SJ: First, "design *is* "intelligent design". So-called "design" by
unintelligent natural processes alone, is only *apparent* "design":
Of course the problem then arises how to distinguish apparant design from
intelligent design.
SJ: "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not
see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet
A design need no purpose.
SJ: the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us
with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress
us with the illusion of design and planning....the purpose of this
chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the
illusion of design." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991
reprint, p21)
So indeed this 'apparant' design is often mistaken for intelligent design.
SJ: Secondly, the fact that "Naturalists can show how this apparent
design *can* be the result of random change and natural selection"
is not good enough. They must show that it *was* "the result of
random change and natural selection". However, the fossil record
does not support this fully naturalistic hypothesis.
The first step is to show that it can be the result of random change and
natural selection, the second step is proving that this is the case. The
fossil record does support this fully naturalistic hypothesis quite well.
But perhaps you can share with us why you believe the contrary ?
SJ: Thirdly, even if "Naturalists" were able to "show how this apparant
design" *was* "the result of random change and natural selection" it
would not rule out "design". The Bible affirms that God can "design"
even through events that are "random" to man:
The bible is not scientific in any sense so should not be used as evidence
of the existance of such a supernatural force. It is very well possible
that a designer acts through random acts which is the only viable
hypothesis of intelligent design. That a designer created the cosmos
through a big bang and let naturalistic forces take its turn. Sort of a
giant experiment.
[...] interesting but meainingless biblical story deleted.
SJ: An Intelligent Designer may have designed all the laws and initial
conditions of the universe in such a way that the design of living
creatures is *real* not apparent:
True but then again chance could have done this as well through
naturalistic forces so this explanation would fail under the Occam razor.
>PM>The idea that complexity requires a designer and even more an
>intelligent designer requires proof.
SJ: More word-play. The question is not whether "complexity requires a
designer" but whether *specified* "complexity requires a designer":
The question is irrelevant since there is no 'specified' complexity. You
are assuming that the end result was specified.
SJ: specified but simple (snowflakes and
crystals). A crystal fails to qualify as living because it lacks
Specified ? How do you define specified ? There is no designer here and no
inherent specification in crystaline structure. Just adherence to some
basic
physical laws.
SJ: complexity. A chain of random nucleotides fails to qualify because
Complexity is evidence of 'life' ? That requires some explanation.
SJ: The sequence of
nucleotides in DNA or of amino acids in a protein is not a repetitive
order like a crystal. Instead it is like the letters in a written
message."
Unfounded similarity implying design and actual intelligent design.
SJ: I agree with Gene. Apart from the arrogance of those humans who think
that they could do a better job than God at designing a universe, as
Johnson points out, these theological arguments seem a strange way
of proving what purports to be a scientific theory:
It is not used to prove a scientific theory but disprove the argument from
design. The error of a dichotomy between evolution/abiogenesis and
intelligent design is a common one but needless.
SJ: "In any case, the use of theological arguments-"God wouldn't have
done it this way"-is a very questionable way of proving that
Darwinian evolution was capable of creating complex biological
organs." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p228)
The argument was not that this proves Darwinian evolution to be right but
creationism which requires an active deity to be faulty.
>PM>Personally I see no reason to try to disprove a supernatural
>entity whose existance is guided by faith not science but I wonder at
>the poor design and how people who do think that god designed it this
>way believe why he did it this way. Especially since from an
>evolution's perspective the 'design' makes perfect sense.
SJ: From "evolution's perspective" *no* "`design' makes" *any* "sense".
That's why you have to put single quotes around it. But from a
*mediate creation* "perspective the design" (no single quotations
marks needed), indeed "makes perfect sense".
Proof by assertion and word play without relevance. You claim design where
there need not be any. The poverty of the argument lies in the subjective
assumption that complexity as observed in living organisms requires a n
intelligent designer.
>PM>You don't understand what I am saying here. Why is the flaunder
>born with eyes on both sides and then the eye moves to the top? I
>do understand that the flaunder presents an excellent example of
>evolution in action but I also believe that it shows some poor design
>if an intelligent designer were involved.
SJ: From a mediate creation perspective the "flounder presents an
excellent example of" the *flexibility* of the "intelligent designer"
in building such adaptability into the genetic code within the fish
genome.
Similarly from evolutionary perspective this makes perfectly good sense
but it does not require additional constraints. Occam's razor applies once
again in favour of the more simple explanation.
>PM>No I would just have his eyes on the side they end up at rather
>than have it be born with two eyes on either side and then have to
>move them.
SJ: This is a good example of the superhuman brilliance of the
Intelligent Designer, as opposed to mere human would-be designers.
Is it ?
SJ: The latter would design each fish for a specific purpose. But the
real Intelligent Designer built an all-purpose fish genome that had
the resources within it to respond to environmental changes and new
ecological niches that would open up in the future.
Huraah, we agree on one thing that evolution is taking place. We just
disagree on the necessity of an intelligent designer for this to happen.
SJ: Pim, I would challenge you (or any "if I were God, I'd have done it
differently" claimant) to design another such an all-purpose fish
genome from scratch (ie. not copying the existing fish genome),
and demonstrate that it would survive for hundreds of millions of
years through all environmental changes, and would fit into the
overall ecology so that it would preserve the balance of nature.
If I were an all powerful god then I would design my creatures to be
well-adapted and would not use different designs to optimize for different
circumstances. Why go for a design which is sub-optimal if I have the
potential to make the design perfect ? Your assumption that a god would
design an all purpose fish implies a designer who reuses a sub-optimal
design rather than use a more appropiate design for different situations.
After all an all powerful and knowledgeable god would not be limited.
>PM>This is not true. It could also be that no mutation has taken
>place to allow for selection or that such change is beyond the realm?
>That something is a major feature in animals does not mean it is
>the best solution, just the best of those available. But for an
>intelligent designer there is the choice to reroute this problem
>area.
SJ: This was in answer to my response that "the urinary tract" going
"through the prostate gland of men" presumably must have a selective
advantage, otherwise it would not have remained such a dominant
feature in all mammals.
It is not certain that this is a "problem", at least not to mammals
generally. I have read somewhere that much, if not all, the prostate
problem in humans is due to our fatty diet. If God originally
intended Adam's descendants to be vegetarian, this may have prevented
the problem (Gn 1:30; 9:3).
So god did not predict this change in diets ? But your assertion that the
prostate needs to have an selective advantage is mistaken. Evolution does
not require disappearance of features if they do not have a selective
advantage.
SJ: But granted that an Intelligent Designer *could* choose "to reroute
this problem area", but why *should* He, if "the...solution" is the
best of those available"? Maybe the advantage of the prostate design
in aiding mammalian reproduction, outweighs the disadvantage of it
becoming a problem in later life.
Perhaps ? But that requires some additional data supporting such
assertion. Absence of such data makes such speculation meaningless since
it can be invoked to explain any discrepancy.
SJ: In any event, Biblically, man was made with a potentially mortal body
(Gn 3:22), so that if he did not chose obedience He would die (Gn
2:17). If God made man's body perfect, man could not die, even if he
Darn, all I need is obedience and I my body will live ? Has this been
tested ?
SJ: disobeyed God. If man had chosen to obey God, he would have lived
A perfect body can still die when disobeying an all powerful designer.
What would be stopping the designer from this ?
>PM>From an evolutionary point of view the prostate does make sense we
>agree.
SJ: It makes sense from a Mediate Creation "point of view" as well. As
True but it requires increased complexity in its explanation which makes
it a far less viable candidate.
SJ: you yourself pointed out, God could have used an `evolutionary'
process in developing His creation. I believe He did, but then it is
not "evolution" in the Darwinian sense, but mediate creation.
You are confused, evolution does not care about how creation happened it
just explains the observations of evolution using a scientific theory. If
as you say you believe that evolutionary processes were used in the
'creation' then Darwinian evolution can coexist very well with a deity. Of
course Darwinian evolution exists as well or better (in a scientific
sense) with a purely naturalistic explanation.
>PM>And the reason is? Have you ever looked at the route the urinary
>tract makes in males? Looks like a plumber gone haywire.
SJ: Have you ever looked at the route a plumbing system makes in a
complex building that was developed in stages over many years by an
intelligent designer? Looks like a urinary tract!
But we are not talking about just an intelligent designer but an all
powerful designer who could have predicted such future complications. As
such this explanation does not make for very good science.
SJ: But again the challenge to Pim is to prove that he can design a
better system from scratch without copying the existing system, while
complying with all the other developmental contraints (eg. must be
homologous with the female urinary tract, etc), and flexible enough
to accommodate all vertebrates for half a billion year, as the
present system has done.
Why do I have to prove that I can design a system under all these
conditions ? Evolution has shown it to be possible, all we disagree about
is the necessity of a deity using evolution as a creative process.
>PM>No just an unbelief of the poor design. Perhaps you are right and
>there is a reason for the prostate's location. Perhaps the location
>close to the anus means that we are to enjoy anal sex<g>?
SJ: Since that would do nothing for the reproduction of the species, I
doubt it!
So perhaps it was just 'fortuitous' circumstances but perhaps there is a
selective advantage to anal sexual relationships ? Perhaps anal sex should
not be dismissed as sinful after all but part of a design ?
>PM>Why would a designer design a whale with hind legs? Why would a
>designer design Or whale embryos growing teeth which then
>'disappear'? There are plenty of examples.
SJ: See above. I presume this reflects some form of development from a
common ancestor. But common ancestry is not necessarily Darwinian,
and indeed may be creationist:
We agree that this is the only viable theological approach, a deity who
used naturalistic processes to 'create'. So evolution in the Darwinian
sense is correct in either scenario.
SJ: Such a
theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and
equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton
M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp154-155)
meaning is something we might search for but there need not be meaning to
our existance in a theological sense.
SJ: "What mechanism can it be that results in the production of
homologous organs, the same `patterns,' in spite of their not being
controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it
has not been answered." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
p188-189)
Denton is more resourceful in his attack on anatomical similarities. He
states:
"...the validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have
been
greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have
shown that
homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed
homologous
patterns of embryological development...but it has become clear that the
principle cannot be extended in such a way. (Denton, 1985, p. 145)"
His reason for that last conclusion is that
"...the way the gastrula is formed and particularly the positions in the
blastula
of the cells which give rise to the germ layers and theirs migration
patterns
during gastrulation differ markedly in the different vertebrate classes...
homologous structures are arrived at by different routes. (Denton, 1985,
p.
145-146)"
Then follows mention of species-specific pleiotropic genes which influence
the
development of homologous structures. How could homology point to common
ancestry if the homologous structures are constructed in part due to the
instructions of genes not found in other species? <P>
The answer to Denton's assertions about embryological development is that
he
simply is unaware of a set of facts that reveal the differences in
migration
patterns and positions to be superficial: the differing amounts of yolk
in the
eggs of varying classes of vertebrates imposes constraints upon
embryological
development that make the process seem quite different from class to class.
Scott Gilbert's discussion of avian gastrulation gives the general idea:
"Cleavage in avian embryos creates a blastodisc above an enormous volume
of yolk.
This inert, underlying yolk mass imposes severe constraints on cell
movements,
and avian gastrulation appears at first glance to be very different from
that of
a sea urchin or frog. We shall soon see, though, that there are numerous
similarities between avian gastrulation and those gastrulations we have
already
studied. Moreover, we shall see that mammalian embryos - which do not
have yolk
- retain gastrulation movements very similar to those of bird and reptile
embryos. (Gilbert, 1991, p. 138)"
As for pleiotropy, it demonstrates yet another case of the argument from
personal incredulity. There is no reason at all to presume that the set of
genes controlling the development of a structure could not change in
number over
time from species to species.<P>
>PM>Not at all, I am pointing out examples of poor design. Why have a
>whale develop teeth which then whither away. Again from an
>evolutionary point of view this makes perfect sense, from a design
>point of view I wonder what the designer was thinking.
SJ: As Gene points out, you would have to be an "expert on...the inner
workings and necessities of the developmental biology of marine
mammals" to be able to say these were examples of poor design. The
likelihood is that what you claim is "poor design" will turn out to
reveal the ingenuity and the sheer brilliance of it:
That is a very poor argument but similarly applied it undermines your
statements about naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis.
>PM>I am confused that a supernatural, all powerful being could not
>design more properly?
SJ: There is a fallacy here that because an "all powerful being" *did*
not "design more properly" (ie. in an ideal engineering sense),
that He "*could*not design more properly". This assumes without
warrant that such an "all powerful being" *wanted* to "design"
everything "in an ideal engineering sense". But why would He want
to? I can think of one good reason why He would *not* want to - it
would be a temptation to idolatry: the worship of the creature more
than the Creator (Rom 1:25).
The mystery deepens as it requires more and more assumptions to explain
away the discrepancies. Occam's razor shreds such arguments to bits and
pieces.
>GG>"Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that none of us are in
>a position from which we can judge the whole of creation in such a
>manner as would allow us to call any particular organism "flawed".
>Whether we believe in the God of the Bible or not."
SJ: Agreed. Atheists must use emotive language like "flawed" to carry
their arguments by rhetoric. Their argument collapses without it.
Then similarly many creationist arguments collapse as well ?
>PM>Perhaps but that assumes that we can not wonder about the whales
>with feet, the whales with teeth that disappear for instance and
>marvel at how well they are explained by evolution and wonder why a
>designer would use a similar approach. Perhaps because the designer
>is working through evolution?
SJ: It is more correct to say that the "designer is working through"
*natural processes*. If "the designer is working through evolution",
then it is no longer "evolution" but mediate creation.
Nonsense, evolution does not give a darn about an intelligent or natural
'creator' of life. Darwinian evolution exists equally well in either
scenario.
To require a creator when in fact naturalistic explanations suffice fails
the occam razor as well as scientific foundation.
Regards
Pim