One unusual thing cited about 'Oumuamua is its shape. We have been repeatedly told that the object was cigar-shaped, and press coverage has repeatedly shown a visual of a cigar-shaped object. But that visual is not an actual photo. It is a speculative “artist's visualization” thing. No actual photographs have been taken of 'Oumuamua. In a recent Scientific American article, Loeb says this:
"We do not have a photo of ‘Oumuamua, but its brightness owing to reflected sunlight varied by a factor of 10 as it rotated periodically every eight hours. This implies that ‘Oumuamua has an extreme elongated shape with its length at least five to 10 times larger than its projected width."
So 'Oumuamua may be only five times longer than its width, which would make it merely pickle-shaped rather than cigar-shaped. A pickle-shaped object is not particularly strange, and many asteroids and comets have such a shape.
There are some reasons for doubting that 'Oumuamua was sent by extraterrestrials. The first is that 'Oumuamua has a tumbling motion, traveling in an end-over-end manner like a potato tumbling down some stairs. It seems that no one would design a spacecraft with such a motion, since it would prevent the spacecraft from traveling in a particular direction using a rocket thrust. The second reason is that 'Oumuamua came nowhere close to Earth. The third is that the object did not transmit radio signals. Scientists searched for radio signals from 'Oumuamua, and detected none. Some University of Maryland scientists recently concluded that 'Oumuamua was not an interstellar spacecraft.
So there has been this back and forth between scientists about whether an object resembling an asteroid was a product of deliberate design, and such activity was regarded by all as being very scientific.
Another place in which scientists look for design is in deep-space radio waves. Radio waves are naturally produced by quite a few astronomical bodies or large masses of gas floating about in space. But there is a group of scientists called SETI scientists who scan radio waves from space, looking for one that is the product of design. The idea is to look for a radio signal that was deliberately sent by an extraterrestrial civilization.
Recently these SETI scientists reported a discouraging result. The "Breakthough Listen" project reported that it had spent years searching 1327 nearby stars looking for extraterrestrial radio signals, but had not found any that can be classified as designed radio signals deliberately sent by intelligent beings. These and all other efforts to find deliberately designed extraterrestrial radio signals have failed. But nonetheless the search for design in radio waves from deep space is regarded by all as being very scientific, and the results were written up in a regular science journal.
Such deep-space efforts have been futile. But there's another place where we can look for evidence of design, a place not far away. We can look for evidence of design in the very proteins and cells that make up our body. This at first seems like a very promising line of inquiry. Our bodies are made up of more than 20,000 types of protein molecules. Our biologists have yet to give us a credible explanation for the origin of any of these protein molecules, each of which is as complex as a 60-line computer subroutine.
A scientific paper entitled "Gene duplication and the origin of novel proteins" (written by an orthodox biologist) almost confesses this shortfall, for it states (talking about the origin of proteins) "cases where we can reconstruct with any confidence the evolutionary steps involved in the functional diversification are relatively few," and tells us that "positive Darwinian selection" (the core of evolutionary explanations) "is thought to be relatively rare at the molecular level." In the same vein, this long recent review of the topic of protein evolution states this near its end (referring to protein folds that are crucial to the functional performance of protein molecules):
"It is not clear how natural selection can operate in the origin of folds or active site architecture. It is equally unclear how either micromutations or macromutations could repeatedly and reliably lead to large evolutionary transitions. What remains is a deep, tantalizing, perhaps immovable mystery."
Similarly, many of the cells in our bodies are of fantastic complexity, being so complex that they have been compared to factories or small cities. Explanations for the origins of such things will not be found in the works of Darwin, who had no inkling of the complexity of protein molecules and cells, and who incorrectly regarded cells as being almost featureless little blobs. Showing rare candor about the explanatory shortcomings of modern biology, a biology professor confesses the following: "The processes underlying evolutionary innovation are, however, remarkably poorly understood, which leaves us at a surprising conundrum: while biologists have made great progress over the past century and a half in understanding how existing traits diversify, we have made relatively little progress in understanding how novel traits come into being in the first place." Stomping upon the cherished legend that such novel traits are explained by natural selection, the same professor tells us, "It is difficult to see how selection could have played a role in the origin of novel traits and functions."
But as soon as it is suggested that we should search for or ponder evidence of design in our own cells and proteins, a loud howl of protest comes from many of our scientists, who say that we can't do that because it's not scientific.
You will notice the absurd hypocrisy and double standard that is involved here. How can it be very scientific to look for evidence of design in deep-space radio waves and deep-space objects resembling asteroids, but unscientific to be looking for evidence of design in our own biology?
Someone might argue that it is scientific to look for design in deep-space objects or deep-space radio waves, but not scientific to look for design in cells and proteins in our bodies, on the grounds that design in something like deep-space radio waves would only be coming from a natural source (extraterrestrial civilizations) but design found in cells or proteins would only be coming from a supernatural source. This argument is not valid, for three reasons:
(1) First, it is just as possible that a designed radio message might come from a supernatural source as from a natural source. Before the SETI search for extraterrestrial radio signals, it was proposed that a deity might communicate to humans through radio messages, and the idea was the plot of a Hollywood movie. Believers in what is called EVP actually maintain that we can pick up radio messages from the deceased on the Other Side. So searching for mysterious unexplained radio signals is not necessarily a "natural causes only" type of activity.
(2) Second, it is just as possible that design discovered in cells or proteins might have a natural source as a supernatural source. Designed cells or designed proteins might have come from extraterrestrial visitors that arrived here long ago. Or designed cells or designed proteins might have come from some currently unfathomable top-down information principle or organizational principle that could ultimately be classified as natural, centuries from now when it was understood.
(3) We must reject the whole idea of judging whether a research inquiry is scientific based on the cause of an effect. The cause of an effect has nothing to do with whether it is or is not scientific to research the effect.
It is clear that there is no consistent intellectual principle that can bless as scientific a search for design in deep-space radio waves or deep-space asteroids, but condemn as unscientific a search for design in the cells and proteins of our bodies. If you bless as scientific a search for design in deep-space radio waves or deep-space objects, but condemn as unscientific a search for design in the cells and proteins of our bodies, you are simply guilty of double-standards hypocrisy, like someone who says that it's okay if billionaires have three-week vacations, but it's not okay if factory workers take such vacations.
Below is a video of Jeannie C. Riley singing "Harper Valley PTA" which is the best song I know of on the topic of double standards and hypocrisy:
No comments:
Post a Comment