From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: A False Dichotomy
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:54:58 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

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.

>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.  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.  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.