From: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A False Dichotomy
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:32:04 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

In article <1992Sep2.085458.13004@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.205004.17772@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>
>>Yes, but my point would be that the reason we're able to conclude that
>>pyramids were built by humans is that they bear the marks of something
>>that be can compare with our current knowledge and conclude that it took
>>more than a hurricane to build them....
>
>>If our only present knowledge of complex things being produced (things of
>>a functional or mechanistic complexity) requires intelligent intervention
>>then when we see other things with these marks we can only conclude that
>>they originated in a similar fashion. 
>
>This is a false dichotomy.  Complex things are produced by (a) natural
>abiological processes, e.g. snowflakes, the Grand Canyon, (b) by
>intelligent intervention, e.g. the Pyramids, and (c) biological processes
>not requiring intelligence, e.g. a cell reproducing or someone posting
>to talk.origins.
>

I specifically said things of mechanistic complexity such as a V-8 engine
McFly. Also note that we're talking about the origin of the *first* cell. Which
category a,b, or c do you put that in?

>>So my question then is this: What present mechanisms are there that
>>would strongly allow us to conclude that cells were organized by natural
>>(non intelligent) processes?
>
>This question is poorly stated.  There is a well understood mechanism
>whereby cells are organized by natural (non intelligent) processes.  It
>is called life.  

Surely you don't mean that "life" produced the first life? :-)

>To a very strong degree we can conclude that the
>operation of the living cell is explainable entirely in terms of natural
>law -- no intelligent intervention is required.
>
>The question I assume you mean to address is the onset of the first cells.
>And here the before and after looks like this:
>
>	BEFORE					AFTER
>
>Chemicals required for life		Chemicals required for life
>present.  Biological activity		present.  Biological activity
>not present.  Intelligent		present and self organizing.
>intervention not required.		Intelligent intervention not
>Complexity is high.			required.  Complexity is high.
>
>There is nothing intrinsic in the scenario that definitely indicates
>intelligent intervention.  In fact, going by our present experience,
>intelligent intervention cannot produce life from non-life.  The 
>processes used to produce human artifacts are not [currently] at that
>level of biological complexity and control; the methods that we use
>are quite different from the ones used by cells.
>
>If the term "intelligent intervention" is supposed to refer to a being
>or beings quite different from ourselves, then the references to
>artifacts produced by humans are irrelevant; such a being or beings
>would have processes available to it which are not available to us.
>The evidences of the exercise of such processes would be different
>in nature from the evidences of the exercise of human activities.
>
>In other words, the "Watchmaker" argument sucks.  If I find a watch
>in the field, I can reasonably infer that it was made by a being
>very much like me.  If I find a living cell in the field I can 
>reasonably infer that it was made by another living cell.  If I
>find a living cell where no living cell has gone before I can infer
>diddly squat. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is "diddly squat" a synonym for "natural process"?

>It may be complex but it does not bear the stigmata
>of an artifact.
>-- 
>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
>US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
>In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
>Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins