Nature's Destiny - Michael Denton

[otseng]

This thread is to debate the book Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton.

The following debaters are allowed to participate:
Cathar1950
McCulloch
Confused
Furrowed Brow
otseng

Here is the agenda:
- Start off with background info of the author and book.
- Clarify any terms used.
- Cover one chapter at a time and debate the points made in that chapter. We might skip some chapters if we agree to it.
- Give closing arguments and final thoughts on the book.
- Go out for a drink.

[Confused]

Where is everybody else????????????????????????

[McCulloch]

Where is everybody else?

I have a confession to make. I fully intended to acquire the book, but I am not allowed to do so until I make a significant dent in the backlog of purchased but unread books already in our possession and we retire our Christmas gift debt.

[otseng]

Where is everybody else?

I have a confession to make. I fully intended to acquire the book, but I am not allowed to do so until I make a significant dent in the backlog of purchased but unread books already in our possession and we retire our Christmas gift debt.

Have you checked your local library? If it's not available there, I'm willing to send you an early Easter gift. PM me if you're interested.

[Confused]

Where is everybody else?

I have a confession to make. I fully intended to acquire the book, but I am not allowed to do so until I make a significant dent in the backlog of purchased but unread books already in our possession and we retire our Christmas gift debt.

Have you checked your local library? If it's not available there, I'm willing to send you an early Easter gift. PM me if you're interested.

I will split cost with you if need be and will assist anyone else who needs the book as well. I am eager to get into this.

[Cathar1950]

I find the book monotonous and backwards. Over and over I hear him say things like water is perfectly adapted or light it fit for life.
Adapted and fit are loaded with meaning that implies purpose.
Water and light have properties. It is life that is adapted to take advantage of these properties.
“Fitness for vision” is another loaded statement as he talks about the properties of light.
It is vision that fits the properties of light.
He keeps making statements about had the properties been different these things couldn’t take place. But the properties are not different. I have no doubt that everything is related and interconnected. When he speaks of oxygen and carbon being fit again they are what they are. Before there was enough O2 to be used by life forms the used CO2. It shows the adaptability of life not the fitness of the universe. Granted I have sometimes wondered that after they map the universe they might find that it looks like a giant double helix. But that is my imagination just as his suitability of the universe being perfect for life. The universe has not always been suitable for life forms, as we know them. I can also imagine a life form that is based on energy of some sort or crystals. The universe seems to be everything but static from black holes to subatomic particles.
The book would be much more interesting had he just showed the many remarkable properties of matter and the universe and ended it with a chapter involving his backwards looking rhetoric.

I am on chapter 3 going to chapter 4. But his constant use of fitness seems deceptive.

[Confused]

I find the book monotonous and backwards. Over and over I hear him say things like water is perfectly adapted or light it fit for life.
Adapted and fit are loaded with meaning that implies purpose.
Water and light have properties. It is life that is adapted to take advantage of these properties.
“Fitness for vision” is another loaded statement as he talks about the properties of light.
It is vision that fits the properties of light.
He keeps making statements about had the properties been different these things couldn’t take place. But the properties are not different. I have no doubt that everything is related and interconnected. When he speaks of oxygen and carbon being fit again they are what they are. Before there was enough O2 to be used by life forms the used CO2. It shows the adaptability of life not the fitness of the universe. Granted I have sometimes wondered that after they map the universe they might find that it looks like a giant double helix. But that is my imagination just as his suitability of the universe being perfect for life. The universe has not always been suitable for life forms, as we know them. I can also imagine a life form that is based on energy of some sort or crystals. The universe seems to be everything but static from black holes to subatomic particles.
The book would be much more interesting had he just showed the many remarkable properties of matter and the universe and ended it with a chapter involving his backwards looking rhetoric.

I am on chapter 3 going to chapter 4. But his constant use of fitness seems deceptive.

That is why we opted to go chapter by chapter and agreed to skip ones that seemed straight forward. I have found only one issue in chapter one that I felt needed adressing or clarification. I think we are still on chater one as far as debating goes, but I have read it in its entirety. I will wait to pass total judgement until the end of the debate.

[Furrowed Brow]

On the final page of the Prologue Michael Denton makes a bold claim:

"The anthropocentric vision of medieval Christianigy is one of the most extraordinary-perhaps the most extraordinary-of all the presumptions of humankind. It is the ultimate theory and in a very real sense, the ultimate conceit. No other theory or concept ever imagined by man can equal in boldness and audacity this great claim-the everything revolves around human existence-that all the starry heavens, that every species of life, that every characteristic of reality exists for mankind and mankind alone. It is simply the most daring idea ever proposed. But most remarkably, given its audacity, it is a claim which is very far from a discredited prescientific myth. In fact, no observation has ever laid the presumption to rest. And today, four centuries after the scientific revolution, the doctrine is again reemerging. In these last decades of the twentieth century, its credibility is being enhanced by discoveries in several branches of fundamental science."

I am not sure how he comes to this bold conclusion. Is this not the same as the ancient model of everything revolving around the earth but replacing the earth with mankind. If we broke this down to just species: looking at the "circle of life" would you think mankind is at the top? Personally, I think viruses quite easily overpower man. Not only can these microscopic organisms cause extreme suffering, and kill man, but they work their way into our DNA to replicate themselves and as a result man can never actually get rid of a virus. Once it is in your genetic code, it is there for life. While we have some "anti-viral" medications, they aren't exactly the most efficient medications, and in some cases the side effects are worse than the virus itself, but retroviruses are showing an ever increasing ability to become resistant to them. So a simple virus can kill a man (in some cases, thousands of men), but man can't kill a virus. Even our immune system must resort to antibodies after exposure to combat them, but still, we can't kill it. We develop vaccines, but they aren't 100% effective and in some cases cause more harm than the virus may have.
Looking at the environment that "exists for mankind and mankind alone" why is it that some forms of bacteria (anthrax) can go into hibernation when in harsh conditions for years only to become active again when conditions are favorable for its growth and reproduction? Tell me what form of mankind can do this? Then we consider the constants that must be exact for life to exist on this planet. There can be not even the slightest change in the cosmological constants if life is to continue. No wiggle room. No room for error. If even the slightest alteration in any of these constants were to occur, life would likely cease to exist (at least mankind would). Hurricanes, volcanos, earthquakes, radiation poisoning, etc.... threaten to wipe out mankind at any given moment. With such fragile bodies and such a fragile hold on our environment, how can anyone claim that every characteristic of reality exists for mankind and for mankind alone?

I think Denton is deploying a little literary device here. Build something up to appear to be too good to be true, let the audience think ah it must be too good therefore it cannot be true, then follow through with the succour punch - it is too good because it has not shown to be false - implicit conclusion it really is true.

Also - Confused's point seems to suggest that the universe is perfectly fit for viruses. In fact more fir for viruses than it is for humans.

[Furrowed Brow]

If the cosmos is to be a home for life, then the flickering of the supernovae must occur at a very precise rate and the average distiance between them, and indeed between all stars, must be very close to the actual observed figure.

This is the sort of sentence that drives me nuts. First it really manages to say no more than the weak anthropic principle; whilst wistfully peering towards some non existent horizon in the hope the reader might see more than is actually merited.

Also "very close" are weasel words. But "very close" entails some margin of alternative possibilities that can also support life. Thus there could be some slightly different universe in which an alternative Denton is making the same argument. In which case the rate of flickering of supernova in this universe is not unique.

However, as we go along I think it can be argued that Denton is often over egging his case to make things appear more unique or improbable than they really are.

[Furrowed Brow]

The new antropic vision of the physicist and the Darwinian contingent paradigm which dominate moden biology are diametrically opposed world-views.

First. Neither the weak nor the strong anthropic principle imply teleology. Here Denton is attempting to tease evolutionary biology away from physics. Thus making it appear more a hegemonic paradigm, than a science. He is resorting to literary rhetorical devices to make his point.

In reply evolutionary biology is in no conflict with the weak anthropic principle.

[Confused]

Ok, in the interest of maintaining my sanity, we need to find sme new way to do this debate.

I have made it thorugh 8 chapter now, ready to shoot myself in the head. I will agree to stipulate to Dentons lengthy and never ending science lesson. I definately reserve the right to recall certain issues he makes Chapter 7 and 8, but for the love of it. He is suppose to be presenting information to support anthropocentric design and thus far he has only shown a biocentric view which doesn't equate the anthropocentric view. He throws in fine tuning at will and uses it to overcome his previous issues with evolution from his previous book. OK, fine I can live with this. But he has yet to show anything in support of an anthropocentric design. In other words, chimpanzees can be considered just as much the final purpose as mankind since they rely on all the same priciples for life as does man. If Denton wants to make an issue about the universe being "fine tuned" for mankind alone, then he must make it in the 2nd part of his book. I say this because his basic science lesson in part 1 is monotonous and in no way can prove the universe was created for man alone. So, unless anyone has any major issues with the 1st part of his book, I am suggesting we move along to his second part which is suppose to be where he ties science 101 in with this anthropocentric model as opposed to a simple biocentric model. We can always use points from previous chapters in regards to issues with Dentons main thesis, but I can't see that main thesis quite yet, and I don't see it coming from anything in Part I of his book. Part I only points to life in general, not human life in specific. It is a biocentric model. Can we all agree with this overall statement from part I?