At 10:37 AM 8/24/00 +0100, Richard wrote:
>From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
[...]
>I think we need to distinguish between design of the system and design of
>events occurring within the system. (I'll set aside the question of
>"meaning" which is rather different, and, for convenience, I'll lump
>together "purpose, plan and design" as simply "design".)
It is not clear to me why you set aside meaning but not purpose or plan.
It seems to me that all these are closely related. Some time ago I wrote
something about why I feel meaning purpose and plan are not useful ideas
in science. Rather than repeat that let me give a link to the archives:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199906/0180.html
What seems continually lacking in these discussions is a definition of what
it means to be designed. I know Howard is continually asking for a definition
of intelligent design (as used by those advocating ID). Let me give a few
possibilities, hopefully this will encourage presentation of other possible
definitions.
When I think of the word design I think of "mindful intention" (I think these
are Howard's words). This is, I believe, the way the word would most typically
be used by engineers. It separates the concept from the fabrication process.
What are some other ideas? For Cuvier, design was identified as an optimal
fitting of form to function. I suppose it would be fair to characterize
Paley the
same way.
What is lurking below the surface (at least for Cuvier, it was explicit for
Paley) is that form and function are optimal because a specific form
that would perform a specific function was in the mind of the Creator.
IOW, the form has a Purpose.
Richard Owen's view was quite different and also more realistic from an
engineering perspective. Owen emphasized that any real situation would
be plagued by constraints or trade-offs. Thus, he did not expect optimality
and actually employed the argument from imperfection before Darwin (and
long before Gould or Dawkins :).
Owen expected to find design in terms of some generic type. Specific forms
can be seen as variations on a theme. BTW, Owen coined the term homology.
[as a side light, I found the argument from irreducible complexity in Owen's
writings. For an argument from irreducible simplicity, see James Clerk
Maxwell :)]
Now, how about Dawkins? First an aside. One often hears something like
this: "Design in nature is obvious. Why, even Richard Dawkins believes in
design." Well, Dawkins is an adaptationist and design in the above sense
(optimality of form to function (given constraints)) is a fundamental part of
adaptationism. I read somewhere that some famous adaptationist required
his students to read Paley in order to help them recognize design. Anyway,
to say "even Richard Dawkins believes in design" is like saying "even
Phillip Johnson believes in God." :)
Interestingly, if you look at the adaptationist literature one finds common
usage
of the word "design" without Dawkins' additional "apparent". What is meant by
design is what I've indicated above. But Dawkins wants to add what is lurking
below the surface for Cuvier. Apparent design is something that appears to
have been designed for a purpose. Perhaps this is a good point to illustrate
the difference between myself and people like Dawkins. Many people would
take apparent to mean "it appears to be but it is not". I would say "It appears
to be but we can't say since we have no way of dealing with purpose in science.
Thus, we analyze things irrespective of purpose just as we measure the amount
of information irrespective of its meaning. We cannot conclude from the
latter that
there is no meaning. Nor can we conclude from the former that there is no
purpose."
Yes, I know, my version is somewhat longer.
Well, I think I'm writing too much. Better move on. :)
RW:==
>I would say that "random" in this context *does* mean without design. If
>some designer is guiding the events of evolution, whether detectable or not,
>then I say they are not random.
>
>To take your example of an engineer building a Darwinian system, I would say
>that the system as a whole is designed, but the random events occurring
>within it are not. To take a specific example of human design, a roulette
>wheel is designed, but the outcome of individual spins is not.
More interesting (to me) is to look at the final result of the process. The
machine
or whatever that was made using this Darwinian imitation approach. Is this
thing
designed? It seems not to be the case if one uses the criteria present in
Cuvier
and Dawkins wherein the specific form must be in the mind of the designer at
the beginning. I would add that this criteria, though seldom stated, is
probably
a part of most people's conception of design.
RW:==
>One further complication is that we need to distinguish between design and
>determinism. We may consider an event to be random even if it's outcome is
>predetermined, providing we have insufficient knowledge to conduct the
>determination. For example, it may be that a sufficiently detailed analysis
>of the roulette wheel would enable us to predetermine the outcome of the
>next spin. (Actually, a roulette wheel may be such a chaotic system that
>this is not the case, but bear with me.) We would still consider the spin to
>be random, because we know that such a predetermination is not a practical
>possibility. On the other hand, suppose the wheel were rigged so the
>croupier can fix exactly what the next outcome will be, and does so. In this
>case, we would *not* say that the spin is random, even though, from the
>punters' point of view, each outcome is still equally likely.
>
>So, if a designer has been manipulating the events of evolution to produce a
>desired result, then evolution is not a random process. On the other hand,
>if a designer set up the evolutionary mechanism and then let it run without
>interference, then the process of evolution is random, and is without
>purpose, plan or design.
Here I have a real problem following you since, as far as I'm concerned, the
evidence for evolution *not* being random seems overwhelming. Provided,
of course, that a technical meaning of the word random is being used.
Let's get back to my engineer. Here the "designer" sets up the simulation
and lets it run without interference. Whether the result is "designed" depends
upon the definition of design, as I've shown above. But one can hardly argue
that it is without purpose or plan.
Hey, thanks for your challenging comments. Its a lot of fun trying to think
about this stuff. :)
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 25 2000 - 16:05:40 EDT