The Divine Watchmaker Theory

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=dropzone]
Ah, but time is the oft-ignored factor. Computers cannot do anything we cannot on our own. The only thing a computer can do better than us is add and subtract ones and zeros faster, making it SEEM smart when a human had to understand the equations when she programmed it.

[/QUOTE]

Theoretically that is true, since both we and computers can simulate Turing machines. Practically it isn’t, because where I work computers do things that people can’t do in a human lifetime, even if they were perfectly accurate. Plus computers have the sum of the methods entered into them. Could you produce search results like Google? I doubt it.

42

[QUOTE=Eben]
The computer was the complex device created through less complex means. It’s a counterargument to a counterargument against the thrust of the design argument. So for that to make sense I’ll do the short short version.

1)There are complex things

2)It is unlikely for such complex things to exist without a creator

Therefore: There is a creator

The idea of the argument is to prove the existence of a creator.

-Eben
[/QUOTE]

The real counterargument consists of two parts:

  1. A primitive item - a starting point.

  2. A method for making this item more complex.

The method for part 2 is evolution, that is reproduction with variation (which will sometimes cause something more complex to exist, even if only incrementally more complex) and natural selection, which ensures that only stable, successful objects reproduce.

Part 1 goes back to abiogenesis, but if we allow for a self-replicating molecule arising by accident (given billions of years and googles of opportunity) then evolution kicks in and we eventually get to RNA.

This proves nothing, but it does eliminate the need to believe in a creator. It is impossible to say that some creator did it all and made it look like an accident.

43

[QUOTE=John Mace]
No, you would never be able to trace it back to something supernatural. As soon as you could, it we become natural. If someone 15’ tall appeared before me right now and said he was Jehova and I better get my act together, and then he vanished in a bolt of lightning, I would assume I imagined it or that it was a space alien. That’s the problem with proposing a God who interferes with the natural world-- there is no way to tell the difference, scientifically, between such a God and a space alien with advanced technology.
[/QUOTE]

We can’t really trace back natural things to natural causes with perfect confidence either. Maybe it isn’t gravity, maybe it is demons, but that’s not the way to bet. If we could find a reproducible form of telekinesis, then we could work on ways seeing if it is natural or not. It seems to me that a far better argument against the supernatural than that it is impossible is that after thousands of years we have no decent evidence for it.

44

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
The argument from design only works if complex organisms in nature display [url=Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia]irreducible complexity.
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. It also works if the steps required are mathematically improbable.

FTR, I think that the objections levelled against irreducible complexity are typically sloppy or otherwise poorly founded. So my comment is not meant as a dismissal of irreducible complexity, which would be beyond the scope of this thread anyway. Rather, on a purely philosophical basis, one can observe that the mere possibility of constructing the necessary set of steps merely makes the non-design argument possible. It doesn’t necessarily make it more plausible than design.

45

[QUOTE=JThunder]
Not necessarily. It also works if the steps required are mathematically improbable.

FTR, I think that the objections levelled against irreducible complexity are typically sloppy or otherwise poorly founded. So my comment is not meant as a dismissal of irreducible complexity, which would be beyond the scope of this thread anyway. Rather, on a purely philosophical basis, one can observe that the mere possibility of constructing the necessary set of steps merely makes the non-design argument possible. It doesn’t necessarily make it more plausible than design.
[/QUOTE]
But even mathematically improbable steps become more plausible than design steps when there are enough “trials” in a given time such that even vianishingly improbable steps actually become pretty likely. Given the trillions of replicators (genes) continuously carrying out trials (mutations) over millions of years, then if a mutation of an original gene can produce the “evolved” gene in question, it surely eventually will.

46

[QUOTE=JThunder]
Not necessarily. It also works if the steps required are mathematically improbable.
[/QUOTE]

That’s true. But I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for such mathematical improbability. Most of them display a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s at issue–they’ll say something like, “The chance of these mutations happening in this order to produce the human being are 1 in a thousand gazillion,” as though the only possible path evolution could have taken was that one, and the only possible outcome was humanity. It’s like picking up a shuffled deck of cards and saying, “Hey, the chances of the cards being in this particular order are one in a brazillion; I guess it must be a miracle!”

As someone pointed out in another thread (and I see **SentientMeat ** makes this point in the previous post), evolution is not like a dice being rolled a billion times and hoping for a particular series of outcomes; it is like billions of dice simultaneously being rolled billions of times–every time any living creature that has ever existed over the last 3+ billion years has reproduced, there’s a roll of the dice. What would be mathematically improbable is if this *didn’t * result in highly complex life forms.

47

[QUOTE=RaftPeople]
You mean like quantum mechanics?
[/QUOTE]

No, quantum mechanics doesn’t fit the definition of ‘supernatural’. I mean like real magic.

John Mace said: “If someone 15’ tall appeared before me right now and said he was Jehova and I better get my act together, and then he vanished in a bolt of lightning, I would assume I imagined it or that it was a space alien. That’s the problem with proposing a God who interferes with the natural world-- there is no way to tell the difference, scientifically, between such a God and a space alien with advanced technology.”

Whether he would think he imagined it or that it could be a space alien with advanced technology is irrelevant. If it actually is Jehova that created the “natural world” but also created another realm- one with spirits, magic, and things that are above or beyond what is natural and unexplainable by natural law or phenomena, well, than that would be supernatural.

48

[QUOTE=Eben]
Yep, I agree that you’ve got the best argument there against a creator. There’s no good reason that creator would have done such a poor job constructing things as they are now.

In the end, I don’t think science can remove the doubt far enough for me not to believe. Then again, in my case the belief is fairly suboptimal in it’s own way. I don’t give the creator and attributes, which means the belief has no impact on my life beyond thinking that things are connected. This in no way is incompatible with the belief that things are connected simply because it all started with the Big Bang or through evolution or whatever. My belief just has a couple more sparkles that give me an aesthetic pleasure when I examine the world.

If that seems logically flawed, look at the belief that there are incredibly small things that are beyond my comprehension in behavior (because I don’t know the math) which can seemingly incur a causal change without a time gap commensurate with distance. Of course I’m talking about Quantum entanglement. I only know what I’ve read in books for lay people and various articles and it staggers my mind to no end. If things like that are true, what harm in a belief that adds glitter without changing the way I behave?

Sadly, I see this same argument I use then turned into a reason to give Jesus my love and a small portion of my money. That I’m not buying since it would clearly change the way I lived and how I used my resources.

-Eben
[/QUOTE]

Unless of course the creator wanted his creation to be intentionally flawed so it could perfect itself incrementally, right?
:slight_smile:

49

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
No, quantum mechanics doesn’t fit the definition of ‘supernatural’. I mean like real magic.
[/QUOTE]

Just having fun with the randomness and our desire to always have causality, which makes it seem like there is something operating there that is outside of the world we know (i.e. nature)

50

[QUOTE=Eben]
The computer was the complex device created through less complex means. It’s a counterargument to a counterargument against the thrust of the design argument. So for that to make sense I’ll do the short short version.

1)There are complex things

2)It is unlikely for such complex things to exist without a creator

Therefore: There is a creator

The idea of the argument is to prove the existence of a creator.

A counterargument that attacks the reason for the argument instead of the argument directly is that in order for something complex to be created, something even more complex must create it. This gives ad absurdum proof that complex things can not be created. Therefore no creator.

Showing that more complexity can follow from less complexity is a counterargument to this counterargument. You do point out the interesting point that the counterargument giving ad absurdum proof would indeed rule out any complexity, even that currently observed.

-Eben
[/QUOTE]
If you show that that more complexity can follow from less complexity, then, as I said in the original post, you have completely yanked the rug out from the Divine Watchmaker theory. The entire foundation of that theory is that when you find something complex you assume it couldn’t have developed from simpler forms. If you allow such development, then you don’t need a creator, and poof goes the watchmaker argument.

(So, it’s not a “counterargument to this counterargument”; it’s a concession of the argument.)

Also, I can’t believe you proposed this:

The “Therefore” is obviously wrong; based on the premises it should be “Therefore: There is a creator and/or something unlikely happened.”

Unlikely things happen all the time. Roll a six-sided dice: look at the result: it had less than a 17% chance of occuring! That’s pretty unlikely! And that was just one dice roll! Roll ten dice in a row, and the chance of you having gotten those results in that order are less than 1 in 60 million! Wow!

So, something pretty unlikely has happened. And it’s nigh-certain that gobs of really, really unlikely things have been happening all throughout history. So, one cannot logically conclude “There is a creator” from this argument, because something (else) unlikely might have, and has, happened instead.

51

Actually the complex watch evolved from simple time devices of the past. As we got better and better at making watches we were able to make them more complex and accurate. Some watches of the past failed. Others succeeded.
A modern watch is a mechanical device with the bad ideas weeded out. A step at a time .

52

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Actually the complex watch evolved from simple time devices of the past. As we got better and better at making watches we were able to make them more complex and accurate. Some watches of the past failed. Others succeeded.
A modern watch is a mechanical device with the bad ideas weeded out. A step at a time .
[/QUOTE]

Indeed. As this parable points out, the watch lacks a single creator.

53

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Actually the complex watch evolved from simple time devices of the past. As we got better and better at making watches we were able to make them more complex and accurate. Some watches of the past failed. Others succeeded.
A modern watch is a mechanical device with the bad ideas weeded out. A step at a time .
[/QUOTE]

…

54

The central (to me) paradox of the Watchmaker illustration: as we are walking along, we spot the Watch and think of a Designer immediately because it stands out from its Natural surroundings. We then invoke the idea of a Designer on those same natural surroundings that the Watch stood out from as a Designed thing. So in the same mental exercise, we are expecting Nature to first be contrasted by, then included in, the category of Designed Things. Somewhere in there is a category error, methinks.

55

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
None, whatsoever. I just don’t want you trying to get your glittery beliefs incorporated into a high-school science class. At best, it should be lumped into an elective called Glittery Beliefs 101.
[/QUOTE]

Hm, I see a new calling. I’ll set up a course for Glittery Beliefs. PhD in Glittery Beliefs, please! :smiley:

You bring up an interesting point though, what should be taught in high school science? I first started questioning the automatic authority of science during Earth Science in high school. The teacher told us (don’t remember the numbers exactly, but the gist is…) the universe was 15 billion years old. A couple days later we were told that quasars were 18 billion light years away. When I asked how the light had been traveling longer than the universe existed I was told that’s just the way it was and to stop asking questions.

For the average (or near-average) person moving about in their life, modeling natural things as being anthropomorphic provides an easier way to give decent predictions regarding the subject. ie: calling gravity the work of a persistant demon trying to draw everything into the earth works quite well on a daily basis. Without doing any math, it can be understood and passed to someone who hasn’t thought about what happens if they try really really hard to not fall back down when they jump. A classic example is considering the ocean to be a woman of various temperments. Not that I’m saying it’s a great thing to do scientificaly, but I’m listening to the radio hearing ads about stopping AGW on the radio that essentialy tell me Gaia is mad at us for being prosperous.

If this is true then must we listen to priests, or perhaps the Pope, as authorities on the subject of God/their religion?

I think scientists as a class are willing to question and discard hypothesis based on contradicting facts. As individuals with reputations on the line, scientists as individuals are just as reluctant to admit mistakes as anyone else. In the philosophy realm, which is my area of expertise, I witnessed the slow and excruciating change in view of an emminant philosopher on the subject of animal intelligence. It took about ten years for this philosopher to come to believe evidence that had been in front of him for most of his life, and during conversations with him, he spoke about his main reluctance in changing his mind was the potential loss of peer respect.

So back to the main point of the thread… The arguments seem to come down to two points:

a) There is a real mathematical possibility of everything in the Universe has come into existance through incremental changes.

b) There is an unknown possibility of everything in the Universe being creator by unknown means for unknown reasons.

Since b has so much unknown in it, there is not a clear choice between the two positions. One who is predisposed towards a creator will give b’s unknown chance a higher probability than one who is predisposed towards no creator. The argument from design can not prove creation. Disproving the argument from design doesn’t disprove creation.

I suppose in the end most people think that they themselves are even-keeled, right-minded people and other people should naturaly believe in the same things they do. I know that I myself feel that way.

-Eben

56

[QUOTE=Eben]
If this is true then must we listen to priests, or perhaps the Pope, as authorities on the subject of God/their religion?
[/QUOTE]

As I posted above, scientists don’t entirely rely on authority; they rely on evidence: whether the evidence they present can survive peer review; whether their results can be duplicated by other scientists, etc. There is no analog of this process in religion; this is why religious authority doesn’t count. There’s a difference between a scientific expert who has studied a field, done the experiments, and has empirical knowledge of his subject matter and a person who has read and re-read the Bible and can tell you everything the Bible says God wants us to do.

57

Wow, the Watchmaker Theory. Glad to see another delusionist here to keep me company.

Ok, as to the OP.

  1. Things are complex

No, things are not complex. “Complex” relies on a standard of simplicity that just does not exist beyond the binary. Once a standard of higher than binary simplicity is established to measure complexity against, complexity itself raises the norm. The short answer is, there is always something more complex and, until Moore’s Law becomes obsolete there always will be.

  1. The more complex things are, the more likely they are to be created more or less whole rather than through incremental improvements

Not exactly. As things grow more complex the boundries for complexity expand (see position number 1). Once a certain level is obtained hindsight reveals that which was once intricate is now quite pedestrian and mundane. The formerly Divine becomes strikingly mortal and the Amazing Magic from days past are no more than mere parlor tricks to pass time with the kiddies. Incremental though the steps may seem, the fact that they do keep marching on alludes to the time when that which is complex today will seem simple and the steps in their creation will be quite obvious.

  1. There are many things so amazingly complex that we see no likely way they could have come into bing incrementally.

Again refer to the answer to item #2. What we saw 1000 years ago versus what we see now is exponentially different. What we may see in another 1000 years in accordance with Moore’s law may be something that we are currently unable to even imagine.

Keeping in mind that Moore’s law only applies to technology. Within evolution there are peaks and plateaus, sometimes even valleys. The incline varies from species to species and individual to individual but the fact remains that it is an incline.

However, yes I am also a delusional follower of the Tinkerer. Although I think you are on the right track, you are needlessly confounding things. Keep it simple. Yes, complexity can arise from simplicity, this is a cornerstone of evolution. Other wise we would all still be paramecium. So the arguement from the origin of God is lame.

If simple organisms can, through tried and true methods, over enough time and generations evolve into higher organisms then these higher organisms can be said to come from the simple ones. The complexity of the Watchmaker does not have to be that much greater than our own, it can in fact be much simpler. And if a origin of the Watchmaker is revealed, it is also possible that the Originator was simpler still, possibly below the point of being a singularity (hey, infinity goes along just fine in one direction, why not in the other?).

The arguement from no universe before universe has a similar hole. Only the definition of universe constrains the boundries of this one. That which was before could have been, by definition, not a universe. It could have been dimentionally different and thus, reality as we know it truly might not have existed before our own.

The arguement from an advanced alien species is also constrained. The advanced alien is bound by it’s own definition of itself. Even if it is exponentially further along the evolutionary ladder, it still limits itself against its potential. Any being that could corporally interact with us sets its limits thusly.

Anyway, that is how I would answer the OP and help patch up the arguements. Keep it simple, seek further simplicity. But don’t expect me to look for scientific (or even logical) proof of God. As I maintain my position that science and God, while not mutually exclusive, are like studying apples to prove oranges exist. The Watchmaker is blind in our standards because He does not need sight. This does not mean we are blind, just that we cannot see where He sees. Science provides an interesting study of His tools and techniques, but can never study Him.

58

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
As I posted above, scientists don’t entirely rely on authority; they rely on evidence: whether the evidence they present can survive peer review; whether their results can be duplicated by other scientists, etc. There is no analog of this process in religion; this is why religious authority doesn’t count. There’s a difference between a scientific expert who has studied a field, done the experiments, and has empirical knowledge of his subject matter and a person who has read and re-read the Bible and can tell you everything the Bible says God wants us to do.
[/QUOTE]

Peer review is clearly an appeal to authority. Are you claiming that multiple authorities are to be trusted where one may not be?

Duplication is nice in theory, but in many cases not possible. I hate to pick on AGW some more, but it’s an easy target in this case… AGW models have not had time to prove out, but seem to be doing okay. We believe them because they have not been disproven yet, not because they are duplicatable. They aren’t duplicatable in the normal sense of a lab experiment.

Is the Pope being chosen by the Cardinals not peer review? Biblical predictions can have some evidence as well. ie: not eating pork will reduce the number of sick people among certain groups.

The real problem with saying there’s a difference between a scientist who’s done experiements and a person (i’ll say priest) who has read the Bible is that to the lay person there’s not much difference. In both cases someone is claiming they have authority based on personal experiences which gives them some sort of insight the common man doesn’t have. The scientist may very well have more predictive accuracy, but that doesn’t mean that they have the best answers for the common man.

Automaticaly believing scientists is no different than automaticaly believing a priest for the lay person. And for the lay person there are readily accessible communities if they follow a belief set based on priestly teachings rather than on science. Perhaps scientists need to have weekly community meetings with lay people to discuss science and have some coffee and cakes in order to compete better on the ground that most people occupy.

This is getting rather off topic here, but oh well, I’ll continue off topic :smiley:

-Eben

p.s. It might be worth noting that I’m not a church-going person and not really religious in any sense of the word either. I’m mainly arguing to find the divisive points. If many were arguing that argument from design was right, I’d most likely be arguing that it was wrong.

59

[QUOTE=Eben]
The teacher told us (don’t remember the numbers exactly, but the gist is…) the universe was 15 billion years old. A couple days later we were told that quasars were 18 billion light years away. When I asked how the light had been traveling longer than the universe existed I was told that’s just the way it was and to stop asking questions.
[/quote]
Science is all about asking questions - and when your initial questions get answered, the answers inevitably lead to new questions. So shame on your teacher for saying that to you (unless they meant, “stop interrupting class with all your questions”). :slight_smile:

As a side note, this Wikipedia entry briefly mentions how its possible for distances longer than 13 billion light years to exist in a universe that’s ~13 billion years old.

Well, you don’t have to listen to them, but you should keep the amount of knowledge they likely hold on those subjects in perspective.

Having said that, the comparison between priests, etc. and scientists, etc. doesn’t go much further than that, for reasons already explained by Sophistry and Illusion.

It’s an appeal to authority in the same sense that having a proofreader on your newspaper staff is an appeal to authority. (IOW, technically you could call it that, but following that road would lead to rendering the term useless.)

And having multiple “authorities” sign off on your work is almost always better than having only one person sign off on it (even outside of science). So, the answer to your question above would be, “Yes, it helps in reducing the chances that a fatal mistake in the underlying material will be overlooked.”

60

[QUOTE=Eben]
Peer review is clearly an appeal to authority.
[/quote]

True, it is also true that it is not a fallacy depending on the subject the authority is dealing with.

[QUOTE=Eben]
Are you claiming that multiple authorities are to be trusted where one may not be?
[/quote]

This is indeed the basis of many organizations that are successful, the problem is when the organization is corrupted by ideologies that go against reason.

[QUOTE=Eben]
Duplication is nice in theory, but in many cases not possible. I hate to pick on AGW some more, but it’s an easy target in this case… AGW models have not had time to prove out, but seem to be doing okay. We believe them because they have not been disproven yet, not because they are duplicatable. They aren’t duplicatable in the normal sense of a lab experiment.
[/quote]

This is really just a lack of information, besides the US models in England the Met Office also came to virtually the same conclusions

and the people at Oxford did a massive shared computing experiment with physics as the basis for the modeling, they came to the same conclusions regarding AGW.

[QUOTE=Eben]
Is the Pope being chosen by the Cardinals not peer review?
[/quote]
Not all peer reviews are the same.

[QUOTE=Eben]
Biblical predictions can have some evidence as well. ie: not eating pork will reduce the number of sick people among certain groups.
[/quote]

So the Greek predictions had some evidence too but very few are making offerings to zeus nowadays.

[QUOTE=Eben]
The real problem with saying there’s a difference between a scientist who’s done experiements and a person (i’ll say priest) who has read the Bible is that to the lay person there’s not much difference. In both cases someone is claiming they have authority based on personal experiences which gives them some sort of insight the common man doesn’t have. The scientist may very well have more predictive accuracy, but that doesn’t mean that they have the best answers for the common man.

Automaticaly believing scientists is no different than automaticaly believing a priest for the lay person. And for the lay person there are readily accessible communities if they follow a belief set based on priestly teachings rather than on science. Perhaps scientists need to have weekly community meetings with lay people to discuss science and have some coffee and cakes in order to compete better on the ground that most people occupy.
[/quote]

They are entitled to their opinions but not the facts, thanks to evolution theory new medicines and treatments are being developed that take into account the evolution of the bad bugs, viruses and bacteria. At the same time the priest is telling the lay person not to use condoms. The lay person may deny it, but he/she does rely most of the time on the benefits science is bringing.

[QUOTE=Eben]
This is getting rather off topic here, but oh well, I’ll continue off topic :smiley:

-Eben

p.s. It might be worth noting that I’m not a church-going person and not really religious in any sense of the word either. I’m mainly arguing to find the divisive points. If many were arguing that argument from design was right, I’d most likely be arguing that it was wrong.
[/QUOTE]

That is dangerously close to admitting you are doing something that is not kosher :slight_smile: in great debates.