A beautiful argument for naturalism from Michael Shermer

[T'ai Chi]

"What science tells us is that we are but one among hundreds of millions of species that evolved over the course of three and a half billion years on one tiny planet among many orbiting an ordinary star, itself one of possibly billions of solar systems in an ordinary galaxy that contains hundreds of billions of stars, itself located in a cluster of galaxies not so different from millions of other galaxy clusters, themselves whirling away from one another in an expanding cosmic bubble universe that very possibly is only one among a near infinite number of bubble universes. Is it really possible that this entire cosmological multiverse was designed and exists for one tiny subgroup of a single species on one planet in a lone galaxy in that solitary bubble universe? It seems unlikely." (In the hardcover edition, pages 160-161.)

What can one say? People have different opinions about the evidence.

In fact, Shermer has flip-flopped from strong belief to disbelief, so his "unlikely" claim doesn't have much weight behind it IMO, if some years ago, when he interpreted the evidence differently, he'd probably be saying "very likely".

What Shermer seems to be saying is that because there are sooooo many, therefore it probably isn't designed. That is probably some type of fallacy.

So to answer Shermer's question, Yes, it is possible. Design is possible because we see design-like stuff (whether it is truly designed or not is another story) around us all the time.

Now what?

 

[Foster Zygote]

In fact, Shermer has flip-flopped from strong belief to disbelief, so his "unlikely" claim doesn't have much weight behind it IMO, if some years ago, when he interpreted the evidence differently, he'd probably be saying "very likely".

So he'd have to be born a skeptic in order for you to take him seriously? If he'd gone from skepticism to a position completely in agreement with your own would you still assign less weight to said position in light of his "flip-flop"? Pointing out that he had irrational beliefs before he discovered rationality is a rather poor argument against his statement in my opinion.

What Shermer seems to be saying is that because there are sooooo many, therefore it probably isn't designed. That is probably some type of fallacy.

No, what Shermer is saying is that it seems unlikely that the vast universe was designed solely for the psychotic apes that inhabit this lone dirtball.

He's saying something similar to this Mark Twain quote:

Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno.

So to answer Shermer's question, Yes, it is possible. Design is possible because we see design-like stuff (whether it is truly designed or not is another story) around us all the time.

Have you read The Blind Watchmaker? There is so far nothing that requires us to infer a designer to provide an explaination. A designer is indeed possible, but then so is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Now what?

"Now what" what?

Steven

 

[RandFan]

What can one say? People have different opinions about the evidence.

In fact, Shermer has flip-flopped from strong belief to disbelief, so his "unlikely" claim doesn't have much weight behind it IMO, if some years ago, when he interpreted the evidence differently, he'd probably be saying "very likely".

What Shermer seems to be saying is that because there are sooooo many, therefore it probably isn't designed. That is probably some type of fallacy.

So to answer Shermer's question, Yes, it is possible. Design is possible because we see design-like stuff (whether it is truly designed or not is another story) around us all the time.

Now what?

We are designed. And there is a simple and elegant explanation for that design. It's called evolution via natural selection. It is a compelling explanation because it is comprehensive and answers so many questions and can enable scientists to make predictions that they can go out into the field and and verify. Natural selections also explains why there are so many quirks in the design. It is as Dawkins says, "a bottom-up approach".

It seems to me that Shermer's question addresses only the question of the likelihood of god given so many stars in a single galaxy and so many galaxies. Based on that evidence alone I have to agree that it is unlikely.

 

[elliotfc]

I just finished reading Michael Shermer's wonderful book "Why Darwin Matters," which I strongly recommend to everybody. It's a concise, elegant defense of evolution and a blistering attack against ID creationism. Although the book boasts myriad quotable passages, I feel compelled to share one of them. It's one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism I've ever read.

"What science tells us is that we are but one among hundreds of millions of species that evolved over the course of three and a half billion years on one tiny planet among many orbiting an ordinary star, itself one of possibly billions of solar systems in an ordinary galaxy that contains hundreds of billions of stars, itself located in a cluster of galaxies not so different from millions of other galaxy clusters, themselves whirling away from one another in an expanding cosmic bubble universe that very possibly is only one among a near infinite number of bubble universes. Is it really possible that this entire cosmological multiverse was designed and exists for one tiny subgroup of a single species on one planet in a lone galaxy in that solitary bubble universe? It seems unlikely." (In the hardcover edition, pages 160-161.)

Never has insignificance been so exhilarating.

Agreed...but this ignores the cosmic quarantine theory.

Also, the opinion "unlikely" lacks anything to be compared with. There's only one universe that we can appreciate in any real way. I don't know if it is likely or unlikely. What other universes are we talking about, what's my frame of reference?

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

Also, the opinion "unlikely" lacks anything to be compared with. There's only one universe that we can appreciate in any real way. I don't know if it is likely or unlikely. What other universes are we talking about, what's my frame of reference?

?

An immense, incomprehensibly large universe with one hell of a lot of galaxies all with one hell of a lot of stars and all of this for an insignificant comparatively small number of people?

The solar system would have been more than sufficient. The Milky Way Galaxy would be showing off. As many as 500 billion galaxies? Why?

It is unlikely that the creation of humans necessitated all of that. No comparison is necessary.

 

[RandFan]

It is unlikely that the creation of humans necessitated all of that. No comparison is necessary.

I'm trying to think of an analogy but all are lacking. It wouldn't be like building the solar system to house a single strain of bacteria. It doesn't work because it just doesn't come anywhere near to representing the scale of the universe compared to humans. Any attempt to create such a scale would fail due to the limitations of the human mind. The notion that all of the universe exists because god created humans doesn't make sense.

 

[elliotfc]

?

An immense, incomprehensibly large universe with one hell of a lot of galaxies all with one hell of a lot of stars. All this for an insignificant comparatively small number of people?

Let me start again.

First, I mentioned *cosmic quarantine*...probably an esoteric theory which isn't talked about outside my...circle of...jerks? Anyhow, you're assuming 1)insignificant (if even a SINGLE person exists in the vastness of space, that is significant...in fact...the fewer the people the MORE significant, know what I mean?...2)comparatively...comparatively to what? Are there more planets than people? Sure. There are more pebbles on this planet than there are space shuttles. Which are more significant?

Returning to cosmic quarantine, the universe is large *because* of a reason. The reason is to keep intelligent life from interacting...to the extent that we don't even know if other intelligent life forms exist in the universe. Speculative sure, but this means that the problem that you say is a problem isn't a problem at all.

The solar system would have been more than sufficient. The Milky Way Galaxy would be showing off. As many as 500 billion galaxies? Why?

Well, the Big Band happened (let's assume)...and expansion continues to happen. All this matter in the universe, and only an infinitessimally (I spelled that wrong oh well) fraction matters. Why not? It is what it is, and maybe there's something significant that can be learned from that? You're assuming things like significance. I actually assume the opposite. All these galaxies, and this is the only one that matters. Pretty cool! Not that I believe that this is the only one that matters, but then that's the speculation part.

It is unlikely that the creation of humans necessitated all of that. No comparison is necessary.

Once you say "unlikely" you invoke comparison. Unlikely? It's relative. It's relative to what's likely. It demands comparison if you're to think it through...which I'm trying to do.

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

First, I mentioned *cosmic quarantine*...probably an esoteric theory which isn't talked about outside my...circle of...jerks? Anyhow, you're assuming 1)insignificant (if even a SINGLE person exists in the vastness of space, that is significant...in fact...the fewer the people the MORE significant, know what I mean?...

Significant to whom? Significance is a human construct. Humans are significant only to themselves. To look at humans and think that we are significant in comparison to the universe that is as large as it is and has existed for many eons before us and will exist for many after us is simply arrogance.

2)comparatively...comparatively to what? Are there more planets than people? Sure. There are more pebbles on this planet than there are space shuttles. Which are more significant?

For our brief moment in time the shuttles are more significant to our lives but many if not most of the pebbles will long out live the shuttles.

Returning to cosmic quarantine, the universe is large *because* of a reason. The reason is to keep intelligent life from interacting...to the extent that we don't even know if other intelligent life forms exist in the universe. Speculative sure, but this means that the problem that you say is a problem isn't a problem at all.

If humans were created on many different planets then you would be correct. I grew up Mormon and Mormons believe in many worlds so I can understand that point. If you hold such a philosophy then that is fine but Shermer is addressing a classical (typical?) Judeo-Christian concept of creation that holds that there is but one creation. In that sense he is right.

Well, the Big Band happened (let's assume)...and expansion continues to happen. All this matter in the universe, and only an infinitesimally (I spelled that wrong oh well) fraction matters. Why not? It is what it is, and maybe there's something significant that can be learned from that? You're assuming things like significance. I actually assume the opposite. All these galaxies, and this is the only one that matters. Pretty cool! Not that I believe that this is the only one that matters, but then that's the speculation part.

? I don't get that at all. It buggers belief. Why? Would you construct a building the size of the solar system to house only your family? Did god construct all of this so we could go "wow"? Is it to simply inspire awe? Hell, 10 billion galaxies would have been more than enough.

Once you say "unlikely" you invoke comparison. Unlikely? It's relative. It's relative to what's likely. It demands comparison if you're to think it through...which I'm trying to do.

Actually no. The word "likely" and "unlikely" have come to mean probably or not probably based on reason, logic, experience/comparison or any combination thereof. Theoretical physics often lack such comparisons.

When the scientists plotted a trajectory and probability of success of reaching the moon they did not have any direct comparisons. The probabilities that were calculated were based largely on reason and logic. They didn't report to the president that the likelihood of success was due to other trips. No, it was based on indirect evidence, tests, reason and logic.

That said, like the scientists who plotted our first journey to the moon we actually have some indirect comparisons here on earth. Nature and humans tend to be parsimonious in our efforts to create livable environments.

 

[CFLarsen]

What can one say? People have different opinions about the evidence.

Yeah. But that doesn't mean that all opinions are right.

In fact, Shermer has flip-flopped from strong belief to disbelief, so his "unlikely" claim doesn't have much weight behind it IMO, if some years ago, when he interpreted the evidence differently, he'd probably be saying "very likely".

No, Shermer hasn't "flip-flopped" from strong belief to disbelief. He has looked at the evidence and the explanations, and reached the conclusion that Creationism is false and Evolution is a fact.

Calling that "flip-flop" is a gross insult to all people who discover that science has a much better explanation than religion.

So to answer Shermer's question, Yes, it is possible. Design is possible because we see design-like stuff (whether it is truly designed or not is another story) around us all the time.

Now what?

Now, you investigate the evidence and the explanations.

Tell us what your opinion is. What conclusion do you reach? That Creationism is as likely an explanation as Evolution?

A simple question which can be answered with a "yes" or a "no". A simple question which will be utterly ignored.

 

[thaiboxerken]

When I was 7, I used to think the decimal system was the only counting method used in the world. Since then, I have flip-flopped and now I think there are many other methods of counting, like binary, hexadecimal and octal. I guess my latter conclusion isn't valid though, since I didn't believe this starting at birth.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So he'd have to be born a skeptic in order for you to take him seriously?

No, you're dishonestly twisting what I said.

I said it is hard to take his current beliefs and statements on the state of the universe more anything more than a large grain of salt since he has flip-flopped from strong belief to strong disbelief, and not that he has to be born in the skeptical movement to take him seriously.

No, what Shermer is saying is that it seems unlikely that the vast universe was designed solely for the psychotic apes that inhabit this lone dirtball.

But go back some years... and he'd say the exact opposite, so it is hard to put much weight in his current strong statement of belief.

There is so far nothing that requires us to infer a designer to provide an explaination.

There are many ways to interpret the evidence.

Take Dawkins' simplistic computer program, or the 'evolving' of the phrase. In each case, he is the intelligent designer giving it parameters, or knowing the outcome (the phrase) in advance.

If someone sees a sign that has "Hi Steve" written on it, we know it is designed. Yet when some see DNA, which is a 500 gadzillion times more complex, people don't see real design but 'give it time and chance and it can happen'. Since we've never known time and chance making things that complex, the latter is a larger statement of faith (one which I don't necessarily disagree with) even if it is a naturalistic explanation. Just because you're saying it is natural, doesn't mean it is suddenly probable or preferred.

A designer is indeed possible, but then so is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Any other odd notion you dream up for a joking comparison is probably possible too, but that ploy does nothing to defeat the general idea of god(s), especially considering rational people understand that FSM was invented to attempt to mock god(s), and we know very well what regular ol pasta is capable of.

Back to square one for you..

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is a compelling explanation because it is comprehensive and answers so many questions and can enable scientists to make predictions that they can go out into the field and and verify.

A narrative for a tautology can be compelling, I agree.

Then you have to go beyond that and ask if the theory fits the evidence.

For example, does it explain what we observe in the fossil record? Can we construct a detailed Darwinian pathway from any organism to another? Can we explain how time and chance can produce a piece of a cell that, without any one of its parts, ceases to function, that is many many times more complex than our most sophisticated computers (which we know are designed..)? Can we just say 'natural selection' and try to ignore all the random stuff in the evolution equation that makes things improbable?

 

[Z]

Yet when some see DNA, which is a 500 gadzillion times more complex, people don't see real design but 'give it time and chance and it can happen'. Since we've never known time and chance making things that complex, ..

We, who?

What do you mean, we've never known time and chance making things that complex? The whole point is, that time and chance have done precisely that. We can look into the universe and see entire star systems being made via time and chance; we can study fossil records and see time and chance making the myriad diverse forms of life; so, YES, we have - time and again - seen time and chance make exceptionally complex designs.

You really shouldn't post here until you've graduated elementary school, son.

 

[Z]

A narrative for a tautology can be compelling, I agree.

Then you have to go beyond that and ask if the theory fits the evidence.

For example, does it explain what we observe in the fossil record? Can we construct a detailed Darwinian pathway from any organism to another? Can we explain how time and chance can produce a piece of a cell that, without any one of its parts, ceases to function, that is many many times more complex than our most sophisticated computers (which we know are designed..)? Can we just say 'natural selection' and try to ignore all the random stuff in the evolution equation that makes things improbable?

It's too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.

The fossil record quite nicely fits evolutionary theory. This has been recently boosted by a number of interesting finds, including an intermediary stage between crab and lobster, a walking shark, and a couple of other finds. Cellular evolution is no more a mystery than general growth and development is - yet from a pair of half-constructed cells, all the myriad forms develop that make up a person. That includes many parts that, before they exist, the person can't survive; yet the person still develops fine.

You're making a very old mistake regarding cell development. You're assuming that the cell is just going to develop all its parts, all at once. The fact is, the cell develops from chains of complex, naturally occuring molecules, and when a change occurs that is beneficial, it stays put. The 'missing cell parts' you prattle on about wouldn't be missing at all; the function they served would have been handled by older structures, or not needed at all (given the status of the more primitive cells).

But, you'd have had to actually studied biology to understand these things... You'll get to that, in a few years. For now, go back to your Science class.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The whole point is, that time and chance have done precisely that.

We're awaiting your evidence for non life becoming life; a detailed pathway from say chemicals to an elephant, and all of the many molecular machines within the life.

NO smoke blowing, just do it, please.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The fossil record quite nicely fits evolutionary theory.

The Precambrian Explosion, how so?

The 'missing cell parts' you prattle on about wouldn't be missing at all;

I didn't talk about anything missing at all. Putting words in ones' mouth is dishonest, "zaaydragon".

 

[elaine]

We, who?



You really shouldn't post here until you've graduated elementary school, son.

ouch

 

[Z]

We're awaiting your evidence for non life becoming life; a detailed pathway from say chemicals to an elephant, and all of the many molecular machines within the life.

NO smoke blowing, just do it, please.

Do it yourself - instead of wasting time posting nonsense on Internet forums.

I personally have no interest in studying such subjects.

However, if you know anything about protoviruses and viruses, you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions (re: non-life to life). Or the development of mitochondrial structures.

And I picked up that much casually. If you actually want to learn something, instead of slinging out nonsense and hoping your pre-conceived notions will be borne out, you can learn something.

RE: The Precambrian Explosion: Still fits quite nicely with Evolution Theory. You're still discussion an period of 30 million years... and a fragmented fossil record. Tell me, silly child, what is so damning to Evolutionary Theory about either the Precambrian or Cambrian periods?

RE: Honesty. Your words, exactly:

a piece of a cell that, without any one of its parts, ceases to function,

{bolding mine}

Without any one of its parts. = parts missing.

Simple language, moron. Did you actually pass an English class, or are you on the No Child Left Behind program?
Backpeddling is cowardly AND dishonest, "T'ai chi".

 

[T'ai Chi]

ouch

Ouch as in in hurts.........his credibility, considering it is an attempt to say that those that disagree with him don't have basic schooling when he is confronted by disagreement. Whatever one needs to feel comfortable I say, but cheap internet debate tactics (from anonymous people) never impressed me much.

But he is welcome to shame us with his intelligence and scan in his degrees for everyone to see.

 

[Z]

Ouch as in in hurts.........his credibility, considering it is an attempt to say that those that disagree with him don't have basic schooling when he is confronted by disagreement. Whatever one needs to feel comfortable I say, but cheap internet debate tactics (from anonymous people) never impressed me much.

But he is welcome to shame us with his intelligence and scan in his degrees for everyone to see.

No degrees, and not much intelligence, either. But when you start spouting nonsense about cellular complexity and evolution, it just proves you're not nearly as educated or intelligent as you think you are.

For example, I don't spout off about Chinese mysticism. I'm well-read, but don't consider myself sufficiently educated in the subject. I might ask questions based upon my reading, but hardly think I'm qualified to uphold a reasoned discussion on the subject matter. However, if someone starts babbling about the Chinese gods Shiva, Thor, and Quetzalcoatl, of course I can pipe up with a refutation of their 'Chinese origins'.

The same applies here. I'm no biologist, nor consider myself an authority on the subject; but when some moron starts babbling about 'irreducible complexity' or 'time and chance can't make something as complex as what we observe in nature', I'm calling BS. It takes a special kind of idiot to make a declaration that nature can't make an object that occurs in nature: the kind that has already decided on a supernatural creator, and is going to shoehorn evidence as he or she sees fit.

If you see this as 'cheap internet debate tactics,' feel free to do so. I see it as 'stating the obvious'.

Now, what's so damning about the Precambrian period, as regards Evolutionary Theory? And how about your cowardly backpeddling, r.e. missing parts?