Friday, June 20, 2014

About Those Biological “Laws” and the Size of the Universe

Size Doesn’t Matter

According to Steven Dick, our chairman of astrobiology at the Library of Congress, the universe is too big and too vast for life not to exist somewhere else. As he explained this week, “I think the underlying principle is, the laws of physics and biology are universal.” There’s only one problem: If the laws of biology are universal then size doesn’t matter. You see the only relevant “law” of biology is the Law of Biogenesis which states that all life is from life (Omne vivum ex vivo). That’s what science tells us and even evolutionists agree that laws do not apply to evolution. As Theodosius Dobzhansky explained, evolutionary events are “unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.” Or as Ernst Mayr put it, “Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques” for explaining evolutionary events and processes.

13 comments:

  1. I think you forgot to make one of your stock points, Dr Hunter. Maybe you're posting too much and are tired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I can read. His point is very clear.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Ian. Would it be a lot of trouble for you to explain the point?

      Delete
    3. Just compare the closing Mayr's quote (as supported by the preceding text) with what is normally said to be the necessary basis of science. Clear?

      Delete
    4. No. Are you incapable of expressing an explanation?

      Delete
  2. There is no universal Law of Biogenesis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steven Dick: “I think the underlying principle is, the laws of physics and biology are universal," ... “What has happened here is likely to have happened out there. The idea of life out there is very much at the forefront. The question is what are the implications.”

    CH: There’s only one problem: If the laws of biology are universal then size doesn’t matter. You see the only relevant “law” of biology is the Law of Biogenesis which states that all life is from life (Omne vivum ex vivo).

    You forgot something from the above. The Law of Biogenesis it's the only relevant law, because?

    CH: That’s what science tells us and even evolutionists agree that laws do not apply to evolution.

    You'll need to clarify both of those ideas.

    First, science tells us that the Law of Biogenesis states that all life is from life? Or perhaps you mean science tells us it's the only relevant law?

    If the former, yes, that's how Pasture defined it. Is this argument by definition? If so, there's also the law of Complexity/Consciousness first formulated by paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, which is defined as the tendency of matter to become more complex over time and, simultaneously, to become more conscious. While I disagree with specific aspects of Telihard's law, it's a law none the less. Q.E.D.?

    If the latter, on what basis have you concluded that biogenesis, which is the theory that life emerged from primitive replicators, is *not* scientifically relevant?

    Second, I would agree that entailing laws at a *reductionist* level do not apply to evolution. However, I would say that enabling laws at the level of emergence do apply to evolution.

    So, it would seem you're argument is parochial in that it assumes science should always be reductionist in nature. But that's philosophical, not scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steven Dick would be very popular during Pride week in Toronto! Maybe he should reconsider career?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think it's possible God could have put life elsewhere in the universe. I wonder if life is found, would Congress give me a tax free year as part of the celebration?
    Steven Dick's comments are probably part of a lobbing effort to capture more resources from each person in America. After all, he has an administration to grow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcus,

      It's unclear why you wouldn't think putting life elsewhere in the universe is possible for God because God is supposedly defined as being capable of anything logically possible.

      The question is, since we discard an infinite number of mere logical possibilities every day, in every field of science, why should your God be any different?

      Delete
    2. Scott: "It's unclear why you wouldn't think putting life elsewhere in the universe is possible for God because God is supposedly defined as being capable of anything logically possible. "

      I said it is possible. Since God did make life on Earth, it's also possible He made elsewhere in the universe. I hope this answer clears that up for you.

      Scott:"The question is, since we discard an infinite number of mere logical possibilities every day, in every field of science, why should your God be any different?"

      The Creator is your God too if you will have Him. I look out the window and see lots of evidence of His existence, you look out the window and don't see God. Nothing too hard to grasp here.
      The Bible answers the important questions... Where did I come from? What is my purpose? Where am I going when I die?
      How does your philosophy answer those questions?

      Delete