Okay, let me explain why I think ID is in the cards. What follows
is intended only as a synopsis, something pounded out
mostly on the spur of the moment. In the future, I may write
up a better, more well-documented, version.
It is my conviction that this whole subject of ancient origins is inherently
ambiguous [1]. This has a very significant implication, namely, that we
cannot truly let Nature dictate to us about these matters. Instead, we have
to approach Nature with previously existing mental templates.
We need these templates to connect the myriad of disconnected
dots. Put simply, when you are dealing in an immensely
complicated and ambiguous realm, the mental templates that
we place upon Nature become essential for generating
coherency.
In my opinion, Darwin's success was in crafting out the outlines of a robust
non-teleological template. That it also happened to represent a reductionist
approach made it very amenable to the developing science of his day.
Nevertheless, Darwin's ideas did not truly step on to the throne until almost
60 years after the publication of his treatise (known as the Modern
Synthesis).
When first formulated, Darwin's ideas were indeed plagued by very real
scientific problems (as understood by the science of his day). What then
was is that sustained this template until the formulation of the
Modern Synthesis? What prevented Darwin's ideas from being
ignored or rejected?
Clearly, it would seem, that the reductionist flavor of Darwinism went
a long way. In a Newtonian world, any explanation for the complexity
of the biotic world that apparently reduced it to a few simple premises
could not be ignored. But I also think the template Darwin crafted
tied in two other important sociological dynamics. First,
I do think a powerful dynamic behind the emergence of Darwinism
is that it was indeed seen as an argument against special creation.
As Robert Wesson writes:
"Darwin made himself the champion of natural science when its
intellectual prestige was rising sharply and the intellectual community
of Britain, then the most advanced country in the world, was seeking
to liberate itself from theological traditions. In an area of the utmost
philosophical, ethical, and religious significance, Darwinism became
the banner of those who would overthrow what they saw as an irrational,
superstitious view of human origins." - Beyond Natural Selection, p. 20
A third component of Darwin's template is its "derivation from classical
capitalist economic theory" (or so argues biologist S. Salthe). Salthe
writes:
"This is not just ad hominem because we live in a sociopolitical
system that itself derives from the classical capitalist ones.
This throws suspicion on the theory, in that it may be widely
supported (as it is) by folks in many fields of inquiry just
because it fits so intelligibly within the world we have created
around us. This obscures questions of its "truth", so that this
becomes undecidable under philosophical inspection. As will
be explained in (8), below, the values implied by this theory
derive from its privileging of short term gain, expedience
and opportunism, which are coherent with capitalism." -
http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/anacri.99.08.html
Thus, what sustained and strengthened Darwinism during
its vulnerable years were the following components of
the template: a promising non-teleological/reductionist
perspective on reality; a tool to beat back the stifling
theological dogmas of the day; a nice fit with the economic
conditions that can only shape how we see the world. [2]
With that in mind, let's look to the possible future.
1. Reductionism - While the reductionist approach will not
be abandoned, it will become less and less important. Indeed,
there are already mainstream biologists who have noted we
are now entering the post-reductionist era.
2. Economics - Classical capitalism is giving way
to a form of planned capitalism with the entrenchment
of huge socialist-like governments and mega-corporations.
3. Religion - This is the wild card, for unless secular
society can meet the moral challenges of biotechnology,
an immense grass roots movement may reinstate religious
morality as a component of public life. But let us assume
the continuation and entrenchment of a secular mindset.
If theistic interventionists are defeated once and for all,
there is no longer a true threat to fight against. That is
key.
What all these factors mean is that the supporting framework
for the Darwinian template is eroding [3]. If biology becomes
less and less reductionist, and our economic surroundings
look less and less like "survival of the fittest," and it becomes
safe for scientists to openly critique and question Darwinism
while no longer having to worry about "giving ammunition to
the creationists," the Darwinian stranglehold will loosen.
But what about all the evidence, someone might say?
What evidence? The Darwinian mechanism has largely
been tagged on to the evidence of evolution. That is,
while we have plenty of evidence of common descent,
we have very little evidence to indicate it *was* the Darwinian
mechanism behind most/all of this evolution (that
is, if we think about the various major evolutionary transitions
that occurred so long ago). In fact, there are already mainstream
paleontologists, developmental biologists, and molecular
biologists that are moving in a direction that should be causing
Darwin to turn in his grave, namely, they are moving away from
gradualism and its slow, groping climb up Mt. Improbable.
But let's go back to ID. As it stands today, the template that ID
uses (or rather, I should say that the template used currently
by most ID proponents) is essentially theistic. It is true that
most ID proponents note that we do not need to invoke God
as the designer and they are correct. Nevertheless, it appears
that most ID proponents do indeed draw from the religious
template. But that's really a minor observation. The really
important point, that most people seem to miss (as a consequence
of being caught up in their socio-political battles) is that these
theists have abandoned the necessary connection between
ID/teleology and theism. The only group that seems to
recognize the huge significance of this move are the creationists
who, while quite appreciative of the "success" of the ID movement,
nevertheless, seem quite bothered by this divorce.
So what do we have thus far? A secular future without a religious
threat, an eroding Darwinian template, and a divorce between
teleology and theism. Why is ID/teleology in the cards? Because
the stage is being set and the non-teleologists have always vastly
underestimated the power/appeal of teleology (which has only been
around for over 2500 years).
Let's tell a simple history. Once upon a time there existed a
spiritual and religious gestalt. This way of looking at the world
was held by most, common man and academic man. Teleology
was quite comfortable in this world. Then along came the
mechanistic, then secular gestalt. Teleology, having wedded itself
to the spiritual world, was out of place. It sought niches in things
like vitalism and progressive evolution, but was thoroughly
uprooted. The only place left for teleology to express itself
was in the form of theistic interventionism, but as time went
on, this was easily "exposed" and seen as the raw expression
of that religious template.
The result is that it has become safe for biologists to play with
teleology. It has been effectively caged, so its concepts can
be borrowed. (On the ARN forum, I posted something
relevant at this point:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000200.html)
Thus, scientists feel safe teaching about homeostasis
not by appealing to chemistry, but by appealing to a thermostat
and furnace. They teach about the cell as a computer and
a factory full of molecular machines. In fact, it is not uncommon
at all to hear or read a biologist describe "the design" of some
feature. The language and concepts so common in modern
biology would not in any way cause great discomfort to
a diehard teleologist (to say the least)!
How long can biology get by while playing with such fire?
It's safe to do so today because the only ones who would
dare interpret this language literally are those who rely on
the religious template (or so it is assumed). But the seeds
are being laid and with the right fertilizer, what might just
sprout? What if another template emerges?
Currently, even though origins are so thoroughly ambiguous,
ID has a hard time getting off the ground because it is indebted
to a religious template in a secular age. Thus, all ID needs is
a new template and the tiger is out of his cage.
The human race has passed through several stages of development.
With our industrial revolution, we have designed machines to
constrain and use the laws of Nature to our ends. Then comes
the information age, where not only do we learn, we learn to
make better machines. Where do we go from here? What
does a human being do when he has both the tools and the
understanding? He makes. That is, the Industrial Era giving
rise to the Information Era will inevitably give rise to the
Era of Creation.
Many already see the coming Biotech Century. But the Biotech
century, as part of the Era of Creation, will also be the century
of vastly improved computer technology, including better virtual
reality, better robotics, and perhaps artificial intelligence. It
will be an era where nanotechnology will begin to emerge.
The Biotech side will evolve from tinkering and
experimenting with life to designing and redesigning life.
More and more biology will be done by corporations rather
than universities. The template for ID will emerge.
If religion is once-and-for-all sequestered in the realm of
the purely subjective, the Darwinian template will no longer
seem all that appealing -> It will no longer be needed. In a world
where humans have blurred the distinctions, such that some
life is "natural" and other life is "designed," how much sense
will it make to insist that what is "natural" was never artificial?
In a world where humans begin to explore and colonize other
planets, bringing with them their life forms designed to facilitate
such exploration and colonization, how much sense will it make
to insist that life arose on this planet without such agency
intervention?
The point is simply that when we begin to literally design
our biosphere and create extraterrestrial biospheres, a
natural template is in place. For decades our scientists have
employed the teleological concepts to life and seeds of
teleology will sprout. At this time, seriously suggesting
that the first life forms on our planet were designed by
another intelligence such that evolution itself was either
designed or constrained by this design will not seem
like a religious claim nor a claim that is out of place
in the sociological climate. It will be out of place no
more so than reductionist accounts of the origin of life
are out of place today. [4]
Now, as I see it, there is only one thing that non-teleologists
can do to ensure this future does not happen and two things
teleologists can do to set the stage for their eventual
arrival of the stage. And since the task is much harder for
the former than the latter, again, teleology is in the cards.
What can non-teleologists do? Eliminate the ambiguity.
As I see it, that is their only hope. Unless they move
beyond the "could happen" explanations, and pin-point
the unambiguous evidence that indicates abiogenesis
happened and evolutionary transitions occurred by their
non-teleological mechanisms, they will essentially have
nothing more than stories that depend on their template
and the prevailing gestalt. Good luck to them.
What can teleologists do? First, co-opt evolution for
their own (which doesn't necessarily have to mean universal
common descent). There is no reason evolution should
be the exclusive property of the non-teleologists. Yet much
of the current debate about origins still has most teleologists
flirting or embracing some rather thorough anti-evolution stands.
This allows the non-teleologists to distract from their incredibly
vulnerable state concerning mechanisms (which they still concede
as "being in dispute") and instead focus on common descent. As
I see it, every Darwinist should wake up every morning and thank
Chance that Creationists exist. It not only keeps unity among the
non-teleologists, through opposition to the "forces of superstition"
that just happens to works at quieting internal skepticism for
fear of giving ammunition to the enemy, but also draws
attention to common descent and not their mechanism (which
they can smuggle in as an adjective about common descent).
Secondly, teleologists need only show that teleology
does work to help us understand the biological world. And not
only in the molecular/cellular sciences, but also with
evolution itself. It doesn't have to disprove a non-teleological
interpretation. It doesn't have to be needed. It doesn't have
to be flashy. It only has to work. It only has to provide some
form of pay-off.
Look at it this way. There is no need for a proof of ID.
There is no need for a sensational ID break-through. What's more,
there is no need to convince a single ID critic in existence today
(sorry people).
All that is needed is this: if the debate shifts from evolution to
mechanism, if teleology works, and if the future undermines
the Darwinian template's reason for existence, along with
introducing a template that introduces a teleological
inertia, once again, ID is in the cards.
[1] This is the fundamental starting point. If you are
a "true believer" on either side of this issue, then most
of the points I make in this essay will probably be
misunderstood.
[2] I anticipate knee-jerk reactions where some will
think I am trying to discredit Darwinism by appealing
to extra-scientific dynamics. I am not. I am simply
suggesting dynamics that help explain how Darwinism
became embraced by so many in an ambiguous world.
Of course, even if my observations are valid, this does
not count against the truth-status of the Darwinian
view.
[3] Keep in mind that this essay is an explanation of
my perceptions. Recall that I am only explaining why
I personally think ID "is in the cards."
[4] I am not making any truth claims about ID here.
I am simply outlining how a new mental template
for teleology appears inevitable as a consequence
of the way we implicitly treat life as a product of
design and the way will soon begin to explicitly
design the biotic world around us.
For what it's worth,
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 00:35:03 EDT