An argument foe Grand Design, maybe?

[Greylorn Ell]

Yes, but no one ever thinks of the other possibility. It could be both "planned" and randomized at the same time. It is possible that God ( if he exists) is a piecemeal engineer, not an omnipotent engineer.

Ginkgo,
By "no one" you must mean, no one whose ideas you've bothered to examine. Beon Theory began development in 1960 with the assumption that the creator of the universe was damned intelligent but not omnipotent. It goes further, proposing that the universe is the engineered product of many beons, creators working in concert toward a common goal.

"Piecemeal" is a sloppy word choice, implying a gang of incarcerated prisoners on an Arizona chain crew collecting roadside trash.

Human engineers do their work one item at a time. Before building a transistorized radio it was first necessary to manufacture a transistor. Large projects require the parallel efforts of many engineers, according to their abilities. The guy who programmed the Space Shuttle's computers was not the same guy who designed the rocket thrusters. And the guy who designed the fuel pumps for the thrusters never met the rocket or computer guys.

This level of work requires a concentrated, coordinated effort from diverse experts. I'd expect someone who unloads trucks for a living to describe engineering in terms of his own limited job.

Before we can calculate the probability of something in terms of the universe we need to know more about the priors then we do at the moment.
For example, if I fanned a deck of cards and your picked the ace of spades, you would probably think you had a 1 in 52 chance of choosing the ace of spades. This seems like a reasonable assumption, but you would need to know how many ace of spades are in that particular deck.

A deck of cards, by definition, will contain only one of every card, except jokers, which are not used in interesting card games.

Are you one of those dorks who needs to have every part of an argument spelled out in excruciating detail? If so, you need to collect every USA "Monk" TV episode and watch them endlessly until you become sufficiently bored with yourself to go shopping for a functional mind.

The other problem is that we don't really know how many favourable results there are because we only know of our one favourable universe. We can only assume there is one favourable result. Given the fact we don't have all this information I still agree the odds would be incredibly astronomical. But the problem then becomes, is it less astronomical in terms of probability to go with an intelligent designer?

I do not believe that it is possible to calculate the odds for creation of a universe, at least in terms of structural elements (the particle zoo, dark matter, dark energy, the mysterious Higgs field, etc.). We lack the necessary information.

However, there is a readily available subset of the problem: biological evolution according to Darwinist principles vs. intelligent engineering, where there is sufficient information available upon which to base useful calculations. In my book I calculate the odds in favor of Beon Theory's approach vs. the odds for the Darwinian explanation of evolution.

The odds in favor of the B.T. approach, which of course must include the probability that the entire universe did indeed come into existence according to Beon Theory, are dreadfully unfavorable. In my book I go into this in detail, using the numbers. But you do not need to read the book to get my opinion that the odds in favor of Beon Theory are downright ugly. I've set an arbitrary value for these odds, a nice even (for critters who count on ten fingers) 1 x 10exp-10,000,000. That ought to be improbable enough to satisfy the most atheistic of all possible skeptics.

But what's interesting is this-- the odds for Beon Theory are slightly better than those for the Darwinian evolution of a single critter. To be fair, in the book I've normalized the odds, arbitrarily declaring them the same for Beon Theory as for the evolution of a critter.

Then I point out that for every critter of easily observable proportions on this planet, like plants, insects, fish, and mammals; plus those which have long since become extinct, the odds are as bad for each of them as those for the total reality of Beon Theory.

If Darwinism is really how DNA molecules developed, every distinct critter must have beaten those ridiculous odds. In order for biological life to exist, the same odds must have been beaten, independently, by every critter on the planet. If the odds against a pig's genome being assembled, Darwinian style, are 1 x 10exp-15,000,000, and if we figure that horses, tigers, elephants, giraffes, whales, bears, wolves, rats, and housecats are about the same, the probability for these 10 critters evolving Darwinian style is 1 x 10exp-150,000,000.

The number gets uglier as we add more critters, like ants, flies, mosquitoes, grass, mushrooms, beans, and trees.

However, the dreadful odds for Beon Theory's reality remain the same. Why?

Every critter had to (if you believe in Darwin) deal with and beat the same odds. Probabilities multiply. The more critters, the uglier the odds.

However, the improbable core thesis behind Beon Theory is an event that needed to occur once, and only once. From that event, everything else including the creation of a universe and diverse life forms on at least one planet, was the natural and inevitable consequence of purposeful intelligence.

In this respect we be creating an involved discussion on the possibility of emergentism.

"Emergentism" sounds like an ersatz philosopher's new bullshit word, signifying another absence of functional concepts.

Greylorn

[Immanuel Can]

Greylorn:
We can fuss about the notation...I pasted the portion in which I cite Penrose in from another website on Penrose's work, in the interest of preserving the wording he used.

It matters little if we prefer different notation, though, since the point is still quite clear: the chance that the conditions to permit life -- to say nothing of the chances of the appearance of actual life under those conditions -- would occur accidentally is astronomically implausible.

A much more reasonable supposition is that there was some sort of necessary constraint on the initial conditions, something that coordinated or "fine-tuned" the universe for its function. If we get that far, we're good.

[Immanuel Can]

"Emergentism" sounds like an ersatz philosopher's new bullshit word, signifying another absence of functional concepts.

Actually it's the catch-all Philosophy of Science term for "we don't know how the heck this thing suddenly appeared."

[Greylorn Ell]

...

The odds against the random assembly of ferns, which have a larger genome than humans, are even smaller-- if one imagines that the concept of "even smaller" is meaningful when compared to such absurdly tiny values. ...
Greylorn

Hi Greylorn,
It'll probably make no difference to the result but have you redone 'your' probability calculations about the human genome with an analogy of inheritance and natural selection factored in yet?

AUK,

Inheritance is already factored in, kind of, with the assumption that an individual's composite genome is the composite of two individual genomes with the same probability of existence. Suppose that the probability for a particular male genome is x, and that the probability for the female genome is x. If one male chromosome from the gene replaces a corresponding female genome in the resultant critter, the probability of the composite genome is additive, thus unchanged. It is still just x.

If you were trying to calculate the probabilities for specific characteristics, such as brown eyes and large breasts, you'd need to go into a different level of detail and learn about the respective propensities within each genome. That is a different and more complex kind of calculation, and is not relevant to the simpler issue of how any particular gene came to be.

In other words, we can assume that if a blue eyed man and a brown eyed woman mate up, the probability for his eye color is about the same as hers. Swapping one of these genes for another does not noticeably affect the probability of the composite genome.

Complexities can be introduced into this process, but unless they are the result of conscious interference, such as in genetic engineering, they merely worsen the odds. My book goes into several of these complexities in detail. Trust me that they are not Darwinist friendly.

"Natural Selection" is not relevant to this discussion. It applies equally to critters appearing on the scene according to Darwinian principles, or to critters designed by God, critters engineered by a team of beons, or those developed by dog breeders or Monsanto's genetic engineers.

I know that "Natural Selection" is touted as Darwin's big breakthrough. In time, it will be seen as a mere marketing principle, as relevant to the sortings within ecosystems as the placement of products on supermarket shelves, completely irrelevant to the origination of things.

N.S. is about sorting and dynamic evaluations. Before something can be sorted or evaluated, it must first exist.

Suppose that all critters were created by an almighty God? Study how the planet works. Critters eat one another. Those who cannot find another critter slow enough for them to catch, die off. Could God make a biological environment that works otherwise?

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn:
We can fuss about the notation...I pasted the portion in which I cite Penrose in from another website on Penrose's work, in the interest of preserving the wording he used.

It matters little if we prefer different notation, though, since the point is still quite clear: the chance that the conditions to permit life -- to say nothing of the chances of the appearance of actual life under those conditions -- would occur accidentally is astronomically implausible.

A much more reasonable supposition is that there was some sort of necessary constraint on the initial conditions, something that coordinated or "fine-tuned" the universe for its function. If we get that far, we're good.

I.C.

The notational style is not a matter of my preference. It is a mathematical standard. Your utilization of correct English and grimmer in your philosophical arguments is impeccable. Why not extend your own standards to the occasional mathematical statement? In the case above, omitting the "-" is akin to omitting a "not" within a philosophical statement.

You and I both believe that the universe was intelligently engineered, although we differ as to the properties of the engineers. That is the next issue to be worked out. It is critical. You and I are good on "fine tuning," but I'm awaiting your rejoinder to earlier statements re: those properties.

[Greylorn Ell]

"Emergentism" sounds like an ersatz philosopher's new bullshit word, signifying another absence of functional concepts.

Actually it's the catch-all Philosophy of Science term for "we don't know how the heck this thing suddenly appeared."

I feel enlightened. Thank you!

[Melchior]

But God must work only when nobody is watching.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yes, so we are now free to talk about ratios and comparisons. In mathematical terms the problem is that it is extra ordinarily difficult to calculate the odds of a fine tuned universe, since the one we are living in is the only example. Sure,one can come up with a particular figure in terms of, "what are the odds?"

That's a good way to put it. Yes. But it's not hopeless. In fact, mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated the chances of life happening at random to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123 -- that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros!

As Penrose says, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

Astronomical odds against, to be sure. A much more plausible suggestion is that the conditions for life did not happen at random at all -- that they were planned.

Firstly, I would question that we can actually know how may possible outcomes there are. Secondly, I would suggest we don't really know how many favourable outcomes there are.

Actually, we do. There is a very specific set of conditions required for existence and life
You mean to say, "for existence of the only form of life we're aware of," surely.

...things very scientifically verifiable and measurable, such as the weak and strong forces in the atom, a very weak but sufficient gravitational field, a low entropy rate, and so on.
Again, as above.

And while it's very likely that one would have a universe form accidentally *outside* of these narrow ranges necessary to life, it is extremely unlikely, as Penrose says, that these would coincide by some accident.
Again, your argument rests upon assumptions of things we cannot necessarily know. Scientists have posited other forms of life.

But even supposing the conditions for life were present in our universe, that still doesn't tell us how WE got here.
The theory is that of chemistry, the combination of heat and elements yielding compounds, maybe a little radiation thrown in for good measure. Of course this took a very long time.

This is because *having conditions suitable to sustaining life* is not the same as *having life.* Even if you had billions of such planets, there's no reason for life to appear on them -- even as you can go and buy a goldfish bowl and fill it with water and fish food...but that doesn't get you a goldfish. You've still got no more than an empty tank.
Ridiculous assumption, I see that the conditions were such that this life form could only spring forth.

You speak as if life is the cart and conditions are the horse, I see it the opposite: The conditions are the cart and life the horse. You seemingly believe that conditions had to meet a predetermined life, in fact it's the other way around, the conditions are the reason why life, on this planet, is as it is.

[Immanuel Can]

Greylorn:
I shall take the matter up with Roger Penrose's biographers. Consider me duly repentant on the question of mathematical notation.

You and I are good on "fine tuning," but I'm awaiting your rejoinder to earlier statements re: those properties.

What in particular, Greylorn?

Spheres:

You mean to say, "for existence of the only form of life we're aware of," surely.

Nope. I mean things like this: that if the strong and weak forces in the atom were different, it would fly apart or collapse. The precise balance they have keeps the darn thing together. So if some fine-tuning variables were not very precise, there would be no life at all -- unless you can conceive of life existing without atoms.

And you're missing the point. Having "conditions for life" doesn't give us "life." How life suddenly "emerged" from entirely non-living matter is one of the profound mysteries of Evolutionary biology...and that's pretty much universally conceded by Evolutionary biologists themselves. No one has the foggiest notion how it can be done. That's why they call life an "emergent property": because we have no clue how it could happen, and we can't produce conditions for it at all. "Chemistry" doesn't do it for us.

Finally, "conditions" don't just spontaneously create life. If you buy yourself a dog house, that doesn't mean a dog comes with it. It just means you have a dog house, so if any dogs ever appear you'll have a place to put them. But how you're going to get a dog is going to be entirely unrelated to the presence or absence of your dog house.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I was watching a discussion on whether the the universe is the way it is through design or by chance. The design theory is basically that the universe is such a complex entity and that for it to have evolved exactly as we see it, then it must have been designed. ...

Wait right there!! This is a non starter. Any designer has to be as remarkable, complex or ineffable as the creation. So you all you are doing is saying that the Universe is far more complicated and unbelievable than it already is.
Such a position requires no counter argument.

[Ginkgo]

You and I are good on 'fine turning", but i am awaiting on your rejoinder to earlier statements re: those properties.

What in particular Greylorn?

Could be this IC.

Human engineers do their work one item at a time. Before building a transistorized radio it was first necessary to manufacture a transistor. Large projects require the parallel efforts of many engineers, according to their abilities. The guy who programmed the Space Shuttle's computers was not the same guy who designed the rocket thrusters. And the guy who designed the fuel pumps for the thrusters never met the rocket or computer guys.

Beons being many specialized engineers coming up with a universe. As opposed to an omnipotent God who does all of the engineering by himself.

[Immanuel Can]

Beons being many specialized engineers coming up with a universe. As opposed to an omnipotent God who does all of the engineering by himself.

Yep, I get this.

But one has to wonder, if there are Beons, from whence the Beons?

For the one thing about the Supreme Being explanation is that, like it or not, it at least serves the function of providing a First Cause explanation. One can reject that explanation, of course, but it does have a "buck stops here" quality. And if we are looking for a causal explanation for the universe, a "buck stops here" explanation is precisely what we need. For otherwise, we get into an infinite regress, and an infinite regress does not provide any ultimate explanation at all.

So I would want to know how all these engineers -- clearly specialized and tailored to purpose -- came into being, and I would wish the explanation to have that "buck stops here" quality of finality. An infinite regress would be no explanation. It would just raise another, more basic question, the question of who made the Beons.

If the explanation for Beons is grounded in a Supreme Being, then "Beons" becomes merely an instrumental explanation...an account of how creation was done, (i.e. by mediation of Beons) but not ultimately why or ultimately by Whom. And then the Beons are contingent beings, just as we humans are contingent upon them.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Greylorn:
I shall take the matter up with Roger Penrose's biographers. Consider me duly repentant on the question of mathematical notation.

You and I are good on "fine tuning," but I'm awaiting your rejoinder to earlier statements re: those properties.

What in particular, Greylorn?

Spheres:

You mean to say, "for existence of the only form of life we're aware of," surely.

Nope. I mean things like this: that if the strong and weak forces in the atom were different, it would fly apart or collapse. The precise balance they have keeps the darn thing together. So if some fine-tuning variables were not very precise, there would be no life at all -- unless you can conceive of life existing without atoms.
Nope, you're phrasing that, as if for one to make it. Which is not a given! You try and stack the deck, with your god, before we start. There is no such thing as fine tuning, as it calls for a tuner. You have a mental block that prevents you from understanding chance, and that mental block, in your case, is called religion. Chance means exactly that, "chance."

"chance [chans, chahns]
noun
1. the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency: Chance governs all." --dictionary.reference.com--

That with billions for stars in billions of galaxies the CHANCE that the particular combination of elements that just by chance allowed for this particular life to exist, was arbitrary, random, chance.

And you're missing the point. Having "conditions for life" doesn't give us "life." How life suddenly "emerged" from entirely non-living matter is one of the profound mysteries of Evolutionary biology...and that's pretty much universally conceded by Evolutionary biologists themselves. No one has the foggiest notion how it can be done. That's why they call life an "emergent property": because we have no clue how it could happen, and we can't produce conditions for it at all. "Chemistry" doesn't do it for us.
I saw a documentary that in fact did create some of the beginnings of life, where have you been.

But it really wouldn't matter anyway, because the facts surrounding the origin of life on planet earth and us of today are separated by 3.5 "billion" years +(PLUS):

"Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. The earliest life on Earth arose at least 3.5 billion years ago,[6][7][8] during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon. The earliest physical evidence of life on Earth is biogenic graphite from 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks found in Western Greenland and microbial mat fossils in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone from in Western Australia.[10][11]" --Wikipedia--

Did you read that? They found "biogenic graphite!" Do you know what graphite is? look no further than your pencil. Yes graphite is a crystallized form of carbon, I, a carbon based life-form say, to another one.

Finally, "conditions" don't just spontaneously create life. If you buy yourself a dog house, that doesn't mean a dog comes with it. It just means you have a dog house, so if any dogs ever appear you'll have a place to put them. But how you're going to get a dog is going to be entirely unrelated to the presence or absence of your dog house.
And this is probably the single most stupid thing you've ever said. At least that I've read. As it proves you have absolutely no concept of time, specifically 3.5 billion years +(plus).

And your answer to this shall prove it, without seeking reference material, tell me, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

[Immanuel Can]

Spheres:

"Chance" never creates. "Billions of years" don't create. And when "chance" is turned into a "positive agency," it's what we call a figure of speech, or an anthropomophism, not a product of empirical science at all. Your alternate explanation is not an explanation.

Abiogenesis is pure speculation, based on the raw assumption it "must have happened" because otherwise Evolutionary theory would be impossible to use as an answer to how life came to be. But that's terrible science and terrible reasoning: it says, "If we don't know why something happened, and we can't do it ourselves in the lab, we'll just assume somehow it happened, rather than change our theory." And don't tell me "science doesn't do that," because they sure do...check the monkey chart lately? It's getting sparser by the second.

Finally, time will not put a dog in your doghouse. Go ahead and try it. Call me in about 3.5 billion years.

Until then...

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres:

"Chance" never creates. "Billions of years" don't create. And when "chance" is turned into a "positive agency," it's what we call a figure of speech, or an anthropomophism, not a product of empirical science at all. Your alternate explanation is not an explanation.
It's you that has create-itis. Who said anything about mans existence as being positive?

Abiogenesis is pure speculation, based on the raw assumption it "must have happened" because otherwise Evolutionary theory would be impossible to use as an answer to how life came to be. But that's terrible science and terrible reasoning: it says, "If we don't know why something happened, and we can't do it ourselves in the lab, we'll just assume somehow it happened, rather than change our theory." And don't tell me "science doesn't do that," because they sure do...check the monkey chart lately? It's getting sparser by the second.
All your take, which is largely contrary to the truth. You need to do some studying. But then your kind do that quite a lot, so it's probably purposeful.

Finally, time will not put a dog in your doghouse. Go ahead and try it. Call me in about 3.5 billion years.
This just shows that your logic is lacking.


Until then...

I see that you ignored the fact that some requirements for life have been "created" in a laboratory, and would have resulted on planet earth all those billions of years ago, all by themselves due to the environment at that time. If I ever use the word create know that it means that constituents join together, to form another thing. That the constituents create the new thing in their joining. Surely "form" would be more correct, but some things I just haven't changed yet.

"Create
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to:
The announcement created confusion."

Which doesn't necessarily indicate intelligent design.