Greta:
What we see, time and again, is a dynamic akin to water at a dam - the buildup of pressure of energy and/or information that results in a sudden dramatic state change - as opposed to the relatively sedate and steady progress leading up to the change.
Yes, as you've said, this saw-tooth pattern of gradual charging up followed by sudden release is common to many different diverse systems. This, to me, is always the most interesting thing in the process of spotting patterns in Nature that is commonly referred to as science. Not necessarily just this pattern that you've noted, but generally when the same pattern can be spotted in apparently entirely unrelated phenomena. This is why mathematics (particularly differential equations) is such a useful tool, because it abstracts out the patterns. It allows us to see the common patterns in such things as gas diffusion and stock market prices, or the cooling of a cup of tea and the decay of a radioactive source.
There is always a tipping or breaking point where the change is just due to occur - and I'm fascinated with those in between states. Consider the state of the still-nonliving organic molecules just as they were on the verge of abiogenesis. In evolutionary time, that sudden break from nonliving to living no doubt occurred over a number(?) of years, and there must have been some short-lived entities that would have still not been alive, but as close to life as nonliving material can be.
Yes, but of course this is where the arbitrary divisions that we place on Nature come in. (The divisiveness of thought, as Ormond puts it). The distinction between "living" and "non-living" is one that we create, it seems to me. It seems likely that the historical transition from what we would call non-living chemistry to what we would call living bio-chemistry is similar to the same transition that we can see today if we classify currently existing species roughly according to their complexity, from viroids and viruses at one end up to dolphins, chimpanzees and humans at the other. It doesn't seem to me that we can point to an objectively existing dividing line between complex chemical machines and living things. Likewise, if we could go back in time 3 billion years, or whatever it is, I suspect the same would be true.
Then consider the state of human society at present (and as a consequence, the biosphere in general). There is a tension poised like a spring as we head towards that threshold of complexity, the breaking point, not unlike pre-war conditions (and unfortunately war will no doubt feature prominently in the upcoming changes for humanity). More people, less resources - only one result. There is a raise in tempo of activity and a high level of agitation. It's all slowly bubbling, priming to blow. There is ever-greater concentrations of energy and information, the stems of the future (destined not to do too many favours for those not in the hubs of complexity). Futurists have offered projections for the latter part of this century that can only be described as "interesting times".
This is similar to Ormond's theme that we're on the eve of destruction. But I suspect you draw differing conclusions as to how this situation will, or ought to, develop. You seem to accept it (at least for the purposes of discussion here) as part of the process of life's development.
So humanity may be a short-lived state of evolution, a bridge that ironically links biology life back to its geological origins. We are becoming an amalgam of biology and geology as our silicon and metal tools start to meld with our biological forms. Recent advances in biomedical engineering, with nanobots and remote-controlled synthetic bacteria point to this side of the future, along with the inevitability of phone and internet implants.
Yes, this transition from rocks and metals, to organic chemistry and back to metals again, is an interesting one. Of course, our technology itself may well transition beyond metals like silicon and start to use the organic chemistry of which life it made. I guess it's mostly the discovery of electricity and the useful conductive and semi-conductive properties of metals that pushed us that way. Perhaps, if people like Michael Faraday hadn't existed, our technology might have been organic from the start?
Sorry for the Aspergers babbling but this thread touches on one of my main obsessions 
Let's face it, we're all a bit like that around here. That's why we're here.
---------
Hi again Ormond,
It would be reasonable to state that "science has not discovered a plan and planner (fact) and thus science has no idea if one exists or not (another fact)".
I was talking specifically about a plan, not a planner. A plan is a pretty well defined thing. It is possible to look both for evidence of its presence and evidence of its absence. Neither of these things tells us
with certainty that a plan is either present or absent. But they do give us some knowledge. So I think your above statement is factually incorrect.
Take William Paley's classic watchmaker analogy. If we find a watch lying on the ground then even if we never, ever find the watchmaker we are still justified in saying that we have some evidence (NOT PROOF) that he/she exists, or once existed. Paley was absolutely right about that. We have some knowledge of what a "plan" looks like. If he followed what you've said above, Paley would have to have said:
"If I find a watch lying on the ground then I have no idea whatsoever about whether a watchmaker exists. I can say nothing on the subject."
Clearly that's not true. He does have some idea. NOT PROOF. But some idea.
Likewise, just as a watch bares the signs of an object that has been designed - (an object whose parts perform no function individually but which has been put together in a way that suggests fore-knowledge of how they will work when assembled) - so living structures bare the hallmarks of the opposite. They have specific features that strongly suggest a lack of forward planning. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that we have SOME evidence (NOT PROOF) that they came together in the absence of a plan.
The next reply to this standard argument is: There may be a plan which we don't understand and don't recognize as a plan because it's so different from the kinds of plans we're used to. And the standard reply to that is: Yes. There may be. An infinite number of things may be. We then have to make a decision as to whether we constantly keep in our minds the fact that an infinite number of things
may be true, without our realizing it, or whether we simply go with what we currently know in the full knowledge that more information may or may not come to light in the future.
The "current evidence" is that science is capable of "not seeing" the largest things over the longest periods of time. This inconvenient evidence is discarded, because it doesn't serve the agenda of sustaining the social authority of the science community.
Yes, it is reasonable to suppose that there is an infinite quantity of stuff that our senses, and the reasoning that we use to interpret the inputs from those senses, is not capable of seeing. I don't see much evidence of "science" (if we can treat that as a single entity rather than referring to individual people) somehow discarding or suppressing that obvious fact. The fact that it is built into the fabric of the scientific method that there is never conclusive proof, that all theories are subject to revision and that there are no privileged, unquestionable authorities, makes me wonder again why you would say this. I can well see why you might say it of specific individual people. But what evidence is there that it is true of "the science community"?
Steve3007:
You'll probably then go back to your point about how using reason to examine evidence is not applicable to questions of infinite scale. But this is not about a question of "infinite scale".
How do you know that? Aren't you confusing your personal opinions with fact here?
I know that because I know the definition of the word "plan". The proposition "a watch implies a watch plan" is testable. It's not a question about the infinite. It's a question about the nature of watches and plans.
If you wish to offer a different definition of the word "plan", or to suggest that the word is undefinable, then that's fine. But you have to first let me know that's what you're doing. If we decide that the "plan" concept is undefinable, then the proposition "living things show evidence of having developed without a plan" is equivalent to the proposition "living things show evidence of having developed without a wibble". In that case, I accept that I cannot possibly have any kind of knowledge, one way or the other, as to whether a wibble was involved. If somebody said "is a wibble involved?" I would reply without hesitation either: "I have no idea" or "eh?".
And, to clarify, my point is that no one has proven that reason is applicable at that level, not that it is surely true that reason is not applicable. I don't know if it's applicable or not, it just seems unlikely to me.
I guess I will have to just keep repeating this:
Nothing is ever proven ever, except within the confines of pure mathematics.
nothing is ever proven.
Nothing is ever proven.
Nothing is ever proven.
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this again in the future so have added a few here. There is no proof that reason is applicable
anywhere at
any level. There is no proof of anything, anywhere ever. Ever, ever, ever. We use reason where it appears to be useful for achieving our goals. We stop using it where not useful.
What's wrong with saying, "current evidence suggests we have no idea if there is a plan or not"? What's wrong with saying, "we simply don't know"?
Because it would be factually incorrect. It's true that we don't know anything at all
with certainty. But that's not the same as saying that we have no idea at all. We
do have some idea. THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS SAYING WE HAVE PROOF OR CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE. (Don't mean to shout. Capitals are just for emphasis to drive this point home.)
Current evidence of watches suggests that they are designed according to a plan. Current evidence of living things suggests that they are not. If new evidence comes to light on either types of object in the future then the balance of probability will shift. Who knows? It may turn out that watches can evolve after all. It may turn out that living things were manufactured according to a plan after all. It may turn out that there's a teapot in orbit around the sun. It may turn out that my grandfather was a banana. I may turn out that the centre of the sun is made of caviar. You're free to accuse me of rashly jumping to conclusions if you like, but I'm not an agnostic on any of these questions.
If, in the absence of watchmakers, somebody asked me "do wristwatches evolve, or are they designed according to a plan?" I would
not reply: "I have absolutely no idea", because that would be untrue. I would also not reply "it is proved beyond all possible doubt that they are designed" because that would also be untrue. If I was wearing a philosopher hat and was therefore concerned about precision of language, I'd probably say something like:
"My past experience of watches and plans and my conviction that past experience can be used to make judgments about possible future experiences and that the patterns in my experiences will continue (which is itself based on past experience of that method working, but that's a whole other argument) suggests that the balance of probabilities is that they are designed according to a plan. But I don't know that with certainty.".
If that hat were absent I'd probably say "Designed. Stupid question.".
Well, I admit to a bit of overblown rhetoric offered to stimulate a conversation (otherwise known as trolling). 
By the colorful term "science clergy" I am referring to modern secular culture's relationship with the science community, which seems to me to be dangerously similar to the relationship we used to have with Catholic clergy.
OK, fair enough. I see now that you are not referring to science but to the cultural perception of it.
As example, it is a dogma of the science clergy that our "more is better" relationship with knowledge is leading us to ever better times.
If the term "science clergy" still refers to our general culture's relationship with, or perception of, science then that doesn't seem to be anything like a universal dogma. There are huge elements in our culture that certainly don't regard the fruits of science as good or trustworthy. I suspect there are very few people who regard
all of the results of science as an unqualified good. I think one of the major problems that the scientific method faces in the modern low signal-to-noise ratio world is lack of patience with the methodical evidence-based nature of the scientific method.
It's fairly easy to challenge this dogma, but it's impossible to get anyone to listen, because everyone is mesmerized by "the experts" whose authority is apparently beyond challenge. There's a widespread unquestioning faith in science, which is encouraged in part by scientists.
I don't recognize that as an accurate picture of our relationship with all of science. I think you only have to look at the widespread mistrust of the results of climate science research to see that.
They say that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's what happened to the Catholic clergy, and it will happen to the science clergy too if we don't learn how to shake the pillars of this modern temple.
I'm not convinced that you're still using the term "science clergy" to refer to our culture's relationship to science. It sounds like you've switched back to talking about science itself. If you disagree with the findings of any piece of published science, then publish your reasons. If you have genuine reasons that stand the test of scrutiny then you will be taken seriously. I wouldn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Again, all I'm doing here is presenting the very same challenge to those who say "there is no plan" as you would reasonably present to those who say "there is a plan". I'm not selling you theism, I'm selling you your own chosen methodology.
OK, well, as I've said, I believe that propositions such as "living things do/don't show signs of having been created according to a plan" can be tested using that methodology because they're not questions about anything infinite or undefined (like wibble).
- By Fried Egg
- By Sanju Lali
- By Thrylix
- By Pattern-chaser