Continuing the argument started in the “The one in a million” fallacy post… as commenters immediately noticed (and you’ll note, from the last paragraph in that post, that I saw it too), each possible result — such as a “nice round number” — is as likely to occur randomly as any other, yes, but the point here is that, when talking about life in the universe, supposedly only one result could cause life. So, the fact that we do have such a “special” result should mean that some conscious design was involved, right?
There are several ways to approach this one. One of them is this: just because a result is “unlikely”, it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible; after all, all of them are equally unlikely, but every time you roll the dice, you will get one result, and it wasn’t any more miraculous than the last time. The fact that we are here, alive, and arguing about this is proof enough that it happened at least once, so, after a result happens randomly, it is absurd to consider it “too unlikely to have happened by chance”, since, well, it just did…
Who knows, maybe there are, or have been and will be, many “failed” universes — at least, “failed” in terms of being able to support (our kind of) life — out there. There are some hypotheses about multiple universes, which I have not investigated, but, still, they sound less “wild” and “fantastic” than a divine creator.
But if multiple universes sounds too Marvel Comics for you 
, just consider this one: is the universe we live in actually fit for life? Only if you consider an incredibly huge — much, much bigger than the whole Earth — arid desert with but a 2-foot puddle of water “fit for fish”.
Yes, any considerations of “this universe seems designed to support life” might have made sense in the Middle Ages, with an Earth-centric view of the universe… but now? This universe is incredibly, absolutely, hostile to life (at least, carbon-based life, as we know it), and this incredibly insignificant little planet is an exception… and not even a complete one, as more than half of it is hostile to life as well — indeed, we can only live in many parts of it due to human ingenuity and science, not because it was “just perfect” for us.
It’s normal to consider that this planet is the whole universe — hell, it’s normal for many to consider their neighborhood the whole universe! — but if you think about the real vastness (and age) of it, and about what virtually all of it is like, then to say that it “looks designed for us” sounds absolutely medieval.
This reminds me of the interviews at the end of the The God Who Wasn’t There documentary, where one interviewee mentions that, if this universe looks designed for something, that’s designed for forming black holes, not life. Are we to assume that God loves black holes, or even that God is a black hole, and created a universe to honor him…?
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Hey Pedro,
While this post is only tangentally related to the “one in a million” post I find it interesting none the less.
“Who knows, maybe there are, or have been and will be, many “failed” universes — at least, “failed” in terms of being able to support (our kind of) life — out there. There are some hypotheses about multiple universes, which I have not investigated, but, still, they sound less “wild” and “fantastic” than a divine creator.”
- Ok, multiple (failed) universes, got it. Which one contains the flying spaghetti monsters? Sorry, I couldn’t help myself ;> Seriously, macro evolution would indicate that we should find thousands of both living and fossilized intermediate creatures and find ample evidence for both successful and failed mutations. But we don’t, much less multiple universes. With the exception of the belief in a diety this is much more religion/dogma than science.
“But if multiple universes sounds too Marvel Comics for you, just consider this one: is the universe we live in actually fit for life? Only if you consider an incredibly huge — much, much bigger than the whole Earth — arid desert with but a 2-foot puddle of water “fit for fish”. ”
- If I was a fish in the two foot puddle, yep, it would be darn right acceptable to me. However, the original discussion is not about the universe’s life fitness nor about whether it was designed FOR us. It was about whether it was designed, not for us, but simply designed. I can see how someone could see the magnificance and apparent orderliness of the known Universe as evidence.
“This universe is incredibly, absolutely, hostile to life (at least, carbon-based life, as we know it), and this incredibly insignificant little planet is an exception… and not even a complete one, as more than half of it is hostile to life as well — indeed, we can only live in many parts of it due to human ingenuity and science, not because it was “just perfect” for us.”
- Well, more than half of it is hostile to human life, sure. But, oddly enough we find life in one form or another just about everywhere on this planet. So yes, this planet seems pretty well suitable to an abundance of different life forms. By the way, I think that the fact “this incredibly insignificant little planet is an exception” is probably more supportive of a “the universe is evidence” mindset.
One last thing, no theologian worth his salt would even begin to claim that the universe was made for us. The claim is simply this, the universe, with it’s incredibly statistically improbable setup and apparent order seems the case of design rather than chance.
The reason that there are not methane-breathing life forms is because we live in an oxygen-rich environment. Had earth’s atmosphere been made of methane, we’d probably be breathing methane instead. But if there were a planet equivalent to earth, but had a methane atmosphere, it does not mean that there would be no life… just no life as we know it. It’s sort of a cross between survival of the fittest and statistics. In two words, shit happens
I would also like to point out that MystryBox sheds some humorous light on both this and the 1-in-a-million fallacy in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I1YTdiuXro
overcaffein8d,
Now, we must realize that the statements about methane-breathing yada yada yada is nothing but simple conjecture and is no more scientific than your average religion. In fact, with the exception of belief in a diety, it is very much like a religion/dogma.
MystryBox has once again confused the words proof and evidence. This is a dramatic mistake to make if one wants to be scientific about their beliefs. BTW, he destroys a large part of his own argument when he talks about an army of people pouring salt and never getting the same result. Funny, elements, chemicals, and compounds (not to mention DNA) are poured together all the time and continue to get consistent results. He is purporting that the apparent order of things is the result of chaos/randomness. Where else do we see order born of chaos?
What continues to amaze me is how many people insist on evolution but seem incapable of providing solid supporting evidence. Point me to the books and concepts, give me the location of the fossils of intermediate creatures, show me where I can find the laboratory logs and journals of scientifically acceptable experiments that support evolution. Anybody, anybody? I thought not.
I like your nickname by the way.
One thing I would like to say off the top of my head: is it not possible that a different set of natural laws and such could give rise to a DIFFERENT type of life all together? If this were true, the apparent unlikelihood of our existence seems less likely because, even if we didn’t exist, it seems quite possible that SOMETHING would SOMEWHERE in this alternate universe. If something is likely to exist somewhere, that makes us less special.
Also, quantum mechanics is currently showing the earth on the micro-level is very unordered. On top of that, there are an infinite number of ways for the world to be ordered, so it doesn’t seem to me that it is innately far less likely for it to be ordered than unordered. There has to be SOME set of natural laws I believe, and it seems to me to be less likely for a universe lacking all form of consistent causality to occur. We don’t even know if it is possible (whereas we know that a universe (ours) is very likely to be causally ordered. So to me that seems like the more likely universe.
No Way:
“Ok, multiple (failed) universes, got it. Which one contains the flying spaghetti monsters? Sorry, I couldn’t help myself ;> Seriously, macro evolution would indicate that we should find thousands of both living and fossilized intermediate creatures and find ample evidence for both successful and failed mutations. But we don’t, much less multiple universes. With the exception of the belief in a diety this is much more religion/dogma than science.”
Universes could be separated. We may be absolutely unable to interact with another universe, so we couldn’t see “evidence” for it. It is a better way to explain the chance than God I believe, but I still don’t think it is adequate and is really humans trying to answer something we don’t know.
Overcaffein8d
Early earth actually had extremely little oxygen.
Pedro:
“…it is absurd to consider it “too unlikely to have happened by chance”, since, well, it just did…”
You are assuming your conclusion here (that the universe happened by chance). No Way would argue that it DIDN’T, so this statement would serve as no evidence.
“Who knows, maybe there are, or have been and will be, many “failed” universes — at least, “failed” in terms of being able to support (our kind of) life — out there. There are some hypotheses about multiple universes, which I have not investigated, but, still, they sound less “wild” and “fantastic” than a divine creator.”
I agree. Also note that most notions of creators (such as the Christian God) are actually logical impossibilities, and therefore beyond even being “wild”. So no matter how crazy the multiverse may sound (I honestly am not quick to believe it, I think it is an example of humans speculating beyond the limits of what evidence can support) it is still MORE likely than Yahweh or Allah, as they are actually impossible.
Lastly, I would like to note that our universe seemed doomed to eventually end, and everything will die. This does not seem like a universe that is really designed to support life. It only supports life for an infinitely small fraction of it’s existence.
First, have you guys noticed that you can, since a couple of minutes ago, quote paragraphs, both from the original post and from other comments, just by clicking on them? Nice plugin; I have to install it on my other blogs.
Sorry, I misunderstood you, then. But a lot of theists do use the “it’s obviously designed for us” argument.
Hmm, I didn’t see you as a creationist. I seem to remember a comment of yours in the past where you said that you believed God created evolution.
There is a lot of evidence for evolution; it’s just that 1) it’s not explainable in 2-minute sound bites, and 2) it’s not 100% complete evidence; there are gaps, of course, since we’re talking about a period of millions of years, not last Thursday. But… why is it that, if the evidence for evolution is incomplete, “God did it” automatically wins by default, without having to provide any evidence? In other words, why is, say, 60% complete evidence worse than no evidence at all?
I recommend that you, and everyone else, read the Parable of the Boulder, a brilliant example of how it is impossible to convince creationists with science, because of the double standards I mentioned above. Please - read it in full. Even if you start reading and think to yourself “oh, I can see where this is going”, please don’t stop there, and read it to the end. I hope you’ll see how it’s exactly the same case with the “evidence for evolution is not 100% complete, so that proves God was involved” argument.
I see what you mean; I was still in the mindset of the 20 dice, from the other post.
However, we can argue that there is no evidence for the impossibility of it happening naturally.
The problem I have with the evolution/ID debate is that evolution is a theory; ID is a hypothesis. If you get MRSA, the doctor will not give you penicillin– there is only one type of antibiotic, Vancomycin, that can get rid of it. Take three guesses how the strain became antibiotic-resistant.
Of course there is no evidence that it is impossible to happen naturally. The argument No Way is presenting is simply that it is UNLIKELY.
And that new quoting thing is awesome.
I love the new quoting thing.
This is ok. So long as we realize this is not science. Anything believed without evidence can not be considered to be believed on anything but faith.
First of all, I want to thank you for the book suggestion. I will read it. Do you suggest any sources that contain the evidence mentioned in the forgoing paragraph?
I have not said God created evolution. I have probably said that it is possible God created evolution but I won’t pretend to know. In any case, I would be talking about God creating micro not macro evolution as I simply do not see any evidence for macro-evolution. When I make that comment my point is simply that I don’t think micro-evolution and belief in a God are opposite one another.
In fact, I think when science is used to attack religion it should be done very, very carefully. Let’s face it, if these two camps ever go head on the religious will win and suffering a huge science setback isn’t in my list of most wanted experiences.
In regards to the last sentence about “no evidence at all” well, we are now discussing what constitutes evidence to different people. Where you see none others see much.
Actually, I have recently decided to do a more thorough study on macro-evolution. At this point I do not see why it would be juxtaposed to a belief in God either. Unless you wanted to believe in a literal translation of the two creation stories in the Old testament that is.
It’s not a book, it’s just a post. You can read it in a couple of minutes.
Like creationists do — despite all evidence to the contrary (for instance, the earth is billions of years old, much older than humankind, and there was no global flood).
I’m not an expert on evolution, but from reading a few blogs on Planet Atheism by those who are (yes, there are a couple of biologists there), I know that they don’t really distinguish between “micro” and “macro” evolution. That’s a distinction usually made by creationists, because evidence for one is all around us and they can’t deny it (such as drug-resistant germs, or the fact that children tend to look like their parents), but the other implies that Genesis is factually wrong, and so they refuse that. The problem is that “macro” evolution is just a great number of “micro” evolutions over a very, very long period of time… and, like I said, most people can’t think in millions of years.
It’s like the erosion of a big granite rock: it happens so slowly that even a lifetime is not enough to notice it… and yet it happens.
Sorry, I did read that post last night. Couldn’t figure out where I had gotten to it from. I must say, it was cute but I found it somewhat humorous at best. I do understand the point as I’ve taken a college level science course or two myself.
The macro-evolution I’m talking about is tracing everything back to, what I believe is a single celled organism. That theory I believe is going to suffer a huge expanse of time in which there is no evidence available for it (what does a single-celled organism’s fossil look like?). In other words, at a certain point along that chain of thought it will become scientifically impossible to go any further. The question is where is that point?
So, just to be cute…
A long time ago God created a great furrow on the side of a mountain. Being the artist that He is it was magnificent in it’s variation. A believer saw the furrow and gave praise to God. A non-believer immediately went about creating rational explainations as to how it happened without Him.
Neither will ever be proven correct but one will have more evidence available to him.
I think I’ve heard that before; i just don’t remember where.
As for single-celled organism fossils, this was the first thing that came up on a google search of “single-celled fossil:” http://www.blurtit.com/q840274.html
overcaffein8d,
OK, since we have single celled fossils we should be able to trace the history of life through evolution straight back to this first creature, right? I mean, we should be able to hit the spot where all our existing branches converge into a single family tree.
No, darn. Then I think we have a problem with the theory of macro-evolution as I spoke about it above, scientifically speaking anyway.
Most organisms don’t fossilize. It is unlikely the first one did. The evidence can just be extrapolated back to it existing.
OK then, how far back does the trail go? We do have some single-celled organizm fossils. We should be able to take this back a long way.
Extrapolation is simply complex conjecture.
Now, I’ve got a different question. I’ve seen three sets of fossils. One begins has a nostril opening at the front of its face (like a dog), another has it on the top of it’s head (like a dolphin). The third has it precisely between the two. The third is considered a intermediary species.
I am still puzzled by the jump of the nostril some inches between these species. Do we have any intermediary species that are less “perfect”? I mean, if we had several species with the nostril gradually moving up I would find it much more meaningful.