>>>Richard Wein: ... I frequently see people invoking the dichotomies of natural vs supernaturaland material vs non-material, but I've yet to see adequate definitions of these terms. The definitions I've seen have always been vague or circular in some way. Yet these concepts seem to form a major part of some people's arguments, especially of those anti-evolutionists (such as Phillip Johnson) who accuse evolutionists of rejecting Intelligent Design out of hand due to their alleged commitment to "materialism". ...
*******************
DNAunion: Richard is looking for an absolute, clear demarcation line that accurately, precisely, and
unambiguously separates the "material" from the "non-material". I wish to respond to a very similar
argument he and others have put forth in the past (I hope I do not misrepresent Richard’s past statements in
the process).
The basic idea is that without knowing the history of an object or process, we cannot conclude whether or
not that particular thing was designed until we have in place a 100% full-proof method for accurately
detecting whether any entity - no matter how "borderline" it might be - was designed or not. We see again the requirement for an absolute, clear demarcation line that accurately, precisely, and unambiguously separates the "designed" from the "non-designed". As in the "material vs. non-material" argument Richard put forth, the "design vs. non-design" argument relies to a large extent on "problems" with definitions.
Richard Wein, and others, have "complained" about the lack of aggreement on single, universally-accepted
definitions of terms related to ID (such as specified complexity, intelligence, design, etc.). Their
implication seems to be that ID cannot even be discussed until it comes to grips with its fuzzy use of terms. That is, before ID can be considered legitimate in any sense, it *MUST* first have each and every one of its terms fully and clearly defined, with universal consensus and no ambiguity or leeway.
I disagree. To do so would be to impose more stringent requirements upon ID proponents than those imposed on mainstream, everyday sciencetists: a double standard. It is asking IDists to get their house in order, while neglecting the mess in the demanders' own dwelling. Let's take a look.
***LIFE***
Some (simplified) definitions of the term "life" include:
a. Cell theory of life: Anything composed of one or more functioning cells
b. OOL (minimalist): A self-sustaining, self-replicating molecule (or minimal collection of molecules)
c. Common attributes: Anything that can reproduce, metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, and move
d. Evolvability: Anything that can reproduce with variation (multiplication, variation, & heredity)
***SPECIES***
In addition, the term "species" has many different definitions. The most common is along the lines of, a
population of living entities that can succesfully interbreed (producing viable and fertile young that can
then themselves interbreed). But a paleontologist cannot know whether or not the dinosaurs that left two
similar-looking fossils could have successfully interbred, so they cannot use the same definition of species. Besides, many of the separate species of Darwin's finches can successfully interbreed.
***EVOLUTION***
Even the term "Evolution" has multiple definitions, the most common of which is along the lines of, changes in allele frequencies in populations over time. But again, paleontologists do not have access to dinosaur DNA, so they cannot know what the gene frequencies were at given time T, or given time T + x, nor can they know how the frequencies changed over time. So they cannot use this definition of evolution.
***CAN ONE EVEN DISCUSS EVOLUTION???***
So how can one even consider discussing evolution if 3 of the core, most-fundamental terms - life, species,
and evolution - cannot each be given a single, universally-accepted definition!
**ICING ON THE CAKE***
Okay, the above were the strongest supports for my position. The rest are merely "icing on the cake": they help reinforce my position, but should not be considered to actully *be* the basis for my position.
***Homology***
Keeping with the biology/evolution field, what does the term homology (or homologous) mean? Similar
structures in different organisms where the structures serve different functions (as opposed to dissimilar
structures in different organisms where the structures serve the same function)? Similar structures in
different organisms that were inherited from a common ancestor: i.e., structures descended with
modification? Can two stretches of DNA (genes) in different organisms be homologous? Can two proteins
from different organisms be homologous even though the genes that encode them are not?
***Survival of the fittest***
Richard mentioned the problem with tautologies (statements that are true by definition). One could get into a long discussion on the topic of whether or not "Survival of the fittest" is tautological.
***Miscellaneous, Non-biological Terms***
What is time? (I can't remember the exact quote, but it goes something like, "If you do not ask me what
time is, I know: but if you ask me to tell you what time is, I do not know")
Define world. (hint, it can mean the same as universe in some instances)
Define universe. How does that "little u" definition differ from the definition for Universe?
Does entropy deal with heat only, or does it deal with the amount of disorder of a system, or does it deal in
some way with a statistical measurement of the number of possible quantum-level arrangements there are for a given system?
***Internet Discussions***
And in internet discussions on science issues, many other terms can cause confusion or ambiguity.
Does the word "overcome" mean "violate"? (sounds familiar, doesn't it).
Does the word "tendency" mean "behavior"? (also sounds familiar, doesn't it).
What is "evidence"?
What does "empirical" mean?
If the terms "evidence" and "empirical" are not each crystal clear - with everyone accepting a single
definition of each - then how can people discuss "empirical evidence"?
In geometry, what is a straight line? What is a point? Can two parallel lines ever intersect?
***Working Models***
In addition to the fact that non-universally-accepted *working definitions* are sufficient for all of the
above terms (life, species, evolution, homology, universe, Universe, entropy, time, empirical, evidence,
etc.), acceptable innaccuracies can be found in many *working models* used in science.
For example, the Bohr Atom as illustrated in books is vastly distorted (the nucleus of an atom is typically
only 1/10,000 to 1/100,000 of the size of the whole atom; electrons are not confined to well-defined,
closed, circular orbits; etc.)
Even in electronics texts, electrons are often discussed using a "billiard ball" concept: that is, as solid particles.
It is often said that neurons conduct electrical impulses (this is wrong: neurons do not *conduct*
electricity, electrons, or electrical impulses along their length: an action potential is propagated along the length of a neuron, with most of flow of charge being perpendicular - not parallel - to the long axis).
In math, pi = 3.14. Even the length I have memorized (pi = 3.1415926535) is not accurate. These errors in
precision are accepted.
***Conclusion***
In short, valid, mainstream science can function even though its practioners use mere *working
definitions* and mere *working models*: precision and accuracy are not absolutes in science, so why
*DEMAND* it of IDists? Can't ID also use working definitions?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 13:30:41 EST