Burgy:===
>Let me focus on your last sentence. Gould has stated that the Panda's
>thumb is not designed well. Others have faulted the wiring of the human
>eye as substandard. You have stated that " most of the things we
>associate with age are
>detrimental ... ." But are not all these statements of the same kind --
>the kind that says "I know good design from bad design and benefits from
>detriments?" In the case of a fiat creation, it is also saying "I know
>better than God how to do something."
>
These are good points. I have on many occasions, here and
elsewhere, taken sides against Gould on this. Gould's problem
is twofold (1) he merely states something is designed poorly
without backing up the claim with any analysis and (2) he
gives a theological argument, claiming to know what sensible
gods would or wouldn't do. From a scientific point of view
he fails on both points. Similarly, from the scientific point
of view, a creationist fails as soon as he says "... but we
don't know the purpose of God."
As an example of (1) above, I'll give a short
excerpt from: "The Argument from Design", by George
Lauder in <Adaptation>, M R Rose and G V Lauder eds.,
Academic Press, 1996.
===begin quote===
... We can only discover the quality of a watch we have found
by taking it apart, examining its mechanics, and testing its
performance against alternative designs.
The central theme of this chapter is that we have been too
assumptive in the study of organismal design. Too often we
have been willing to assume, like the purchaser of a
counterfeit Rolex, that the watchmaker has done a good
job as a result of looking at the external features of the
watch instead of focusing on mechanical and performance
evaluation. We also have been assumptive in presuming that
some features of organismal design are accidental by-products
of the method of construction, without a design analysis.
This is not so much the fault of the watchmaker as it is
a case of "buyer beware". Evolutionary biologists interested
in organismal design must experimentally assess the mechanical
quality of a watch they have discovered in comparison to
other designs, and not restrict themselves to an analysis of
the face alone. -- Gearge Lauder
====
A word of caution is necessary regarding the above quote, a
clue of which one can probably gather from the title of
the volume in which the article appears. Lauder is an
adaptationist and when he says design he is really talking
about some sort of adaptation.
The quote is very refreshing though in that it suggests
a rational scientific approach to determining how well
something is "designed" instead of just saying "wow, this
is obviously designed" or "ugh, no engineer woulda done
that."
Note in particular that the statement "We also have been
assumptive in presuming that some features of organismal
design are accidental by-products of the method of
construction, without a design analysis" seems to be
aimed directly at the Panda's Thumb argument.
Now back to your comments above. The detrimental effects
of aging have been subject to extensive scientific study
for many years and thus are not comparable to Gould's
"no engineer would do this" argument which really amounts
to an opinion only.
But most of my previous argument was a theological argument.
It is true that we could never know the mind of God or
completely understand his methods. But we can tentatively
make some judgements about what we might expect to find
based upon what has been revealed to us in the Bible
regarding the nature of God.
Merry Christmas !!
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"... we have learned from much experience that all
philosophical intuitions about what nature is going
to do fail." -- Richard Feynman