bit of a philosophical description. A lot of physicists think the laws of physics are not absolute (they were more pliable at the beginning of the universe, for example).
My point was that naturalism is not inconsistent (it allows) for exceptional events. Exceptional does have good definition in many mathematical and physical and thus biological contexts. It is widely agreed that life is an exceptional chemical phenomenon — that evaluation is independent of ones philosophical views.
When I used the term “miracle” it was a figure of speech to describe something very very exceptional physically, mathematically or chemically. It wasn’t meant to imply supernatural for the sake of this discussion (although I believe in the supernatural as a matter of faith).
You can have sequences of L and R amino acids, just ask the victims of Thalidomide.
https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/thalidomide/thalidomide.html
Keep digging.
Applying the notion probabilities to classes of molecules can be done in principle for protein, DNA, and RNA sequences and who knows what else.
For a given lock in the man-made world, there is a space of keys that will unlock it. Not every key has to be exactly the same to unlock the same lock (as in systems where there are master keys and non-master keys), but the space of possibilities is restricted.
Just because there are an infinite number of ways to make lock-and-key combinations, does not mean a lock-and-key system at the molecular level is highly probable. In fact, if the lock and key are highly specific, then it is possible to assert a particularly chemical configuration is astronomically improbable from random search. A good example is the insulin-regulated metabolism in vertebrates. For it to be functional quite a number of molecules must be in place to make it work, not just the insulin protein but beta cells, regulatory schema, tyrosine kinase recpetors optimized for insulin, etc. etc. Insulin regulated metabolisms are exceptional, and that exceptionalism isn’t negated by the fact that there are organisms that regulate their metabolism with mechanisms other than insulin signaling.
The following was from the evolutionists at Pandas Thumb. It shows the analogy of lock and key with protein interactions, but could just as well be applied to other binding interactions such as RNA-RNA or whatever.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/images/lock%26key.gif
Not sure what this is a reply to, and I’m also not sure what an insane billionaire has to do with anything either. 500 heads is indeed a specific sequence, as probable as any other. But how is that relevant to what I said?
True. But what is it a reply to?
So the victims know that L or R forms can exist, you confirmed my point. Nothing for me to dig out of, however, your points have be successfully dealt with.
You keep undermining your OP.
We already know that biology is sloppy and that many sequences have equivalent activity. All the more reason to reject your 500 heads analogy as being a defective analogy, and any probability calculation based on it as worthless.
Your OP is an undisguised version of tornado in a junkyard. It has never been a good argument, and your version is particularly lame.
I think the argument from possibility is weak. I think that if life required a specific sequence of 500 whatevers popping into existence in one poof, then IDists would have a point.
The argument against SAL is that sequences of 500 do not occur in one step (even if it is physically possible). Any sequence of 500, if it has to occur in one go, is effectively impossible. In the sense that if it is the only way for evolution to work then the poofters are correct.
stcordova,
Can part of a miracle be technology we don’t understand yet. John Harshman says that turning water into wine is impossible yet both are made of atoms. Currently we do not have the technology to do this but we may some time down the road. Would the internet appear to be a miracle to Issac Newton?
Newton was, among other things, an alchemist. I don’t think he would be surprised by technology.
It’s a communication problem- IDists say that sequence matters. Evolutionists hear “sequins matter” and then proclaim that we don’t know what we are talking about.
And then there is the matter of the only reason for mathematical modeling is other isn’t any other way- yet- to test the claim naturalistic processes did it.
I’m not sure what naturalism has got to do with it.
500 heads in a row does not seem miraculous. Maybe there’s just something non-random going on, perhaps only for a brief period of time.
For our tornadoists:
Now I have an image of Gordon Mullings in a sequinned ball giown doing the tango with Joe Gallien, a rose in Joe’s mouth. Thank you for putting that image in my head.
To play by the rules, the coin is fair, which implies nothing special is going on.
I see. But I wasn’t making an argument from possibility. I was trying to get Sal to think more about the vagueness of his language.
Get back to me when you figure out how to do it, even in principle. “Both are made of atoms” is not such a principle. So are ravens and writing desks, shit and Shinola, your ass and a hole in the ground. You are talking about magic, not technology. (Please don’t bring up Arthur C. Clarke.)
stcordova,
I have been through this with you at least twice. Have you forgotten?
There is nothing to forbid catalytic activity from a mix of L and D acids. D acids do not destroy function any more or less than any other substitution does. All a D acid is is an L acid with a hydrogen side chain (like glycine). Oh, and a side chain where the L has hydrogen. They aren’t coins.
The point of the OP was to argue Naturalism does not rule out exceptional events or phenomenon. It seems to me, whether one believes in God or not, life or features of life should be considered exceptional phenomenon.
A few people (like my former professor of quantum mechanics, James Trefil) think that intelligent life on Earth is unique. If so, the human mind is possibly the most complex structure in the universe. He offered his thoughts here in a book that ironically endeared him to the ID community (even though he is an avowed anti-IDist).
From a top reviewer:
The alternative is to believe the universe is teeming with space aliens, some more advanced than us.
But back to the OP. A sufficient but not necessary requirement to believe a phenomenon is describable in terms of natural mechanisms is repeatability — the Earth orbits by gravity, we can show other objects orbit according to gravitational laws (Netonian, Einstenian, whatever).
Nevertheless, it would seem to me, merely because a phenomenon is not repeatable nor is exceptional that we should rule it out as exceptional as a matter of principle.
It can be true, exceptional, not repeatable, but therefore not subject to direct scientific confirmation. Hence, to me if one were to say a black swan or some other miraculous sounding description of an event was required to effect the present state of biology, it cannot be ruled out as a matter of fiat even though it is outside the repeatability of empirical science.
If one person’s naturalism allows exceptional events that are outside science, that person’s brand of naturalism cannot be equated with science despite his insistence that science is naturalistic.
We might well make inferences to exceptional events that cannot be scientifically repeated, but these events nonetheless could hypothetically be quite real. The event would be, figuratively speaking, indistinguishable from magic.
If we are the only intelligent life in the universe (save for God and angels), then human life is exceptional, perhaps by orders of magnitude over dumb rocks. The human mind and consciousness, whether figuratively or literally, is magical.
I don’t know why people get fixated on chirality. There is no molecule-level process that can successfully peptide bond amino acids together with exquisite specificity in distinguishing the L side chain, yet is completely stumped when it comes to something with hydrogen at that point, and a side chain where the hydrogen oughta be.
These are co-ordinates on a sphere. A process that detects differences at the side-chain co-ordinate of an L amino acid is not going to be fooled by any D. Try it with an orange and some cocktail sticks.
Try substituing regular for repeatable.
Q: Why are all these coins heads up?
A: Because that’s how they come out of the machine.
Q: Why are all proteins made from L acids?
A: Because that’s the only kind that is manufactured.
I’ll answer the ‘yebbut why’ question when someone asks ‘yebbut why?’.
Allan Miller,
You seem to be eliding between quite different meanings without noticing. Here you begin with the ill-defined “exceptional”, which your initial analogy suggests only “having low probability”, and then you move into “outside science”.
Just because an event is unique doesn’t make it beyond science. All events are unique in some way and nothing can be exactly repeated. But many events are similar in some ways, and we can indeed study events that share relevant features. I know creationists often claim that historical sciences aren’t really science, but there’s no justification for that claim.
And you have trouble with the difference between figurative and literal meanings, as if that differences doesn’t matter. It does. If human life is figuratively miraculous, you have said nothing interesting. If it’s literally miraculous, I’d like to see some evidence.
You also seem to have trouble distinguishing between life and intelligent life with a high-tech civilization. A study of pond scum might be rewarding for you.
John Harshman,
Hey, that was supposed to be a response to Sal. What happened?
John Harshman,
I agree this is hard to describe even in principle but are you making a magic of the gaps argument?
No. I believe that’s yours. You’re the one claiming to be able to spin straw into gold. I’m the one saying it’s impossible.
As I understand it, naturalism guarantees exceptional phenomena. In fact, nearly every phenomenon IS exceptional, in some respect(s).
I think Sal is arguing that if we construct our frame of reference carefully enough, we can make some phenomena SEEM sufficiently unlikely as to require Sal’s god after all.
I always think of the ball tossed into the air. It falls to the ground, rolls somewhere, and stops. From the normal frame of reference, this is as predictable and mundane as you could ask for. But if we NEED to find Sal’s god, we could locate the ball’s final resting place with as much precision as our best measuring technology permits, and note the INCREDIBLE improbability of the ball stopping exactly there and nowhere else. And there lies Sal’s god.
John Harshman,
I think that saying it is currently impossible given todays technology is correct. To say it will never be solved is an absolute. It’s the same as the creationist saying evolution is impossible. If you were to say that turning water into wine was more difficult technically then life evolving from non living chemicals you would be making an unsupportable claim.
No, it’s nothing like a creationist saying evolution is impossible. We actually know that evolution has happened in the past and is happening now. Then again, all we know about physics tells us you can’t turn water into wine. It isn’t that it’s unlikely. Physically impossible. The cognitive dissonance necessary for your position leaves me astonished.
We know you love to point out how people unwittingly are supporting ID. It’s just a shame that the lack of explicit support never gives you pause.
And yet we have wine and no Jesus required to make it!
Jesus had a Mr Fusion home reactor (neatly powered by its own energy release, so no need to plug it in). Water is full of protons, so you can make anything out of it. The multi-megaton energy blast associated with this is neatly contained, so all you hear is a slight ‘pop’, which the operator can easily cover with a loud cough. Tomorrow’s technology today. I have some for sale …
Rare things happen rarely, extremely rare things happen extremely rarely. When does something become supernatural? At what frequency of occurrence does it go from natural to supernatural? 0.000000000001, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 ? Somewhere in between? Why?
Everyone should sit on a jury at least once, and have to decide the fate of some fellow human being.
Does far more than philosophy to bring about an understanding of what we know and how we know it.
There are folks who want absolute certainty, mathematical proof. But life gives us fuzzy logic rather than equations. The law recognizes levels of certainty and asks people to apply a standard appropriate to the gravity of the situation.
Nothing guarantees the correctness of the outcome, but it’s a process tuned over many centuries.