> > [quote from DJT] Design
> >considerations suggest that the task of DNA is very similar for Apes
> >and mankind - the DNA ought to be very similar.
>
> Hello David. I would agree that this type of argument seems
> consistent with the views of intelligent design folks today.
> But there are some aspects of this argument that I don't
> understand. I would like to raise several questions in the
> context of what I'll call the "traditional" teleological
> argument which was common before Darwin and espoused by
> individuals such as Cuvier.
I am interested in Cuvier and this teleological tradition, but I
have no agenda to defend such traditional arguments.
> In this argument, teleology implies optimality of the match
> between form and function which in turn implies uniqueness.
> Why? Because the teleologist wanted to provide an explanation
> for form, to give an answer to the question "why this form?".
> The answer is "because this form is optimal with respect to
> this function." The answer requires uniqueness or else it
> fails to explain. So, my first question would be whether
> the uniqueness of form to function is still held by design
> folks today.
The traditional argument was based on Natural Theology. IMO modern
ID folk vary in their assessment of this: some are for and some
against. However, I think most would be wary to commit themselves on
form/function optimality - because of limited knowledge of the domain
and because of the difficulties of knowing what parameters are
optimised. (As an engineer, you will be familiar with these
problems!)
> OK, your statement above certainly seems consistent with
> the "traditional" view. The DNA is presumably optimally
> suited to its "task" for both humans and apes.
Yes, I think this is a hypothesis that has merit.
> But we seem
> to have another idea inherent in your argument, namely that
> there is a continuity between the optimal relation between
> form and function. A neighboring point in function-space
> being optimally related to a neighbor in form-space. So,
> my next question would be why such a continuity would not
> suggest the possibility of evolution?
Yes, it would - but not to the exclusion of the design possibility.
I do not think that anyone will reach a conclusion just by looking at
homologies.
> My final question relates to a different type of homology.
> Similar forms with different functions. As I understand it,
> this is what did Cuvier in. The reason is that this type
> of homology seems to destroy the uniqueness relation and
> without that one can no longer give a teleological explanation
> for the question I mentioned above "why this form?". So,
> I guess my question here would be how modern design folks
> deal with this type of homology without resorting to
> the type explanation which Darwin criticized as "And so
> it pleased the Creator."
An interesting thought - and I would be interested if anyone can
elaborate on Cuvier's problems with the form/function argument.
Modern "design folks" are not taking the same position as Cuvier.
They have a much more limited objective: to challenge the idea that
the Cosmos and the world of living things can be understood
naturalistically. Information is perceived as a fundamental quality
which naturalism does not know how to handle (apart from redefining
it as signalling). When this basic argument is accepted as
"legitimate" in the academic world, ID theorists can move on to
developing their thesis.
However, to respond to the specific point re "similar forms with
different functions", I think that the problems indicated earlier
apply. There is a danger in making an authoritative statement on
form/function optimality - because of limited knowledge of the domain
and because of the difficulties of knowing what parameters are
optimised. But this is not to say that we draw a line under it and
say the area is totally mysterious!
As an example, I refer you to the article by Michael Denton in the
current issue of "Origins and Design". He tackles the alleged
problem of the vertebrate eye being sub-optimally designed. He shows
that the allegations are poorly-informed and wide of the mark. The
more we know, the more 'optimal design' features are apparent. That
is, I think, the right approach. We argue from knowledge - and are
willing to recognise design when it is staring us in the face.
Thanks for the feedback,
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.