Hi Don,
It is not my intention to thwart your specific intent of this thread, as it would be interesting to see you develop your argument. I am simply responding to "no evidence" and "evidence of bad design" arguments. So I'll just offer one last word on this issue.
Your argument seems to be premised on what "disinterested observers" see and on what "humans ordinarily think." Yet both assumptions are very shaky.
When it comes to the issue of design and life, I am not convinced any "disinterested observers" exist. Vulcans only exist in sci-fi. Psychology has shown that the human brain does not passively observe. It actively perceives. There is a nice series of recent essays on Steve Martin's blog written by Marlowe C. Embree. For example:
"In the first of these, assimilation, pre-existing schemata are "imposed" upon the data of experience. In simple terms, we see what we expect to see, paying attention to relevant information (that which confirms or supports an existing schema) and discount (or fail even to notice) irrelevant or disconfirming evidence (particularly that which calls a prior schema into question)."
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/origins-debate-through-lens-of.html
The human brain imposes on the world more so than absorbs the world. It's the difference between perception and observation.
I myself have used the internet to discuss/argue with scores of people who would likely classify themselves as 'disinterested observers.' Not only is it clear that they impose their pre-existing schemata upon data, but they impose it upon me as a person, interpreting my words and arguments in the light of their preconceptions and stereotypes. What's more, when I ask them what type of data they would count as evidence for design, the answers I get (when I actually get them) fall into two classes: 1) Find something that evolution cannot possibly explain (the god-of-the-gaps approach) or 2) Show them the designer. These are the type of data people need to be shocked out of their pre-existing schematas.
As for what humans ordinarily think, such ordinary thinking often reflects convention more so than contemplative thought. For example, humans DO ordinarily think that design and evolution are incompatible. That's what the creationists tell us. That's what the New Atheists tell us. But the perception of incompatibility is just a perception. There is no law of nature that walls off evolution from design. Designed things can evolve and life could be designed to shape and influence its subsequent evolution. Humans don't ordinarily think about this because most humans, because of their pre-existing schemata, and cultural forces, are invested in rejecting one of the two.
Now, you write:
"You as a believer in God, in contrast, come to God's defense by picking out amazing features of organic evolution and explaining how such phenomena witness to God's activity as designer. The question your work of this sort begs, however, is how or whether things would have been different if God had not been involved at all--as most paleontologists believe. Ultimately, because your evidences for design have little in common with what humans ordinarily think of as evidences for intelligent design, you parachute out of normal human intellectual intercourse by claiming that God is so different from humans that one cannot judge his designing by anything approaching normal human standards. What this means is that you can claim anything at all as evidence of divine design simply by saying God's design is unlike human design."
Here you are relying on your pre-existing schemata to interpret my words. I can say this with confidence because I, of all people, should be in the best position to know what I am doing and claiming. And I am not trying to come to God's defense (as if God needed me to do this); I was pointing out the neglected perspectives when you insisted on something being a bad design because of inefficiency. Nor did I do any parachuting by claiming that God is so different from humans that one cannot judge his designing by anything approaching normal human standards. You are the one who equates the designer with God, while I am the one who has consistently argued that this is a mistake and that any design inference should be constrained to a human-like intelligence (and I have explained why this is before).
It is from this position that I responded to your claims. You would need to make the case that if a human-like intelligence were to design evolution, there would be no "dead ends." Yet to make the case that there would be no "dead-ends", you change the rules and appeal to an all-knowing and all-powerful designer. You would need to make the case that a human-like intelligence could come up with a better way to seed a planet with air, food, shelter, and even fire, all in one step. Yet to make the case that there is a better way (without offering a single candidate for this better way), you change the rules and appeal to an all-knowing and all-powerful designer.
Do I pick out "amazing features of organic evolution and explaining how such phenomena witness to God's activity as designer?" No. I point out ways in which evolution is more rational than commonly assumed, as all this fits nicely into the hypothesis that evolution was front-loaded by life's design. Is this a witness to God's activity as designer? Not that I know of, as I view God more as Creator than designer, as a designer, by definition, works with all kinds of constraints. I am not the one trying to establish or defend God's existence by discussing life and design. I am exploring a genuine hunch and curiosity, a road less travelled.
How does this fit in with my theism? While you have a theology that requires God make the biotic world in a certain way, my theology places no such requirements on God. My theology tells me something very simple about the mechanism by which God brought us into existence - it doesn't matter. I can explain this theology if someone is interested, but what it does is to free my hands when exploring the biotic world. The biotic world does not have to be free of evidence of design nor does it have to have evidence of design. And any evidence of design doesn't have to look like divine activity. I am free (relatively speaking) to extrapolate from the only base of knowledge we have - our subjective and objective experience with our own designs matched up against what science uncovers about life.
-Mike Gene
[This topic is important to me, so now that my DSL service is back, I'll try to wring out another ounce or so of clarification:]
Disinterested observers (e.g., scientists) as a rule see no evidence for intelligent design in the way organisms have emerged over time, where analysis of the fossil record is taken to give the history of life. Their imaginations evidently are so parochial that they cannot believe an intelligent and powerful being would have caused life forms to come into existence in the manner deduced from the fossil record.
You as a believer in God, in contrast, come to God's defense by picking out amazing features of organic evolution and explaining how such phenomena witness to God's activity as designer. The question your work of this sort begs, however, is how or whether things would have been different if God had not been involved at all--as most paleontologists believe. Ultimately, because your evidences for design have little in common with what humans ordinarily think of as evidences for intelligent design, you parachute out of normal human intellectual intercourse by claiming that God is so different from humans that one cannot judge his designing by anything approaching normal human standards. What this means is that you can claim anything at all as evidence of divine design simply by saying God's design is unlike human design.
You quote Charles Babbage:
"Many excellent and religious persons...have represented the Deity as perpetually interfering, to alter for a time the laws he had previously ordained; thus by implication denying to him the possession of that foresight which is the highest attribute of omnipotence."
Foresight is "the highest attribute of omnipotence"? Our disinterested observers would likely consider an ability of God to create a fully functional universe in a millisecond to be much more persuasive evidence of omnipotence than oodles of foresight. And what about all the genetic defects in the final products? Do these mean God is maybe a few watts short of being truly omnipotent? And yes, creating a functional world in a few days 10 000 years ago is the same miracle as creating it in a millisecond 1000 years ago. It's just that scriptures lend more support to the first option than to the second.
My theology requires that God make the biotic world in such a way that disinterested observers would not be able to distinguish it from a biotic world that emerged in complete absence of an intelligent designer. My understanding of the fossil record is that it supports this theological requirement. I believe as much as you that God was involved all the way, but the only way we can perceive such involvement is by way of spiritually enlightened sight. And we're unlikely to get disinterested observers to perceive in this way.
My specific intent with this thread was to point out that the emergence of modern humanity with its impressive collective abilities constitutes "proof" of divine design in a manner similar to but even more compelling than "proofs" from fine tuning arguments. I believe disinterested observers will be able to see this if they can emotionally and intellectually step outside our world and view it as it were from a distance.
Don
Hi Don,
"Why should intervention by the designer be undesirable?"
Because the criticism of inefficiency is a 'bad design' argument and I am attempting to get folks to understand that determining whether or not design is good or bad will involve several parameters. If we were to extrapolate the trends in good human design - autonomy, robustness, miniaturization, and multifunctionality - they would converge on something like cyanobacteria.
"Among humans, if a designer has a goal, he usually wants to attain it expeditiously. If a bit of intervention would cut a few billion years off the elapsed time, why would that be so bad?"
But why would it be so good? You'd have to demonstrate the importance of a deadline for this argument to have any teeth.
"If you allow an all-powerful, all-knowing designer to intervene, there are a great many ways he could generate atmospheric oxygen--and food."
Then again, one might argue that an all-knowing designer would be able to design in ways that would not call for later interventions. Charles Babbage pointed this out:
"Many excellent and religious persons not deeply versed in what they mistakenly call "human knowledge" but which is in truth the interpretation of those laws that God himself has impressed on his creation, have endeavoured to discover proofs of design in a multitude of apparent adaptations of means to ends, and have represented the Deity as perpetually interfering, to alter for a time the laws he had previously ordained; thus by implication denying to him the possession of that foresight which is the highest attribute of omnipotence."
"I'm speaking in a framework where it is assumed that (1) God is all-powerful, (2) he knows everything, (3) he has a goal. The problem is, given these three--which most Christians accept, why didn't he make the world in just a few 24 h days say, 10 000 years ago, as Genesis 1 seems to say?"
Why didn't he make the world in just a few millseconds say, 1000 years ago?
I think it is a mistake to employ this framework to detect design. To detect design, we all rely on our subjective experience as human designers and our objective experience with other human designs. We do not have such experience with an all-powerful, all-knowing designer, thus we are on very shaky ground in relying on your framework.
"Instead, we see the biotic world coming into existence very slowly, haphazardly, inefficiently."
Slow is not a problem. Inefficiency is a matter of perspective. As for haphazard, the new science of evo-devo is making evolution look much less haphazard as it was once believed to be. I touch on this here:
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/evo-devo-fits-comfortably-with-front-loading/
"What you mean by evidence for design seems to be that the biotic world doesn't fail but continues plugging along. You can cite all kinds of details to highlight the wonders of its development and claim they show intelligent design, but in the end it is "designed" simply because it doesn't fail. If the development processes of the biotic world were designed, then we can say that the designer designed them in such a way that, by human standards, they don't apppear to have been designed at all."
No, I am not arguing that lack of failure is evidence of design. I am simply responding to the claim that inefficiency is evidence against design. Yes, inefficiency counts against design, but there are also other factors to weigh if we are to make a judgment of bad design. The inefficiency of using cyanobacteria as judged by the metric of time should be balanced with the efficiency of using cyanobacteria in that they a) accomplish multiple crucial objectives b) without the need for continual redesign by the designer.
"That is, humans expect a competent person to progress straightforwardly and efficiently towards his goal and not, for example, to go down multitudes of blind alleys that he should have been able to foresee."
But what are the blind alleys? Can we be sure they are really blind alleys? If one of those blind alleys was removed, can we be sure this would not have a serious consequential effect on the other alleys?
I think this gets to a larger misconception about design. We tend to think of distinct objects when thinking of design, like flagella or humans. But what if the design objective is larger - a biosphere? For example, humans could never exist on a sterile planet. Humans exist because they are deeply plugged in to the rest of the living world. To design humans, you'd have to make sure many other life forms were in place - life forms that led to humans and life forms that maintain the existence of humans.
"So your definition of design (as I understand it) is indeed unconventional by normal human standards."
Well, I am not claiming that humans designed the first life forms.
Mike Gene
"Cyanobacteria are incredibly efficient in the sense that they don't require constant intervention by the designer."
Why should intervention by the designer be undesirable? Among humans, if a designer has a goal, he usually wants to attain it expeditiously. If a bit of intervention would cut a few billion years off the elapsed time, why would that be so bad? If you allow an all-powerful, all-knowing designer to intervene, there are a great many ways he could generate atmospheric oxygen--and food.
I'm speaking in a framework where it is assumed that (1) God is all-powerful, (2) he knows everything, (3) he has a goal. The problem is, given these three--which most Christians accept, why didn't he make the world in just a few 24 h days say, 10 000 years ago, as Genesis 1 seems to say?
Instead, we see the biotic world coming into existence very slowly, haphazardly, inefficiently. To all appearances it's as if the world for unknown reasons happens to be suited for life at the start, but the biotic part of it develops on its own, without outside guidance.
What you mean by evidence for design seems to be that the biotic world doesn't fail but continues plugging along. You can cite all kinds of details to highlight the wonders of its development and claim they show intelligent design, but in the end it is "designed" simply because it doesn't fail. If the development processes of the biotic world were designed, then we can say that the designer designed them in such a way that, by human standards, they don't apppear to have been designed at all.
That is, humans expect a competent person to progress straightforwardly and efficiently towards his goal and not, for example, to go down multitudes of blind alleys that he should have been able to foresee.
So your definition of design (as I understand it) is indeed unconventional by normal human standards.
Actually, in the end I don't think we're very far apart, because I believe the outcome observable in our day proves the biotic world was designed. That means the development processes were also in some sense designed--although this design could have been supplemented multiple times along the way by divine intervention.
I believe God in some way gave life forms freedom to develop largely on their own. By "on their own" I mean in accord with laws built into matter itself. I see this freedom as essential to the kinds of creatures God ultimately desired, and we ourselves now possess this freedom.
Don
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 22 11:45:21 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 22 2009 - 11:45:21 EST