I was thinking about various forms of pseudo-science, and it struck me that the Gaia Hypothesis (in its strong version) is probably the most plausible version of Intelligent Design. Google reveals that this thought is far from original, and that something very like it has been pushed by some supporters of ID, such as Dembski.
In my view, the Gaia hypothesis is a variant on the anthropic principle. The fact that we’re here on earth implies that the planet must have developed in a way that sustains life, but this observation is, as Nick Bostrom says of the anthropic principle “too weak to do any real scientific work.”
John Quiggin 
Hi John,
I thought that the original idea from Lovelock was little more than positing that some of the environmental systems on earth have a negative feedback mechanism in them.
If the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere increase then plants that thrive in that situation prosper, to the detriment of other kinds of plants. This lowers the concentration of CO2 in time – a feedback mechanism of sorts.
If temperatures increase, then there might be atmospheric activity that uses that extra energy, perhaps in potentially destructive ways – stronger hurricanes, etc.
This could be seen as a variant on evolution, without the information being recorded in genes, if you accept that feedback mechanisims are central to the way that evolution works.
I agree with Pharoz, it was about complex systems self-dampening. The other insight was that they self-dampen far beyond the point of return and then fluctuate wildy out of control before re-aligning themselves to a new equilibrium. The issue that Lovelock raised was that once we start seeing the system fluctuate wildly and rapidly it is too late, and that earth will realign itself to a new equilibrium – there is just no guarantee that the new equilibrium will sustain human life.
I dont see it having anything to do with intelligent design.
Pharoz, Cameron – you are talking about the weak Gaia principal – Lovelock’s first go at it. He developed it later. Check out PrQ’s link on the strong Gaia theories. The quote in wiki, where they say “… contrivance specifically constituted for a set of purposes…” could be an intelligent design argument.
‘Strong’ in this sense does not, necessarily, mean robust.
Azimov developed it even further in the Foundation series by endowing the entire system (rocks, planet, everything) with some form on sentience. Good science fiction – ‘interesting’ theory.
Andrew,
Having quickly looked through the Wiki pages I would personally stick with the weaker Gaia hypothesis. While there are equilibrium points for different variables I do not think that they would necessarily be fixed, or even be changed for optimal living conditions or life at all if the systems become unstable. Extinctions are common occurances, over geological time scales. The strong Gaia hypothesis would need to claim that the feedback systems were WILLFULLY manipulated to the benefit of this or that species. I don’t go for the teleological physics.
Like Cameron I don’t see a connection between the [weak] Gaia Hypothesis and intelligent design. I also find the strong Gaia hypothesis about as unlikely as intelligent design – they both posit some kind of teleology in an evolutionary system – so that might be a connection between the two theories [they share a hope of devine intervention].
But these are just my views, and like you say: Good science fiction – ‘interesting’ theory.
Andrew, Behaviour from complex interactions and inter-dependancies doesnt require or indicate sentience. Such behaviour can emerge independently and doesnt require external design or first movement to achieve that complexity.
I still dont see it having anything to do with intelligent design. ID doesnt have a place for emergant properties in complex systems.
The weak Gaia hypothesis has some resemblance to one theory about avoiding paradoxes in time travel. That theory goes, any paradoxes will eventually engineer themselves out by eliminating the practical occurrence of time travel (even if it remains physically possible). In the same way, we can suppose that any life will eventually evolve a life form that will disrupt its own environment, i.e. life is similarly self eliminating. On that reckoning the Gaia hypothesis does not converge to life but to non-life; it’s just that we haven’t reached equilibrium yet.
That would also account for the Fermi paradox (if I have remembered the name correctly): why, if life is bound to develop, haven’t we observed it elsewhere yet? Because the ability to observe it is a mere transient late stage before the self elimination of life, and it would be very unlikely to spot any elsewhere.
But there are a lot of defects with that interesting idea (like, if any exception to self elimination ever arose, it would spread anyway).
However, that does give rise to another idea, somewhat resembling intelligent design: intelligent recapitulation. Most new species do not arise spontaneously, but are seeded from a species library as part of a continuing process of xenoforming; they reach temporary equilibria by natural selection, then a suitable new set of outside life forms is added, possibly after a deliberate shock to make space for them in the existing ecology. Either man is the intended beneficiary, or man is part of a transitional stage, or man is constructed to be a servant for the “masters” as, when and if they finally get here. Watch the skies!
regardless of teleological concerns, ID is creationism and an outside force directing, starting, ie creating the universe. I don’t think they use Spinoza of de Chardin very mcuch. Whereas Gaia is an emergent phenomena and has no comment on how it all started.
In fact, mainstream western theology doesn’t like emergent, homeostatic theories at all. Much of this platonic bias has passed into non-theology, for example, though some isight into emergence is allowed into economics, this insight is barred from any other discourse, particularly on society, politics and the environment. This is the neo-con position, we made the world by emerging in the market, and that’s why all other emergences are banned.
This is why they support ID even though many do not believed that rubbish.
Brendan Nelson you are ****.
Edited for coarse language. I know I’m being aggressive at the moment, but the combination of spam and flaming is getting me down a bit – JQ
Yes, Brendan Nelson is ****. ANy education minister who can watch one ID propaganda DVD then pop up and say ID is worth teaching in classrooms is a dill. The fact he was unaware (or didn’t care) that this was a live issue in the US and all the background would be known widely in Oz speaks poorly of him.
Makes any pronouncements he makes about “faddish” educational theory very hard to take seriously.
Edited for coarse language. I know I’m being aggressive at the moment, but the combination of spam and flaming is getting me down a bit – JQ
The Gaia Hypothesis doesn’t ressurrect natural theology to include intelligent causation in the natural order of things. Dembsk does. I think his intuition’s onto something but when one is talking about extra-natural causes, I for one have no idea what one is talking about because nature is indistinguishable from God on any but the most superficial level.
When I look around I feel certain that we need a theory of UNintelligent design. So many things seem really silly.
🙂
I suppose it is not surprising that an economist should have trouble with Gaia. To a large extent, economics is founded on an an analogy with the “Nature red in tooth and claw” version of Darwinism. Ecological approaches to biology, which tend to emphasise interaction and symbiosis, don’t provide as much analogical support to the economists’ agenda. In biology I suspect both versions have their place. It must be entertaining for ecologists (including Gaia theorists) to, as it were, be pursued by angry economists, waving their arms and shouting “You can’t go there! You are upsetting our analogies!”
I hope the assemblage of cells which together make up the ecology commonly known as Prof. Quiggin don’t take the “independent competing individuals” approach too seriously. Disastrous consequences could result!
Wow, I missed a good opportunity to talk about this.
Please look at my website:
http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG