DARWIN's DOUBT - The End of Darwinistic Materialism

[Nick Capozzoli]

There are dozens of distinct theories about how abiogenesis might have happened. No doubt each of them is improbable (although less improbable if we add them all together) . However, that is a misunderstanding of probability. IF you roll two dice, and "box cars" come up, it would be silly to say "these must be loaded dice, because two 6s are unlikely." Yes, box cars are unlikely (1/36), but that doesn't mean the dice must be loaded.

WE know that the origins of life (however improbable in a world in which no life exists) did occur, somehow or other. It would be a false dichotomy to say, "because abiogenesis is improbable, there must be a creator." That's similar to saying, "Because box cars are improbable, the dice must be loaded." Why is the creator any more "probable" than abiogenesis? Is there any evidence of other "creations"?

In addition, the notion of a conscious, volitional "creator" is anthropomorphic. Why is conscious volition the only thing that can explain an otherwise extremely improbable occurence? Couldn't life have originated through some other, non-consicious, non-volitional, but unique set of circumstances?

There are dozens of distinct theories about how abiogenesis might have happened. No doubt each of them is improbable (although less improbable if we add them all together).

There are a few (not dozens) of plausible hypotheses (none of which really rise to the level of theory) to explain abiogenesis. I've followed them closely over the years since I was a college and graduate/medical school student. You can find a good on-line summary of them by Googling "abiogenesis." The Wikipedia article is fairly good. The one I find most compelling is the "Clay" hypothesis.

WE know that the origins of life (however improbable in a world in which no life exists) did occur, somehow or other.

I'll rephrase your statement to "Life (however improbable in a world in which no life exists) did come into being, somehow or other," just to make it more grammatically sensible. Well, that's obviously true, since we know that life somehow appeared on the early Earth out of non-living matter. I never questioned that, nor did I ever question that once life forms came into being they evolved by means of natural selection. I hope that I have been able to make it clear that I am not an unscientific Yahoo who knows nothing about physics, chemistry, and biology.

It would be a false dichotomy to say, "because abiogenesis is improbable, there must be a creator." That's similar to saying, "Because box cars are improbable, the dice must be loaded." Why is the creator any more "probable" than abiogenesis?

I never said any such things. You are creating a straw man argument. My argument is that so far there haven't been any really compelling physiochemical explanations for abiogenesis. I would certainly welcome a good scientific explanation. But given the fact that abiogenesis is still quite mysterious (as opposed to, say, the theory of evolution by natural selection (and all of the other stuff that we know about biology), I think that we should remain open to the possibility of a Creator, maybe along the lines of the God of Spinosa or the Deists... There have been quite a few bona fide scientists who have held such an idea. Darwin himself was apparently troubled by his inability to explain abiogenesis to the degree of certainty he felt with his theory of natural selection, and this was most likely to be the origin of whatever scientific "doubt" he may have had about the evolution of life on Earth.

[Ecurb]

[B]]

I never said any such things. You are creating a straw man argument. My argument is that so far there haven't been any really compelling physiochemical explanations for abiogenesis. I would certainly welcome a good scientific explanation. But given the fact that abiogenesis is still quite mysterious (as opposed to, say, the theory of evolution by natural selection (and all of the other stuff that we know about biology), I think that we should remain open to the possibility of a Creator, maybe along the lines of the God of Spinosa or the Deists... There have been quite a few bona fide scientists who have held such an idea. Darwin himself was apparently troubled by his inability to explain abiogenesis to the degree of certainty he felt with his theory of natural selection, and this was most likely to be the origin of whatever scientific "doubt" he may have had about the evolution of life on Earth.

I agree that we should remain open to any reasonable possibilities in our quest for the truth. However, I don't think that a Creator is a more reasonable possibility than hundreds (even thousands) of other theories (if we are discussing ONLY the origins of life). Of course if there is OTHER evidence for a powerful God, or a Biblical God (personal revelation, as one example), then a Creator becomes more probable.

p.s. I know that I wasn't always speaking specifically to your points; I was making general comments on the issue.

[Billy the Poet]

We often neglect the truth that science has a handful of its limitations, especially when we tend to assume one thing and deny the other.

[Nick Capozzoli]

IF you roll two dice, and "box cars" come up, it would be silly to say "these must be loaded dice, because two 6s are unlikely." Yes, box cars are unlikely (1/36), but that doesn't mean the dice must be loaded... It would be a false dichotomy to say, "because abiogenesis is improbable, there must be a creator." That's similar to saying, "Because box cars are improbable, the dice must be loaded." Why is the creator any more "probable" than abiogenesis?

Since I may not have been clear, I want to make a further comment about your argument comparing the probability of abiogenesis to rolling dice and getting boxcars (or any other same face result), and why I said that you are raising a "straw man" argument. We know the probabilities of rolling dice outcomes. They are easy to calculate using statistics and our knowledge of how dice (6-faced cubes) behave when tossed. Atoms and molecules do not behave so simply as dice, but we have a pretty good understanding of how they do behave. This knowledge allows us to estimate the probability that that certain chemical reactions can occur, given the presence of certain atoms and molecules (or larger assemblages of matter) under specified environmental conditions (such as those on the early Earth). Environmental conditions on the early Earth were certainly different from those today, but we must assume that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same as they are today. We are not going way back to the time of the Big Bang, when one could argue that the laws might have been different...

So the problem for folks who want to explain abiogenesis comes down to hypothesizing a physiochemical pathway for the assembly of living matter from non-living matter. We understand that because life exists now on Earth, abiogenesis in fact did occur at some point. I'll assume it occurred on Earth rather than somewhere else in the Universe to be imported to Earth, mainly because saying life originated elsewhere merely begs the question of abiogenesis.

We also know that the assembly of non-living chemical assemblies into life forms was improbable. How improbable is not clear, but it was certainly more improbable than rolling boxcars, and probably more improbable than winning the Super Lotto. Granted we are talking about a very long time base (e.g. a couple of billion years since the Earth cooled from a molten fireball and the first Pre-Cambrian living things appeared). The main problem for us is to come up with a "plausible" physical mechanism that provides us with some sort of "scientific" explanation (hypothesis) for abiogenesis. We do have some hypotheses (the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis discusses them), but none of them seems compelling enough to command our absolute acceptance.

Furthermore, despite the extensive studies of modern scientists, so far no one has been able to create life from non-life "in the test tube," nor has anyone observed the spontaneous appearance of life from non-life in nature.

All of this is to say the great scientific mystery of life is abiogenesis. Neither the "Creationist" folks nor the "Evolutionists" seem to have focused on abiogenesis as the central mystery that needs either a theological or scientific explanation. They tend to argue about whether or not natural selection can explain the evolution of living things. It ought to be quite clear that the Darwin/Wallace theory of natural selection provides an intellectually compelling explanation for the evolution of living things. As far as scientific theories to explain the behavior of the universe, natural selection is about as certainly "correct" as Maxwell's thermodynamics. No other scientific theories, such as relativity and quantum mechanics, have the same degree of certainty as thermodynamic theory and the theory of evolution by natural selection, IMHO.

I just wanted to clarify what I think about this topic.

[mal4mac]

I think that we should remain open to the possibility of a Creator, maybe along the lines of the God of Spinosa or the Deists... There have been quite a few bona fide scientists who have held such an idea. Darwin himself was apparently troubled by his inability to explain abiogenesis to the degree of certainty he felt with his theory of natural selection, and this was most likely to be the origin of whatever scientific "doubt" he may have had about the evolution of life on Earth.

You can dig out any number of scientists who believe all kinds of wacky things. Every field has its eccentrics.

As there is no absolute truth, then we should remain open to the possibility of all things, so you are right in saying we should remain open to the possibility of a creator God. But we should, then, also remain open to the possibility of the tooth fairy and the flying spaghetti monster. But there is no *evidence* for any of these things. So, in practice, sensible people, today, think believing in unseen things is just too silly.

[MorpheusSandman]

As there is no absolute truth, then we should remain open to the possibility of all things, so you are right in saying we should remain open to the possibility of a creator God. But we should, then, also remain open to the possibility of the tooth fairy and the flying spaghetti monster. But there is no *evidence* for any of these things. So, in practice, sensible people, today, think believing in unseen things is just too silly.

Really what we should remain open to is the fact that not all propositions are equally likely to be true, and set about assigning probability rather than resorting to the binary labels of "true" "false." To think about things like God or tooth fairies is to think about things the human imagination is capable of producing without a stitch of valid external evidence, and, historically, we are batting a perfect 0 at confirming the existence of such entities. So I tend to think that anything we imagine existing before we have proof of their existence is extremely unlikely to actually exist... something like 0.00000000000001% or so. OTOH, I think I'm confident putting the sun's existence at 99.99999999999999999999%. So perhaps neither proposition is absolute truth, but they're about as close as we can get. The whole point is to be less wrong, not absolutely right.

[mal4mac]

Really what we should remain open to is the fact that not all propositions are equally likely to be true, and set about assigning probability rather than resorting to the binary labels of "true" "false." To think about things like God or tooth fairies is to think about things the human imagination is capable of producing without a stitch of valid external evidence, and, historically, we are batting a perfect 0 at confirming the existence of such entities. So I tend to think that anything we imagine existing before we have proof of their existence is extremely unlikely to actually exist... something like 0.00000000000001% or so. OTOH, I think I'm confident putting the sun's existence at 99.99999999999999999999%. So perhaps neither proposition is absolute truth, but they're about as close as we can get. The whole point is to be less wrong, not absolutely right.

Some seemingly, at first sight, intelligent & sane & serious people say that witches or gods exist, but none say tooth fairies or Santa Claus exist, so the existence of the former seems more likely than the latter. But I don't think you can assign probabilities to any of these claims, that's treating the claims too seriously! There is *no* reasonable evidence for gods or tooth fairies, so sensible people just get on with life ignoring any possibility of them existing, and don't bother seeking probabilities for their existence, as they have much better things to do.

[The Atheist]

.... the flying spaghetti monster. But there is no *evidence* for any of these things. ...

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< speak for yourself!

Some seemingly, at first sight, intelligent & sane & serious people say that witches or gods exist, but none say tooth fairies or Santa Claus exist, so the existence of the former seems more likely than the latter.

Only if you count belief as evidence, which would be very silly.

I believe I'll have a beer.

[Calidore]

Only if you count belief as evidence, which would be very silly.

I believe I'll have a beer.

Youtube or it didn't happen.

[mal4mac]

Only if you count belief as evidence, which would be very silly.

I don't believe in the Christian God. But can't there be different levels of disbelief? Some clever people believe in the existence of God, but no one supports the existence of the tooth fairy. I think those "clever people" are wrong, but don't they deserve some respect?

[The Atheist]

I don't believe in the Christian God. But can't there be different levels of disbelief?

I can't see why there should be. Things are either supported by evidence or they are not.

Some clever people believe in the existence of God, but no one supports the existence of the tooth fairy. I think those "clever people" are wrong, but don't they deserve some respect?

Not for their views, no. Why would I respect the views of someone who, in my opinion, chooses to be self-deluded?

I reject the concept of intelligent people really and genuinely thinking there is any reason to think some mythical sky-fairy runs the universe. They choose to believe, then soothe their consciences with tract-explanations for the irrational. Faith is a choice, not a decision.

[MorpheusSandman]

Some seemingly, at first sight, intelligent & sane & serious people say that witches or gods exist, but none say tooth fairies or Santa Claus exist, so the existence of the former seems more likely than the latter. But I don't think you can assign probabilities to any of these claims, that's treating the claims too seriously! There is *no* reasonable evidence for gods or tooth fairies, so sensible people just get on with life ignoring any possibility of them existing, and don't bother seeking probabilities for their existence, as they have much better things to do.

I'm not saying we should devote serious time and mental power to assigning accurate probabilities to propositions for which there's no good evidence to suggest they're true, however, in general, it's good, even if as a thought experiment, to think about what kind of evidence WOULD be good evidence and how well any evidence supports the proposition that it's true versus the proposition that it's not true.

If you just push the probability to the pole of 0/false/untrue then that's basically tantamount to saying no evidence would ever convince you, even if God, Santa Claus, etc. showed up at your door and demonstrated their powers to you. Obviously such a thing would be darn good evidence for them existing. Yet, according to Bayes' Theorem, if your prior probability was set at 0 then no evidence could ever move it one fractional integer from 0. If that's not the case, then it's good to consider what the real prior probability actually is. As I said, I think the best prior I could give would be the one assigned to all things we imagined to exist before we confirmed their existence, which would place the probability extremely low as, clearly, the human brain is capable of imagining many things exist that do not.

I don't believe in the Christian God. But can't there be different levels of disbelief?

Yes; in fact, I think all there are only levels of belief and disbelief, even though people tend to express their confidence levels in binary terms. That binary thinking isn't reflective of how things actually are because it presumes (among other things) that we know all there is to know. Our knowledge (and mental) limitations should dictate that every belief is merely a measure of our confidence levels given the evidence and how we've cognitively processed that evidence.

I can't see why there should be. Things are either supported by evidence or they are not.

See above; first you'd have a dispute over exactly what constitutes evidence, a further dispute over what constitutes good evidence, and a dispute over how that evidence affects the likelihood of any given proposition. These are not simple matters.

[The Atheist]

...first you'd have a dispute over exactly what constitutes evidence, a further dispute over what constitutes good evidence, and a dispute over how that evidence affects the likelihood of any given proposition. These are not simple matters.

Looks pretty simple to me - evidence that can be counted will conform to scientific investigation: physical, testable, measurable.

Anything supported by anecdotal evidence only can be safely ignored.

[mal4mac]

Yes; in fact, I think all there are only levels of belief and disbelief, even though people tend to express their confidence levels in binary terms.

Don't people have to express their confidence levels in binary terms? If they stopped to evaluate their confidence level for things like 'the sun rising tomorrow' wouldn't they be paralysed? Wondering every night if the sun is going to rise tomorrow would be, surely, an example of extreme silliness, wouldn't it? Unless, perhaps, you were a philosopher specialising in these matters.

[MorpheusSandman]

Looks pretty simple to me - evidence that can be counted will conform to scientific investigation: physical, testable, measurable.

That's scientism. There are all kinds of evidence we accept as evidence that doesn't follow the rigors of the scientific method, and there are things like history which require a completely different kind of investigation. What's more, such things don't help us in disputes like the one I'm having with YesNo in the Big Bang thread regarding various interpretations of quantum mechanics in which any number of ideas fit the evidence and there's really no scientific way (right now) of definitively choosing between them, and there may never be. So it's certainly not as simple as all that. How much reading into epistemology have you done? Read through here and get back to me on how simple it all is. I agree that, perhaps, it's simpler than many make it out to be, but probably not as simple as you're implying.

If they stopped to evaluate their confidence level for things like 'the sun rising tomorrow' wouldn't they be paralysed?

Hehe, this reminds me of the William Blake quote in Augeries of Innocence that "If the sun and moon should doubt, they'd immediately go out." The simple answer is that NO, people do not and SHOULD not think of their confidence levels in binary terms. The only way to accurately polarize such beliefs is if we knew everything, and we do not. It's our lack of omniscience that creates probability and prohibits absolute certainty. Hence the goal of being "less wrong" and learning to tune our biases accurately by what we experience, believe, and what we expect to experience based on that belief. However, we don't need absolute, ontological certainty to behave as if we're certain; but then we're talking about the difference between beliefs and actions based on beliefs. IE, the absolute consistency of the sun rising means we can act as if we're certain it will rise tomorrow without ruling out the remote possibility that will not. You don't need to worry over things that have a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening.