Reflectorites
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:51:24 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
[...]
FJ>I would like to hear more how ID has been useful.
[...]
I have several responses to this:
1. ID does not have to be "useful" to be *true* (I am not conceding that ID
is not useful). Some months ago I gave an analogy of how Ford Motor Co
engineers might even be *hindered* early on trying to understand how
Ford cars work if they had to learn also about Henry Ford. Yet eventually,
if they wanted to have a *complete* understanding of Ford cars, they
would eventually have to learn about Henry Ford:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 13 May 2000 18:54:33 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>Fourth, even if the acceptance of the reality of design made no practical
>difference to science, if design was true it would be worth knowing it so
>that science could be more complete. Science these days is spending
>megabucks on things that may have little or no practical benefit, just so
>it can obtain a more complete picture of reality.
>
>As an analogy, consider automotive engineers working for Ford Motor Co.
>They can certainly know all about how Ford motor cars work now, without
>knowing anything about Henry Ford. Indeed, it might even be better for
>them as engineers who are still trying to learn how Ford cars work in the
>here and now that they not have to know about Henry Ford, because
>that might introduce unnecessary complications at that stage.
>
>But it would be false to conclude that because knowing about Henry Ford
>might complicate their task as engineers in learning about how Ford Cars
>work, therefore Henry Ford never existed! The fact that humans have
>limitations which force them at first to concentrate on only small chunks of the
>big picture, and that this has proved to be more successful than trying to
>learn it all at once, does not mean that ultimately Henry Ford would not
>eventually have to be included, in order to have a complete explanation
>of the Ford motor car.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ID does not even have to be "useful" to be *science* (again I am not
saying that ID is not useful to be science). There are plenty of things in
science today (like theoretical physics and cosmology theories, which have
little or no practical usefulness. Francis Crick had admitted that even
"evolutionary arguments" don't "play a large part in guiding biological
research":
"It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would
play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from
the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To
try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more
difficult." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138)It is
debatable of whether Even Darw
3. The real issue is whether ID is *true*. If Behe is right about IC then
Darwinism (at least as a general theory) would be false:
"Darwin cited several sorts of observations which would, in his
view, destroy his theory. In this he was certainly more candid than
his opponents. The potential tests Darwin mentioned are: 'If it could
be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, Which could not
possibly have been formed by numerously successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down; ..."
(Patterson C., "Evolution," 1978, p.146).
Now because Darwinism itself is not all that "useful", proving it false might
also not be all that "useful" (I think it would be, but mostly in other areas).
But if IC is true and therefore Darwinism is false, that is all that should
matter.
FJ>Could you refer me to some papers?
Here is an example of how a type of `design inference' made a major
contribution to science:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1952, Ed Salpeter, an American astrophysicist, suggested (more or
less in desperation) that carbon-12 might be produced in a very rapid
two-step process, with two alpha particles colliding to form a nucleus
of beryllium-8, which was then in turn hit by a third alpha particle in
the 10^-17 seconds before it had time to disintegrate. Since this did at
least give 10^-17 seconds for the third particle to arrive, instead of
requiring three to meet simultaneously, it was an improvement on the
triple-collision idea. But since the arrival of a third particle might very
effectively smash the unstable beryllium-8 nucleus to bits, it wasn't
much of an improvement. Then, Fred Hoyle, who had, back in 1946
written a classic paper expounding the idea that the chemical elements
were made in stars, entered the story.
Hoyle's Anthropic Insight
Hoyle (now Sir Fred) was based in Cambridge, England, but in the 1950s
spent time in California, working with his friend, nuclear physicist Willy
Fowler. Hoyle puzzled over the problem of how hearty nuclei might be
built up in stars (stellar nucleosynthesis), and became intrigued by the
possibility that the energy levels of beryllium, helium, and carbon might be
- just right to encourage the two-step reaction Salpeter had proposed. It all
hinged on a property known as resonance.
Resonance works like this. When two nuclei collide and stick together, the
new nucleus that is formed carries the combined mass-energy of the two
nuclei, plus the combined energy of their motion, their kinetic energy (and
minus a small amount of energy from the strong force, the binding energy
that holds the new nucleus together). The new nucleus "wants" to occupy
one of the steps on its own energy ladder, and if this combined energy from
the incoming particles is not just right then the excess has to be eliminated,
in the form of leftover kinetic energy, or as a particle ejected Prom the
nucleus. This reduces the likelihood that the two colliding nuclei will stick
together; in many eases, they simply bounce off each other and continue to
lead their separate lives. If everything meshes perfectly, however, the new
nucleus will be created with exactly the energy that corresponds to one of
its natural levels (it can then, of course, emit packets of energy and hop
down the steps to the lowest; level). In that ease, the interaction will
proceed verry effectively, and the conversion of lighter nuclei into a heavier
form will be complete. This matching of energies to one of the levels
appropriate for the new nuclei is the effect known as resonance, and it
depends crucially on the structure of the nuclei involved in the collisions.
In 1954, Hoyle realised that the only way to make enough carbon inside
stars is if there is a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-
12. The mass-energy of each nucleus is fixed and cannot change; the
kinetic energy that each nucleus has depends on the temperature inside a
star, which Hoyle could calculate. Using that temperature calculation,
Hoyle predicted that there must be a previously undetected energy level in
the carbon-12 nucleus, at an energy that would resonate with the combined
energies, including kinetic energy, of its constituent parts, under the
conditions prevailing inside stars. He made a precise calculation of what
that energy level must be, and he cajoled Willy Fowler's somewhat
sceptical nuclear physics colleagues until they carried out experiments to
test his prediction. To the astonishment of everyone except Hoyle, the
measurements showed that carbon-12 has an energy level just 4 percent
above the calculated energy. This is so close that the kinetic energies of the
colliding nuclei can readily supply the excess. This resonance greatly
increases the chances of a helium-4 and a beryllium-8 nucleus sticking
together, and ensures that enough alpha particles can be fused into carbon
nuclei inside stars to account for our existence.
The remarkable nature of Hoyle's successful prediction cannot be
overemphasised. Suppose, for example, that the energy level in carbon had
turned out to be just 4 percent lower than the combined energy of helium-4
and beryllium-8. There is no way that kinetic energy could subtract rather
than add the difference, so the trick simply would not have worked. This is
made clear when we look at the next putative step in stellar
nucleosynthesis, the production of oxygen-16 from a combination of
carbon-12 and helium-4. When a carbon-12 nucleus and a helium-4 nucleus
meet, they would fuse into oxygen if there were an appropriate resonance.
But the nearest oxygen-16 resonance has one percent less energy than
helium-4 plus carbon-12. But that 1 percent is all it takes to ensure that this
time resonance does not occur. Sure, oxygen-16 is manufactured in stars,
but only in small quantities (at least, at this early stage of a star's life)
compared with carbon. If that oxygen energy level were 1 percent lower,
then virtually all the carbon made inside stars would be processed into
oxygen, and then (much of it) into heavier elements still. Carbon-based life
forms like ourselves would not exist.
Most anthropic arguments are made with the benefit of hindsight. We look
at the Universe, notice that it is close to flat, and say, "Oh yes, of course, it
must be that way, or we wouldn't be here to notice it." But Hoyle's
prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine scientific
prediction, tested and confirmed by subsequent experiments. Hoyle said, in
effect, "since we exist, then carbon must have an energy level at 7.6 MeV."
Then the experiments were carried out and the energy level was measured.
As far as we know, this is the only genuine anthropic principle prediction;
all the rest are "predictions" that might have been made in advance of the
observations, if anyone had had the genius to make them, but that were
never in fact made in that way.
Hoyle's remarkable insight led directly to a detailed understanding of the
way in which all of the other elements are built up from hydrogen and
helium inside stars. He worked closely with Willy Fowler on this, and with
the husband-and-wife team Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge. Fowler
(without Hoyle) later received a Nobel Prize for his part in the study of
stellar nucleosynthesis.
This combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12,
just wrong in oxygen-16, is indeed remarkable. There is no better evidence
to support the argument that the Universe has been designed for our
benefit-tailor-made for man.
(Gribbin J. & Rees M., "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and
Anthropic Cosmology", Bantam Books: New York, 1989, pp.244-247)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course on past performance this won't make any difference to confirmed
philosophical materialists/naturalists like FJ/Pim (as it did not to Gribbin
and Rees - or even to Hoyle himself!). Gribbin and Rees add immediately
after the above quote
"But there are alternative ways of viewing this coincidence, and others."
(Gribbin J. & Rees M., 1989, p.247).
And so there always will be, in the nature of the case. We are talking of
trying to prove (as it were) the existence of `Henry Ford' by studying the
evidence of `Ford cars'. But the `cars' and their `assembly line' is vastly
more complex, is partly missing, and they don't have `Ford' written on
them!
Even if design was true, there would always be "alternative ways of
viewing" it. Absent the Designer personally signing His name on His work,
design must always be an *inference* based on circumstantial evidence.
If one has a personal philosophy that excludes the very possibility of
design, there would *never* be enough evidence. And if more evidence is
provided (which is in fact happening all the time), a person who did not
want there to be design would just raise the bar another notch higher (as
they do).
Personally I am quite happy with this situation because it is consistent with
my understanding of how the Designer (who I believe to be the Christian
God), in pursuit of His wider design goals (which he has communicated in
the Bible), does not force people to believe in Him, but respects their
wishes (in this life), by "offering us", as Gould said, "maximal freedom to
thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way." (Gould S.J., "Wonderful Life,"
1991, p.323).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of course, neo-Darwinism admits that there are other means by which
new species may arise. In many plants new mutants which are both
physically and genetically 'new species' may appear in a single step, over
one generation rather than thousands. In such cases the origin of species
has nothing to do with the gradual accumulation of beneficial variants in
response to the environment, it is rather an abrupt ll-or-nothing event in
which natural selection is reduced to a crude life-or-death role. Such
dramatic events are the exception in neo-Darwinian theory; the bulk of new
adaptations and new species are thought to arise gradually-the result of
many changes over many generations." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin:
A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.17)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 17:20:48 EDT