Reflectorites
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:43:17 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>SJ>The point is that one can be "agnostic" about the Designer. One could
>>believe the Designer to be "deistic", theistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, or
>>just leave the identity of the Designer unresolved "agnostic". Fred Hoyle's
>>"intelligent universe" (and maybe Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis) would
>>probably be acceptable under ID.
CL>If all those things are acceptable under ID, maybe my stuff is too.
>Maybe the designer is an agnostic.
I have already told Cliff privately when he sent me his parabiosis theory
that IMHO it would be acceptable under ID if it were shown to be true.
ID is not opposed to the Designer realising His designs through
intermediate natural processes. IOW ID is not committed to YEC-style
instantaneous creation of whole new organisms.
>SJ>Since we are talking about the kind of evidence that *I* could provide, on
>>this List, this just again goes to show that evolutionists request for
>>"evidence for ID" is meaningless. It is like a creationist saying he would
>>believe in evolution if an evolutionist would bring Charles Darwin back
>>from the dead, or build a time machine and take the creationist back to
>>witness the origin of life or a major macroevolutionary transition.
CL>The time machine idea seems completely reasonable. I would think
>a creationist would have to become a theistic evolutionist if he were
>able to witness the process. Or if he became so convinced through
>analysis of the evidence we have of the past.
If Cliff thinks that "a creationist saying he would believe in evolution if an
evolutionist would ...build a time machine and take the creationist back to
witness the origin of life or a major macroevolutionary transition" is "
completely reasonable", then it yet "again goes to show that evolutionists
request for "evidence for ID" is meaningless"! Requests for "evidence"
*on this List* must be the sort of "evidence" that one can provide *on this
List*.
>SJ>I admire Cliff's honesty and self-awareness here. He at least acknowledges
>>his prior "built-in prejudice in favor of naturalistic explanation". But then
>>he should also acknowledge that his repeated requests that I provide
>>evidence for ID is therefore meaningless.
CL>Not at all; I'm simply curious about what you would have to say, other
>than railing against the mere asking of the question.
It seems that Cliff has more time on his hands than I have to waste it on
questions he does not really want an answer for? So in future, when Cliff
asks me for evidence for ID, to avoid wasting my time, I will just quote
this back to him:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/200006/0088.html
Re: macroevolution or macromutations? (was ID) 1/2
From: Cliff Lundberg (cliff@cab.com)
Date: Tue Jun 13 2000 - 05:43:17 EDT
[...]
>SJ>I admire Cliff's honesty and self-awareness here. He at least acknowledges
>>his prior "built-in prejudice in favor of naturalistic explanation". But then
>>he should also acknowledge that his repeated requests that I provide
>>evidence for ID is therefore meaningless.
CL>Not at all; I'm simply curious about what you would have to say, other
>than railing against the mere asking of the question.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>The question Cliff might ask himself is, how could his position ever be
>>falsified? That is, if design was real, how would Cliff ever know it?
CL>There's no design without a designer. The existence of the designer is
>what this is all about. Well, better minds than ours have failed to prove
>that.
It is interesting how Cliff slides away from answering the question:
"if design was real, how would Cliff ever know it?"
Them question of who the designer is, is a separate question. Berthajane
accepts there is design but is agnostic about the designer, and I leave
it at that. As Cliff points out, there is no way to "prove" that there
is a designer from the fact of design, let alone that the designer is
the Christian God.
But Cliff is apparently so prejudiced against the thought that there
might be a designer who *could* be the Christian God, that he refuses
to even consider that there could actually be good empirical evidence
for design.
>>CL>I like to puzzle out
>>>particulars; the one big all-inclusive answer is boring to me.
>SJ>There is no reason why accepting "one big all-inclusive answer" should be
>>"boring". If God created the raw materials of the universe and then
>>progressively modified them over 15 billion years (which is what I believe)
>>the task of trying to find out how He did it anything but "boring"!
>CL>How would this puzzling out of particulars differ from they way I would
>puzzle out the particulars of past events?
I didn't say that it differed. It was *Cliff's* point that it differed,
i.e. ID was "boring" whereas his approach was not.
The fact is that I, and some other IDers (like Mike B. Gene), are as
much interested in working out the "puzzle" as Cliff is. In fact,
Cliff is a rarity among evolutionists on this List. Most of them
are not interested in puzzling out the details, because they have
"one big all-inclusive answer", namely "evolution"!
>>CL>How about 'idealist-naturalist?' You do realize that idealism is not the
>>>exclusive property of theism or 'designerism'? A philosophical idealist
>>>may simply be a person who thinks ideas and values and words are more
>>>interesting and important than physics and chemistry. There's no necessary
>>>connection to ID or theism.
>SJ>I deliberately add "materialist" for *precisely* that very reason - that there
>>is an "idealist-naturalist" position which I might have no problem with.
>>Arthur Koestler, for example his essay "An Intimate Dialogue" in Koestler
>>A., "Kaleidoscope," 1981, was probably an idealist-naturalist and he was
>>antimaterialist/anti-Darwinist for that reason.
>>
>>So is Cliff claiming to be an "Idealist-naturalist"? If so I would be
>>interested in Cliff stating briefly what he sees as the main tenets of the
>>"idealist-naturalist" position and the main difference between it and that of
>>materialist-naturalists.
CL>I proposed the term as a counter to the false connotations of the
>'materialist-naturalist' term. An idealist-naturalist would be a naturalist
>who is interested not in the substance of the universe, but in the forms,
>the logic, the ideas and values we deal with. I think this describes most
>naturalists. As for 'materialist-naturalists', I leave it for those who use the
>term to define it.
Well my argument is against "*materialist*-naturalism", which is the
*dominant* position in modern science. If I ever came across a person on
this List who claimed to be an idealist-naturalist, I would have to see if I
disagreed with him/her at the level of ID.
>SJ>I have in the past made it clear (as does Johnson) that "materialism" in this
>>sense is the claim that "matter is all there is".
CL>There are no values, no ideas, no good or evil, no dreams? Who thinks
>that?
The materialists would say that ultimately all "values, ..ideas, ... good or
evil, ... dreams" are either matter or the products of matter:
"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).
But the fact that materialists cannot consistently live by their creed is an
argument *against* it, not for it.
>SJ>"Naturalism and materialism mean essentially the same thing for present
>>purposes, and so I use the terms interchangeably. Naturalism means that
>>nature is all there is; materialism means that matter (i.e., the fundamental
>>particles that make up both matter and energy) is all there is. Because
>>evolutionary naturalists insist that nature is made up of those particles,
>>there is no difference between naturalism and materialism. In other
>>contexts, however, the terms may have different meanings. Materialism
>>sometimes used to mean greedy for material possessions, as in "he who
>>dies with the most toys wins." Naturalism also has quite different meanings
>>in other contexts, such art and literary criticism. These other meanings are
>>irrelevant for our purposes." (Johnson P.E., "Defeating Darwinism by
>>Opening Minds", 1997, pp.15-16)
CL>If Johnson means this, that naturalism and materialism are the same, then
>why does he use the controversial latter term at all?
Probably because it is less clumsy than joining them together like I do
(which Cliff objects to as well)!
>SJ>Here I must disagree. I try to use mainstream terms that *accurately*
>>describe a position. For example I accurately distinguished between
>>"materialist-naturalist" and "idealist-naturalist". If Cliff claims
>>to be an "idealist-naturalist", and it fits the mainstream defintion
>>of same, then I will start calling his position by that term.
CL>It would be interesting if a term I just invented had a mainstream
>definition.
I have seen it somewhere. But the nearest I can find is this:
"Forms of Metaphysical Naturalism. Metaphysical naturalists are of two
basic kinds: materialists and pantheists. The materialist reduces all to
matter (see MATERIALISM) and the pantheist reduces all to mind or
spirit. Both deny that any supernatural realm intervenes in the natural
world. They differ chiefly about whether the natural world is composed
ultimately of matter or of mind (spirit). Those who hold the latter often
admit the possibility of supernormal events by tapping into this invisible
spiritual Force (see MIRACLE; MIRACLES, MAGIC AND). However,
these are not supernatural events in the theistic sense of a supernatural
being intervening in the natural world he created." (Geisler N.L., "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", 1999, p.521)
>SJ>Maybe Cliff has been reading too much *materialist* rewriting of history!
>>:-) Most of the leading scientists of the 16-19th centuries were devout
>>Christians (even Gallileo still after his recantation), and they wrote books
>>on Christian topics also. One of these, Pascal's Pensees is a Christian
>>classic.
CL>They drew heavily upon Aristotle's philosophy, even as they were improving
>on his facts.
No doubt. But that doesn't change what I said.
>SJ>But the reverse doesn't necessarily apply. While a Designer could work
>>either supernaturally and/or naturally, rapidly and/or slowly, the same
>>is not true of a `blind watchmaker'. *All* naturalistic theories need
>>the `blind watchmaker' to build complex designs, and the latter can only,
>>work slowly, step-by-tiny step.
CL>Completely ignoring symbiosis theory.
No. "symbiosis theory" also needs "the `blind watchmaker' to build complex
designs". All that "symbiosis theory" does is merge already produced
designs together. Cliff can verbally espouse a `symbiosis all the way
down' but it is just `hand-waving' unless Cliff explains *in detail* how
symbiosis could build complex designs in the first place.
>SJ>I have answered this before. It is IMHO just `handwaving' by Cliff. There
>>are several major problems with the serial endosymbiotic theory (SET) that
>>I have outlined, and even if it were true, it would not explain the design
>>features of the "symbionts".
CL>Those evolved separately, perhaps through other levels of symbiosis.
Only "perhaps"? If Cliff claims his explanation is fully naturalistic and
yet does not need the` blind watchmaker'he *has* to claim it *was* "through
other levels of symbiosis". Otherwise, if Cliff relies on the` blind
watchmaker' to get his theory over the difficulties, then he does not
need symbiosis except to explain the origin of the eukaryotic cell. And
Margulis has already beaten Cliff too that.
>SJ>And it would not explain the design features *above* the level of the
>>eukaryotic cell.
CL>As I suggested recently, symbiosis could work at every level.
So "could" the `blind watchmaker' "work at every level". So could ID or
creation for that matter. If Cliff is espousing a fully naturalistic theory
which is superior to the fully naturalistic theory (i.e. Neo-Darwinism)
taught in all the textbooks, then he needs to show it is better than it.
>SJ>Besides, no SET advocate AFAIK claims it happened in "a leap".
CL>I don't see how genomic integration could be gradual. It wouldn't
>work if the genetic material were divided.
Well, the fact is that even now in eukaryotes, "the genetic material" *is*
"divided". Mitochondria have their own DNA (i.e. mtDNA) and as well
the cells nuclear DNA controls the mitochondria.
Standard endosymbiotic theory proposes that the mitiochondrion was once
a free-living prokaryotic cell and another prokaryote engulfed it and the
two cells formed a symbiotic relationship which gradually became a
merger as the two genomes largeely integrated and the redundant
functions in both cells were lost.
Because the eukaryote flagellum is a competely different structure from
that of prokaryotes, endosymbiotic theory must also maintain there was a
second merger of another prokaryote and that became the eukarotes
flagellum (why it didn't just use one of the two flagella they already had is
not explained). So endosymbiotic theory had to become *serial*
endosymbiotic theory (SET).
But that is not all. Margulis had to also maintain the centrioles were
another endosymbiotic event:
"The argument that mitochondria are the descendents of incorporated
bacteria is quite convincing. Mitochondria can grow and divide. By the
mid-'sixties it had been shown that they possess double-stranded DNA and
can manufacture most of the proteins they need - but not all, having
presumably found they could pick some of them up from the host cell. But
Lynn Margulis took the idea further, proposing that at least two other
features of the eukaryotic cell had been acquired by endosymbiotic means.
One was the flagellum, the whip-like structure which propels some
eukaryotic cells. (Structurally, it is different from and more complex than
the cilia of simple cells.) Noting that the Protist Myxotricha is propelled by
spirochaetes attached to its surface, she proposed that flagella are
incorporated spirochaetes. Finally in 1970 she completed the picture by
suggesting that the centriole- the device which separates the chromosomes
at cell division - was also of endosymbiotic origin. The eukaryotic cell, it
seems, is an ogre who has enslaved no fewer than four other organisms to
work for it. Of course, this daring hypothesis leaves us with numerous
problems. How, for instance, did the cell manage before it acquired
mitochondria? Why is some of the old circular DNA left over in the
cytoplasm? Do the plastids of plants and the mitochondria of animals have
a common origin? And so on. (Taylor G.R., "The Great Evolution
Mystery", 1983, p.212)
Moreover, because eukaryotic algae and plant cells have another different
organelle, the chloroplast, SET must postulate a *fifth* endosymbiotic
event *all in the same line*.
And, apart from making Darwinism a mere bystander to this, arguably the
greatest `evolutionary' change in the history of life, SET does not explain
other major structures of the cell, such as the "nucleolus, the Golgi
apparatus, or the microtubules":
However, we need not pursue these technical points. All we need do is
register the fact that Darwinian theory scarcely explains such an astonishing
development. To be sure, to postulate endosymbiosis is not an explanation;
it is simply a description. It offers no explanation of how meiosis appeared.
It does not account for the appearance of novel structures such as the
nucleolus, the Golgi apparatus, or the microtubules which distinguish the
eukaryotic cell. Above all, it does not explain how DNA came to be
organised into chromosomes and enveloped in a nuclear membrane. In
short, far too many things seem to have been happening at once for chance
to be an adequate explanation, and we are left with an enigma." (Taylor
G.R., "The Great Evolution Mystery", 1983, p.212)
Now Cliff's account of this is that it all happened by "macromutations"
and that there were an "astronomical" number of them, out of which only
the fittest survived. Since macromutations that could non-gradually merge
the genomes of existing cells would be the equivalent of a genetic miracle
and since there is no record of such a macromutation ever having occurred
(or even how it *could* occur), if a time traveller from the future
witnessed such a macromutation he would have good grounds for thinking
it *was* a miracle!
But Cliff would have to postulate that this type of macromutation
happened not once, but at least *three times*, in the *same line*. But it
gets worse. Cliff claims he needs "astronomical" numbers of such
macromutations (or is it just mutations?-see below) in order to get away
from the design inference that free-living prokaryotes seeking out their
own immediate advantage on at least three separate occasions, managed to
get it so right that they contained everything that was needed to build
all the plants, fungi and animals *2 billion years* into the future!
IMHO the serial endosymbiotic theory for the origin of eukaryotes is
probably correct, and makes a great `construction project' argument for
design!
>SJ>If this type of explanation were true, it would completely *gut* Cliff's own
>>"symbionts" theory. Why bother with "symbionts"? Just answer every hard
>>question with "In the natural world things happen when they happen"!
CL>The point is that the timing is not important, what's important is what
>happened, not precisely when it happened.
Looking back I mistakenly used "the right time" twice. What I meant to
sau was:
"b) that they *could* occur regularly, in the right order, at the right time,
when needed-naturalistically;"
Cliff's answer about "when it happened" does not address the "in the right
order" or "when needed" issues. In fact it does not even address the "at
the right time" issue!
CL>In the natural world things happen when they happen. If it looks to you like
>something unlikely is going on, since things happen precisely when they do,
>and not at some other times, you can give your reasons for that. Regularity
>is not an issue; a lot of crucial evolutionary developments could have been
>one-time events.
>SJ>The fact is that "evolutionary events" *had* to happen in the right order,
>>at the right time, to the right organisms, or they would be worse than
>>useless.
CL>You're ignoring the astronomical number of mutations that were
>unsuccessful, that happened in the wrong order, at the wrong time,
>to the wrong organisms, that were indeed worse than useless.
See above. Cliff is claiming it was by *"macromutations*. Is he claiming it
was "astronomical number of" *macro*-"mutations"? Or is he just back
with good old gradual Darwinism, with its "astronomical number of
mutations"?
If the former, why does Cliff need his pan-symbiosis theory?
Macromutations (especially an "astronomical number" of them) could do it
all. If the latter, why does Cliff need his pan-symbiosis theory? An
"astronomical number of' *micro*-"mutations" coupled with Margulis'
SET theory, is what even Dawkins believes:
"An especially important event along these lines, according to the
increasingly favoured theory of the American biologist Lynn Margulis, took
place at the origin of the so-called eukaryotic cell... Mitochondria and
chloroplasts have their own DNA, which replicates and propagates itself
entirely independently of the main DNA in the chromosomes of the
nucleus...Margulis's theory is that mitochondria and chloroplasts, and a few
other structures inside cells, are each descended from bacteria. The
eukaryotic cell was formed, perhaps 2 billion years ago, when several kinds
of bacteria joined forces because of the benefits that each could obtain from
the others. Over the aeons they have become so thoroughly integrated into
the cooperative unit that became the eukaryotic cell, that it has become
almost impossible to detect the fact, if indeed it is a fact, that they were
once separate bacteria." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991,
p.176)
>SJ>My point is that "Darwin and Dawkins" are *right* - if intelligent design is
>>ruled out. IOW, if I was a naturalistic evolutionist, I would be a fairly
>>strict Neo-Darwinist, like Dawkins. It is the *only* viable overall position,
>>assuming there is no God.
CL>How can you rule out symbiosis, and what is the connection to God?
>It's just an historical mechanical question, how did it happen?
See above. I do not "rule out symbiosis". I don't "rule out" *anything*!
And "the connection to God" is that the evidence looks too me like an
Intelligent Designer planned and effected it all 2 billion years ago, so that
the right free-living prokaryotes merged together so that 2 billion years
later, Cliff and I are having a debate over the Internet about it, using brain
cells that were built from the body plan of one of those free-living
prokaryotes:
"We and all beings made of nucleated cells are probably composities [sic?],
mergers of once different creatures. The human brain cells that conceived
these creatures are themselves chimeras-no less fantastic mergers of several
formerly independent kinds of prokaryotes that together coevolved.
(Margulis L. & Sagan D., "Microcosmos", 1986, p.120)
>SJ>Cliff might think they are "wrong" but he has no real consistent
>>design-building alternative to put in its place. SET theory might explain the
>>origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts in the eukaryotic cell as relics of
>>freeliving prokaryotes, but even then it is only half an explanation.
CL>Again, the point is that here is a mechanism, a wrinkle not envisioned
>by Darwin, one which could function at various levels.
Cliff hasn't shown that it *is* "a mechanism". To everyone else
on this List except Cliff, it looks just like `hand-waving'.
>SJ>It does not explain the origin of the prokaryotic symbionts themselves,
>>which also have *fantastic* design features like DNA-mRNA transcription,
>>mRNA-protein translation via ribosomes, and the Golgi apparatus, which is
>>just *mind-blowing*:
CL>Right, how can you envision this complex arising step-by-step?
I don't have to "envision this complex arising step-by-step". Under
my progressive creationist paradigm I could quite consistently
postulate the entire cell arose de novo in one fell swoop!
But I believe the pattern in Genesis 1 is of God working supernaturally
through natural processes, so I assume that it was "step-by-step" but that it
was not fully naturalistic but God at strategic points *guided*
the process and even supernaturally intervened to modify existing
genetic code.
As I set out in my recent "exciting ID research program" post, my basic
methodology would be to take the existing flowchart of how the
eukaryotic cell's components arose, and note the existing naturalistic
explanations for same. Where they account for all the evidence, I would
accept same, since the Christian God is in control of both natural and
supernatural events.
But if the naturalistic explanations have intractable problems, and it is a
strategic or non-trivial juncture, I would hypothesise, subject to testing,
that there may have been supernatural guidance/intervention at that point.
As I develop my biological knowledge, I plan to become more detailed in
such hypotheses, so they can be more rigorously tested (as far as it is
possible to test such unique events in the distant past).
So at the moment how the cell and its components originated "step-by-
step" is admittedly difficult to envisage, even with the
guidance/intervention of an Intelligent Designer. But if it is difficult to
envisaging with the guidance/intervention of an Intelligent Designer, how
much harder would it be to envisage it happening without?
Now maybe Cliff can explain how he, under his *fully naturalistic*
paradigm, envisions "this complex arising" either "step-by-step" or
otherwise?
>SJ>Big symbionts invited little symbionts
>> into their cytoplasm to bite 'em,
>>and little symbionts invited littler symbionts,
>> and so ad infinitum! :-)
CL>Big symbionts would be complexes built up from smaller ones.
It is easy to *say* this, but Cliff needs to show how
>SJ>but it just gets worse. The idea that the mindless accidental actions of
>>bacteria eating each other over 2 billion years, just happened to assemble
>>the right components, to build all multicellular plants, fungi and animals for
>>the next 2 billion years, with cellular machinery that is so ingeniously
>>complex, that it makes Captain Kirk's Starship Enterprise look like a balsa
>>wood glider, is simply, in Denton's words, "an affront to reason"!
SJ>Good ol' personal incredulity. You can't understand it, therefore it must
>be supernatural. Religion can be quite egotistic.
I don't say above that I "can't understand it". My problem is that I *do*
"understand" *too much* of "it", to be satisfied with Cliff's `hand-waving'
explanations.
I at least am facing up to the most obvious fact of all if the serial
endosymbiotic theory for the origin of eukaryotes is true, as I believe it is,
then the...actions of bacteria eating each other..." *did* in fact "assemble
the right components, to build all multicellular plants, fungi and animals
for the next 2 billion years". And moreover I am proposing a genearal
explanation of how that could i.e. it was *not* "mindless" and
"accidental".
Now those who want to propose a naturalistic theory of how that could
happen are welcome to do so. But to date Cliff just avoids the problem
altogether with hand-waving explanations like "In the natural world things
happen when they happen" that don't even satisfy his own side, and
combined with accusing his opponent of "personal incredulity".
But before Cliff starts throwing the "personal incredulity" stone, let him
consider his own glass house. Cliff's whole symbiosis alternative theory is
based on the fact that Cliff personally cannot see how Darwinist
gradualism could work, e.g.:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL>I don't see how genomic integration could be gradual. It wouldn't work if
the genetic material were divided."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the major difference between Cliff (and all other
atheists/agnostics) and theists like me is in fact a *giant* "personal
incredulity" issue. They simply cannot (or more likely don't want to)
believe that there could be a God who is *real*. To them that is therefore
personally "incredible":
"If so, it [natural selection] will present a parallel to the theory of evolution
itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by
logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative,
special creation, is clearly incredible." (Watson D.M.S. [Professor of
Paleontology], "Adaptation", Nature, No. 3119, Vol. 124, August 10,
1929, pp.231-234).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Animals are clearly not machines, but neither are they slightly diminished
human beings. Intellectual understanding is not found in any degree in any
animal but man. The human capacity to understand the what and the why
of things is unique in the animal kingdom. With respect to this faculty, man
is different in *kind* from animals, not in degree. The difference between
apes and other animals is one of degree, since they possess the same kinds
of powers to a greater or less extent. But a greater gap separates man from
ape than that which separates any two other natural creatures. (Augros,
Robert & Stanciu, George, "The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in
Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.82.
Emphasis in original)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 28 2000 - 18:19:26 EDT