Please include the following addendum to my comments on paragraph 29 and
30(i)
Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>
> 29 & 30. The same cannot be said for Darwinism and the naturalism it
> embodies as a framework for science. Suppose I were a super-genius
> molecular biologist, and I invented some hitherto unknown molecular
> machine, far more complicated and marvelous than the bacterial
> flagellum. Suppose further I inserted this machine into a bacterium,
> set this genetically modified organism free, allowed it to reproduce
> in the wild, and destroyed all evidence of my having created the
> molecular machine. Suppose, for instance, the machine is a stinger
> that injects other bacteria and explodes them by rapidly pumping them
> up with some gas (I'm not familiar with any such molecular machine in
> the wild), thereby allowing the bacteria endowed with my invention to
> consume their unfortunate prey.
>
> 30(i). Now let's ask the question, If a Darwinist came upon this
> bacterium with the novel molecular machine in the wild, would that
> machine be attributed to design or to natural selection? When I
> presented this example to David Sloan Wilson at a conference at MIT
> two years ago, he shrugged it off and remarked that natural selection
> created us and so by extension also created my novel molecular
> machine. But of course this argument won't wash since the issue is
> whether natural
> selection could indeed create us. What's more, if Darwinists came upon
> my invention of a novel
> molecular machine inserted into a bacterium that allows it to feed on
> other bacteria, they wouldn't
> look to design but would reflexively turn to natural selection. But,
> if we go with the story, I designed the bacterial stinger and natural
> selection had nothing to do with it. (snip)
>
>
> JC I have quoted the above in full because it illustrates a number of
> interesting points. The example itself appears to be to be a
> fictitious equivalent to the bombardier beetle. Essentially:
> biological feature X appears extremely improbable/complex and cannot
> be (easily) explained by natural selection. It is therefore proof of
> special creation/intelligent design.
>
> What interests me about such examples in the ID movement is that they
> are always biological. Why are biological features considered to be
> especially indicative of ID when they are difficult to explain by
> "naturalistic" mechanisms? Why not problems in astronomy and
> geology? It is not that such problems do not exist. The origin of
> sedimentary minerals dolomite and glauconite very problematic form
> many years and still have not been completely "solved". A problem I
> am particular interested in with no clear solution (but several lines
> of possibility) are the spicule beds of the Late Eocene of southern
> Australia. Quasars were an intractable issue for many years in
> astronomy, gamma ray bursters still are. No fully satisfactory
> explanation for the origin of Uranus and Neptune, or the extra solar
> "hot Jupiters" exists, although there are some interesting
> possibilities. Why doesn't the ID movement take astronomers and
> geologists to task for seeking "naturalistic" solutions to the
> problems? Is it because biological systems are perceived to be
> different? A deep seated vitalism, perhaps?
>
> As a tangent to this, YEC folk would be happy to cite these as
> examples of the inadaquacy of "uniformitarianism" However, they seek
> to explain them through the flood (at least the geological examples)
> or the result of event creation. In themselves the explanations for
> these phenomena are naturalistic within a global flood. A rare
> exception would be Gentry's pleochroic haloes. Why is this the case?
>
JC If a the genetically modified super bacterium with the inflationary
stinger were found in the wild it would almost certainly be attributed
to naturalistic causes. This is of course an example of scientific
hoax. One would also imagine synthesizing a bizarre rock with extreme
chemistry that might fool geologists. There are several examples of such
hoaxes. Piltdown was successful for so long because people assumed that
this fossil was indeed fossilized in the Pleistocene. The recent
feathered dinosaur hoax in China succeeded (briefly) because people
thought it was the discovery of a genuine Cretaceous fossil. The fact
that such hoaxes occur and succeed for a time do not invalidate the
methodological naturalistic assumptions used in science.
The example does range some interesting practical questions. One could
ask how bizarre a rock has to be before would have to be before people
would decide it was a hoax (or even an alien artifact). The biological
example might easily become a reality in the near future, where a
genetic modified organism escapes into the wild and causes harm. How
would its engineered origin be demonstrated so the perpetrators be
prosecuted? How bizarre would an organism have to be before biologists
would consider extraterrestrial or supernatural origin?
Respectfully
Jon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 19:57:31 EST