Reflectorites
On Fri, 19 May 2000 00:16:36 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>SJ>[A good example of how metaphysical
>>naturalists can look straight at design, even study it in detail for years,
>>and still not see it. Because naturalists' fundamental assumption is that
>>`nature is all there is', these molecular motors of "awesome efficiency", which far
>>exceed the capacity of human intelligent designers to make, are simply
>>assumed to be "a good example of nature's innovation: evolution has taken
>>a single fundamental mechanism and elaborated on it". How a `blind
>>watchmaker' could ever put together *three* such motors (remember
>>"there are no similarities in their ... genetic sequence") is not stated,
>>nor is how a cell could even exist in the first place without them?]
CL>It's an example of convergent evolution, different organisms with
>different genes having analogous phenotypes; a familiar concept.
>As to putting together organic parts, the symbiotic theory of the origin
>of cellular complexity seems to fill the bill.
First, as per my previous post in another thread, the Margulis' "symbiotic
theory" is not about "the origin of cellular complexity" but only of the
origin of eukaryotes from prokaryotes. Margulis theory therefore
*presupposes* the existence of prokaryotic "cellular complexity".
Second, these molecular motors are present in *all* known living cells, and
are essential for their very existence. The ATP which powers all of life in
even the simplest cells, is a particularly elegant molecular pump driven by a
proton motor. If Cliff's "convergent evolution" explanation is not just
`hand-waving', it is necessary for him to explain how there could be any
"evolution" *at all* before there were these molecular motors.
CL>Consider the complexities of our economy; consider the various ways
>we spend money and the complex reasons for the choices we make,
>where the money goes next and why etc etc. It's an unfathomably elaborate
>thing. Then compare the economy a communist planner might set up,
>with simple specification of required production and directed consumption.
>Why is a designer required on grounds of complexity, when the natural order
>can generate complexity ad infinitum?
As Ami has pointed out, economies are built up out of the choices of
intelligent human designers (not by `blind watchmakers'):
On Fri, 19 May 2000 07:25:52 -0700, Ami Chopine wrote:
Subject: Re: ID
AC>There is one little problem with this analogy.
>
>All the participants in the economy are intellegent.
This is a version of what Johnson calls "Berra's Blunder":
"Learn the difference between intelligent and unintelligent causes. This is a
distinction that many otherwise capable scientists do not understand,
became their materialist philosophy teaches them to disregard it. I'll
illustrate the point with a couple of examples. Tim Berra is a professor of
zoology at Ohio State University. He wrote a book...Evolution and the
Myth of Creationism... Here is Berra's explanation of "evolution," which
comes illustrated with photographs of automobiles in the middle of the
book:
`Everything evolves, in the sense of descent with modification whether it be
government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The revolutionary
fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in
1953. Other high points in the Corvette's evolutionary refinement included
the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was shortened to 98 inches
and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was introduced; the 1968 model,
the forerunner of today's Corvette morphology, which emerged with
removable roof panels; and the 1978 silver anniversary model, with
fastback styling. Today's version continues the stepwise refinements that
have been accumulating since 1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved
through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of
transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A
similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.'
Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The
Corvette Sequence-like the sequence of Beethoven's symphonies or the
Opinions of the United States Supreme Court-does not illustrate
naturalistic evolution at all. It illustrates how intelligent designers will
typically achieve their purposes by adding variations to a basic design plan.
Above all, such sequences have no tendency whatever to support the claim
that there is no need for a Creator, since blind natural forces can do the
creating. On the contrary, they show that what biologists present as proof
of "evolution" or "common ancestry" is just as likely to be evidence of
common design....evolutionary biologists topically do not understand that
sequences resulting from variations on common design principles (as in the
Corvette series) point to the existence of common design, not its absence. I
have encountered this mistake so often in public debates that I have given it
a nickname: "Berra's Blunder."
(Johnson P.E., "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," 1997, pp.62-63)
[...]
AC>This is the thing that leads me to ID. I just see too much purpose. Sure,
>I can see simple changes, such as antibiotic resistance occuring all the
>time, and within a design paradigm occuring without intervention.
I agree with Ami about "too much purpose" but I see no reason to limit
design to "occurring without intervention" (but perhaps I have
misunderstood her?-see below).
AC>But I find it difficult to believe that some complex things occured without
>purpose, or some direction. I have no problem with things getting there
>naturally, but I think there must be more than _natural_ selection at work.
Agreed again. But "direction" could still be "intervention", if the Designer
guided natural processes. I may have used this analogy of a farmer before:
1. Intelligent Design without Intervention. Farmer A owns a farm. He has
goats on it which are a mixture of Angora and Saanan varieties. He fences
it and provides the goats with food and water and whatever else they need
to live, but otherwise lets nature take its course. Over many generations,
due to nature `selecting' out the less well adapted goats, the herd as a
whole becomes better adapted to the conditions. From time to time, in the
course of many generations, by chance relatively pure Angora and Saanan
goats are born, but they mate randomly with the majority mixed breeds and
revert back to the mixed norm. The mixed goats never produce anything
more that average wool, meat and milk, but this is all that Farmer A had
planned.
2. Intelligent Design with `Natural' Intervention. Farmer B buys the farm.
He is not happy with the results of Farmer A's methods. He wants purer
Angoras to produce better wool for which they are famed and purer
Saanan's to produce better meat and milk, for which they are famed. So
while continuing with his basic care of the animals, and in addition to
nature's `selecting' of better adapted goats, he resolves to also keep a
lookout for pure Angora and Saanan goats that are born and when he sees
them he separates them away from the main herd, and selectively breeds
them with other goats exhibiting similar Angora or Saanan features. In a
relatively short space of time, by intelligent selective breeding, he is able to
breed up two new herds of increasingly purer bred Angora and Saanan
goats. The increasingly purer Angoras produce better and better wool and
the increasingly purer Saanan's produce better and better meat and milk, as
Farmer B had planned.
3. Intelligent Design with `Supernatural'-`Natural' Intervention. Farmer C
buys the Farm (which BTW is at Roslyn just outside Edinburgh). His name
is Wilmut, and he is famous for cloning Dolly the sheep many years ago.
Farmer C does all what Farmer A and B did. But he wants to do more than
that. He wants to genetically engineer the Angoras to grow not only even
better wool but also better milk and meat. So with his knowledge of
genetic engineering he inserts new genes from the Saanan goat's, and even
sheep and cattle genomes, to produce the characteristics that he wants. He
could, if he wanted to, produce a species of lightweight goat with feathered
wings, complete with avian pass-through-lungs, by judiciously inserting
bird genes into a specially prepared goat's genome. These changes, take
only a few generations and are far beyond what unaided nature could do, as
Farmer C had planned.
There is a fourth option which has no analogy with human designers and
that is the de novo creation by fiat of whole new organisms. I believe God
could have done this, but I don't believe God *did* do this, after the initial
ex nihilo creation of the raw materials of the universe, according to the
pattern in Genesis 1).
My hypothesis is that what Farmer A, B & C could do, armed with only
human intelligence, is an analogy of what the Intelligent Designer in fact
did in did. It fits the facts and the experimental evidence. Darwin himself in
his Origin of Species, used the analogy of human intelligently designed
selective breeding (e.g. Farmer B), to support his theory of natural
selection.
There is no scientific reason (apart from an apriori commitment to some
form of philosophical materialism or philosophical naturalism), to rule out
that an Intelligent Designer could have in fact designed by Farmer C's, as
well as by Farmer A & B's methods.
AC>Consider the wing. I still think there is far too much of a hump to
>overcome for natural selection to be the only way it happened.
In the case of birds, it is not just "the wing" but a whole raft of other pre-
adaptations (which paleornithologists call the `avian flight kit'), like
feathers (which require several "genomic revolutions"), a unique pass-
through lung, unique arms and shoulders, unique lightweight cross-
membered bones, unique feet and ankles for take-off, landing and perching,
etc).
Now Farmer A & B methods might get *one* of these unique features. But
only Farmer C's methods would get *all* of them together.
AC>There would
>be two possibilities: a hopeful monster, or a clumsy intermediary.
Agreed. The problem for `Huxleyites' like Gould (and Cliff?) is that to get
the designing done in the first place, they need natural selection to be, as
Darwin put it: "daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the
slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up
all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to
its organic and inorganic conditions of life." ("The Origin of Species,"
p.84)".
But when if that is not enough to explain major design changes in a short
time, they need a "a hopeful monster". However, then they need this ever-
vigilant natural selection to not notice this "clumsy intermediary". So
natural selection becomes a type of deux ex machina, to be summonsed to
centre stage when needed, and sent back to the wings when not!
AC>But what if there was intellegent selection? What if that is the
>form that ID takes?
I may have misunderstood Ami previously? If she is arguing for "intelligent
selection" then that is a form of "intervention", namely the "Intelligent
Design with `Natural' Intervention" of Farmer B.
[...]
Subject: Re: ID
On Fri, 19 May 2000 11:38:07 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
>BV>My version of ID is that life is designed by the intelligence contained
>>within life itself. To understand life we have to move beyond the simplistic
>>model envisioned by most materialists and include the ingredient that
>>distinguishes life from non-life -- choice. Intelligence of a sort is
>>included in every molecule of living matter. Intelligence and choice are
>>difficult to distinguish. Certainly choice couldn't exist in the absence of
>>intelligence.
I of course disagree with Berthajane about the Designer, but I agree that
her position is within ID. ID's basic claim is that there really is detectable
design in nature. ID itself makes no other claims about the Designer.
BV>This species of ID is new to me. I thought the overall designer, over
>and above the whole system, and distinct from agents within the system,
>was a sine a qua non.
It's not "new" at all. It is what former Reflectorite Mike B. Gene and I have
been arguing all along. I have quoted Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"
that the Designer could be naturalistic: e.g. aliens, time-travellers, and I
have added Hoyle's "intelligent universe".
ID theorists might have friendly debates within ID about the adequacy of
these alternatives, but they are all within ID. The only positions that are not
within ID are those which deny there is detectable design in nature.
>BV>I probably disagree with ID as most people conceive it, but I am not a
>>materialist.
CL>But "materialists" don't conceive of ID at all.
This has been debated on another ID List I am on. It was generally agreed
that some versions of "materialists" could be within ID (e.g. Hoyle). Only
those "materialists" who deny there really is design that is detectable are
not within ID.
Of course most "materialists" deny that there really is design, only
*apparent* design.
>BV>And I have developed a distaste for the arrogant intolerance of
>>most people who promote materialism.
CL>I have never seen the term 'materialism' promoted by those you call
>'materialists'.
If they believe that "matter is all there is", then they are "materialists" in the
*philosophical* (not the greedy for money) sense*:
"...materialism ... 1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or
fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be
explained as manifestations or results of matter"
(http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=materialism)
>BV>People in the ID movement dare to look beyond materialism.
CL>But they're the only ones who use the term!
Not really. Lewontin for example has claimed that scientists must have "a
commitment to materialism" and "Moreover, that materialism is absolute":
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense
is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the
supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of
some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our
*a priori* adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no
matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot
in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone
who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an
omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature
may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." (Lewontin R., "Billions and
Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a
Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997.
(emphasis in original.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970109028R@p6)
CL>They are hung up on it, working scientists are not.
First, Berthajne probably does not mean *all* "working scientists". But she
probably does mean the *leaders* among "working scientists", particular
the biological sciences, are philosophical "materialists". A fairly recent
survey published in NATURE (Larson E.J. & Witham L., "Scientists are
still keeping the faith," Nature, Vol. 386, 3 April 1997, p.435; Larson E.J.
& Witham L., "Leading scientists still reject God," Nature, Vol. 394, 23
July 1998, p.313) showed that while a majority of all scientists are atheists,
a greater majority of the leading scientists (i.e. in the National Academy of
Sciences) are atheists.
Second, some "working scientists" might not like to think of
themselves as philosophical "materialists" but they are, nonetheless,
if they believe that "physical matter is the only or fundamental reality
and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained
as manifestations or results of matter" ".
CL>Isn't there something wrong with calling people something they don't
>call themselves?
See above. Cliff has in fact produced no evidence that those "working
scientists" who fit the dictionary definition of philosophical "materialists"
object to the term.
CL>You can call yourself anything you want and I will
>accept that and refer to you as that. I won't apply terms to you that
>you don't apply to yourself.
See above. I doubt that Berthajane would object to being called something
if it accurately describes her position. I certainly don't.
The term "materialist" accurately describes the position of those who
believe that: "physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all
being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or
results of matter". Or as Carl Sagan put it:
"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." (Sagan C.,
"Cosmos," 1981, p.4).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was not only Darwin among the natural scientists who failed to pass
Chain's religious scrutiny. Another was Konrad Lorenz, of whom he spoke
in a speech-day address to Jews' College in London in 1972. `It is easy to
draw analogies between the behaviour of apes and man, and draw
conclusions from the behaviour of birds and fishes on human ethical
behaviour but all these analogies are superficial and have no general
significance. Of course there are similarities between all living matter, but
this fact does not allow the development of ethical guidelines for human
behaviour. All attempts to do this, such as Lorenz' studies on aggression in
animals suffer from the failure to take into account the all-important fact of
man's capability to think and to be able to control his passions, and are
therefore doomed to failure right from the beginning. It is the differences
between animal and man, not the similarities, which concern us...the
various speculations on cosmogony which are advanced from time to time,
are nothing more than an amusing pastime for those proposing them.'"
(Clark R.W., "The Life of Ernst Chain [Nobel Prize for Physiology &
Medicine, 1945]: Penicillin and Beyond," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London,
1985, p.148).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 24 2000 - 18:05:09 EDT