On the Solar System and Inteligent Design

Get advice, tips, or help with science or religion debates that you are currently participating in.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
Dave
Jedi Knight
Posts: 901
Joined: 2004-02-06 11:55pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

On the Solar System and Inteligent Design

Post by Dave »

Alright, so normally I stay out of my friends Facebook postings out of courtesy, but this friend of mine has posted a string of things in support of ID today, and I felt obligated to point out some errors. In this case, I got stuck.
Friend's status wrote: ‎"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being." --Sir Issac Newton, father of modern science (Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713)
Me, having seen Neil deGrasse Tyson's speech mentioning this, reply:
I wrote: Yeah, that's after he gave up on the perturbations of the planets. He said "I give up! The solar system would collapse without god!"

Who solved that problem? PS Laplace, using a new branch of mathematics that allows for perturbations. He did...n't invoke god, because he "had no need for that hypothesis."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY (Newton starts at 4:30, Leplace at 13:50)

In fact, the thing always worked, Newton just gave up and said God did it.
At which point I get back:
My friend wrote: David, some respect should be given to the father of modern science. What were his accomplishments again? How easy it is to throw the father of modern science under the bus when his beliefs ...disagree with your own and run counter to the p...oint you are trying to make. It's fine to share a counter point of view, but there's no need to sully the reputation of a brilliant man modern science and mathematics is indebted to.

Here's an interesting Issac Newton story I came across today on CreationWiki.org that gets to the point:

"In the book: The Truth: God or evolution? Marshall and Sandra Hall describe an often quoted exchange between Newton and an atheist friend.

Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system, which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can imagine, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My, what an exquisite thing this is!" he exclaimed. "Who made it?" Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this." Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is!" Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer or maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"
I'm not sure how to approach this. I mean, obviously CreationWiki is going to be some really biased source, and it surprises me that he would use this because I think this man is level-headed and I thought he was, well, legitimate in his search for understanding (he certainly encourages me to search).

But how would one explain the difference between a model of the solar system and the real solar system? On the surface it's a plausible argument, and I don't think that saying something about how the natural forces of the universe actually do form planetary systems (as we see elsewhere in the universe and in computational models) is going to sufficiently rebut this.
User avatar
PeZook
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13237
Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Location: Poland

Re: On the Solar System and Inteligent Design

Post by PeZook »

First of all, your friend threw a false dilemma at you: Yes, it is quite possible for someone to be right about a great many things, yet be wrong about many others. To say that we must believe and take at face value everything Newton ever said because he was a great scientist is fallacious. We do not need to either accept all of a person's opinions or discard them entirely. Remember, Hitler ate sugar and liked dogs, and it doesn't make all his other cute opinions right.

Newton was obviously not quite right about planetary motion, since Kepler's models are so much more accurate.

Second, there is no logical connection in the argument about model of the solar system: the fact a model was constructed does not automatically mean the original must've been constructed as well, and there is no logical reason why it should be so, beyond assumptions that the universe must've been created. All sorts of random natural phenomena happen by themselves, yet require a creator to reproduce on a smaller scale you can fit into a room.

One example you can use: A newborn baby was made using natural processes (even if they were designed by God, they still happen without any sort of supernatural intervention, and we know exactly how, so he can't say "well God guides the process!") ; A painting or sculpture of a newborn baby was created by a painter, and it is but a crude model of the original. Of course, you don't actually need to use that example, if your opponent knows anything about logic, he will need to demonstrate there is a logical reason to infer that models requiring a creator equal original requiring one as well.
Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
User avatar
Akhlut
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2660
Joined: 2005-09-06 02:23pm
Location: The Burger King Bathroom

Re: On the Solar System and Inteligent Design

Post by Akhlut »

First, ask him for a credible biographical source on Newton's supposed conversation with an atheist. Since Newton lived in the 17th and 18th centuries, it is highly doubtful that a conversation like that would actually have been recorded.

Secondly: be quick to remind him how Isaac Newton was big on alchemy and was keen on searching for the Philosopher's stone and was absolutely convinced that lead could be transmuted into gold. Ask him if this then invalidates hundreds of years of chemistry showing alchemy to be false. Just because a man has done great things doesn't mean he can't be wrong.
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
User avatar
Dave
Jedi Knight
Posts: 901
Joined: 2004-02-06 11:55pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: On the Solar System and Inteligent Design

Post by Dave »

Thanks for the help you two.

I didn't realize how exhausting this would be. They're starting to dogpile slightly and fully dissecting and explaining properly every argument they throw at me is a non-trivial task.
Junghalli
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5001
Joined: 2004-12-21 10:06pm
Location: Berkeley, California (USA)

Re: On the Solar System and Inteligent Design

Post by Junghalli »

His reply essentially ignores your original point: that what baffled Newton and made him invoke God was later shown to be explainable by science. He's basically just restated his original "evidence" - Newton thought the God hypothesis was necessary to explain the solar system, therefore the idea is somehow credible. The whole thing is also nothing more than a blatant appeal to authority (Newton's), coupled with an appeal to emotion (trying to make you look hubristic for suggesting Newton is wrong).

Point out that you have access to hundreds of years of science Newton didn't have and demand he deal with your original refutation. Maybe do some research on emergent complexity to knock down the one thing remotely resembling a logical argument he has - that he apparently thinks it's impossible. I honestly have other stuff to do at the moment myself, but one thing I remember offhand is the daisyworld simulation which shows that spontaneous unplanned interactions can have effects that might appear purposeful if you didn't know better.
User avatar
Twoyboy
Jedi Knight
Posts: 536
Joined: 2007-03-30 08:44am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: On the Solar System and Inteligent Design

Post by Twoyboy »

Akhlut wrote:First, ask him for a credible biographical source on Newton's supposed conversation with an atheist. Since Newton lived in the 17th and 18th centuries, it is highly doubtful that a conversation like that would actually have been recorded.
I wouldn't get drawn into asking him for a source. This gives the impression to observers that you would consider this a valid argument if it were true. Just rebut it as it is.

Put simply, there is no known mechanism by which a model solar system could form itself. So we assume it is designed and created. We have 4 known forces which explain the formation of matter and its interactions with other matter. These can be used to explain quite nicely the existence of the solar system. An explanation that, quite ironically, Newton contributed to substantially.

If a reply comes that these forces a simply the physical manifestation of god, say that you agree that they could be, but that rules out an intelligent designer, as the forces are simply mindless and repetitive.

EDIT: Also, there is no known designer who could have created the solar system, whereas we know many people could have designed the model. It's about choosing the best explanation for the observable facts.
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
-Winston Churchhill

I think a part of my sanity has been lost throughout this whole experience. And some of my foreskin - My cheating work colleague at it again
User avatar
Lusankya
ChiCom
Posts: 4163
Joined: 2002-07-13 03:04am
Location: 人间天堂
Contact:

Re: On the Solar System and Inteligent Design

Post by Lusankya »

Also, there is the fact that nobody gives a shit what Newton thought. His theories rested on the strength of the evidence supporting them, not on his character as a man. To act as though arguments based on Newton's beliefs have any merit is to degrade him to the same level as that of a mere bible.
"I would say that the above post is off-topic, except that I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, and I don't think anybody else is sure either."
- Darth Wong
Free Durian - Last updated 27 Dec
"Why does it look like you are in China or something?" - havokeff
Post Reply