Intelligent Design - Part Deux

Read the article The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System from a link provided on Raama’s blog. Mr. Rich Deem (the author of this article) is basically arguing that a set of apparently well-orchestrated astronomical events that resulted in the formation of Earth, are an indication that we (the carbon-based life forms) were created by a Designer. To support his belief in intelligent design, he elaborated on twelve factors that contributed to the kind of climate we have now. I enjoyed reading his persuasive and informative argument.

Like many, I too believe in intelligent design. I believe in it not because it has a stamp of approval from the scientific community. I believe in it because it makes sense to me, and I don’t need a validation from anybody. I am yet to see a defensible scientific basis to support intelligent design.

Though the information gathered by Mr. Deem in the above-mentioned article is fascinating, I think that his conclusions are not sufficiently defensible. Mr. Deem's conclusions are basically dependent on our understanding of conditions on the Earth, Mars, and Venus. The crux of his argument is:

The Earth has favorable climate for life, and we see life on the Earth. Venus and Mars have harsh conditions, and we don't see any life there. Therefore, we can conclude that we need favorable conditions for sustenance of life.

This, I think is circular logic. I can argue that we are calling the conditions "favorable", merely because we managed to evolve under these conditions. How can we can rule out the possibility that life could also evolve under harsh conditions? "Favorable conditions" is a subjective term. If a creature managed to evolve at say at -200 degrees Centigrade, it would think that Siberia is hot as hell! So, on watching favorable climates supporting life, we can’t say that any other (vastly dissimilar) climates will not sustain life. We found life in extreme conditions (from our perspective) on the Earth itself, near volcanic vents in Mariana Trench and in the Arctic.

To make a defensible statement that our terrestrial climate is necessary for origin of life, we must conduct a scientific study – define a control volume, collect adequate number of representative samples from this volume, and see if the data indicates that life (if any) exists only in Earth-like climates. If we find life on one asteroid with a climate dissimilar to that of the Earth, the 12 factors that Mr. Deem specified will have no meaning.

We have a major hurdle for conducting this experiment (even if we manage to travel at the speed of light) – Our control volume is the universe, which is infinite to our knowledge. So, it is not possible to collect a set of samples and call it a representative of the universe. Ergo, we probably cannot (at least, based on what we know now) define boundaries for conditions conducive for life in rest of the universe.

All we know now, is that we did not find evidence of life on Venus and Mars, based on our very limited investigations. We must remember that these two planets are only a few light-minutes away from us. Even if we manage to prove conclusively that there is no life on Mars and Venus, Dr. Deem would only have two data points supporting his argument. With this extremely limited information, how can we talk about the possibility of life and climatic conditions say in Andromeda galaxy, the nearest major galaxy to our Milky Way, which is about 2,000,000 light years away, based on what we know now?! We have no clue on 99.9999...% of the universe.

Not finding life on Venus and saying that life is not possible on bodies that are unlike Earth, is like picking up a fist full of sand and declaring that “I don’t see any gold in this sand. Therefore, I conclude that there is no gold on planet Earth"!

In conclusion, I see the following shortfalls in Mr. Deem's argument.

(a) To begin with, we can’t say for sure that there is no life on Venus. Sure, we observed surface temperatures of around 457 degrees Centigrade, and about 96% CO2 in the atmosphere on Venus. So what? If there is life in these conditions, for that life, conditions on Earth would appear unbearable! They would come to the same kind of conclusion that Mr. Deem arrived at – “Nope, it is not possible for life to exist on Earth – there is too much nitrogen, too much oxygen, it is too cold, atmosphere is too thin, not enough green house effect, ...".

I agree that it appears unlikely for life forms to exist on Venus. But how can we be sure of that? If there were life, there is no guaranty that it would reflect light within the wave lengths visible to us. So, we can't say anything conclusively, at least until we study these planets a little bit more.

(b) Even if we manage to prove that there is no life on Venus, I think that it wouldn’t prove or disprove anything. As I mentioned above, our universe is so large that there may be planets out there with life forms evolved in extreme climatic conditions (again, according our standards). If they visit our planet, our conditions would be equally harsh to them!

(c) Mr. Deem mentioned how it was necessary for a set of events to happen to give us the climate we have now. The problem is, this kind of logic would apply to any grain of matter in this whole universe. After all, for creating any object, a set of events should occur in a precise fashion, as no two objects are identical.

(d) If God is Omni-present and He (She/It) is the epitome life, how can there be any inanimate object in this universe? I think that there is life every where. We (at least, many among us) just are not blessed with the capability of realizing it.

I wrote this predominantly based on my intuition. I will try to get Mr. Deem's input on this, and correct my thought process as necessary.