Re: [asa] compatibility of front-loading and irreducible complexity

I find that Cameron' explication of Denton is accurate and helpful. My
question now is whether Behe would accept that Dentonian front loading
(as formulated by Cameron) is adequate?
Don N.

Cameron Wybrow wrote:
> Jim:
>
> I agree that it depends on the definition of "front-loading", and the
> term is not yet clearly established regarding its theoretical
> contents. It's more or less a working colloquialism, and therefore
> may cause confusion.
>
> So let me be more specific. While there may be many versions of
> "front-loading", the one I have in mind is the one set forth in
> *Nature's Destiny* by Michael Denton. The key elements of it are:
>
> 1. Macroevolution happened.
> 2. The process was entirely naturalistic, i.e., did not at any point,
> not even in the origin of life or in the evolution of man from
> anthropoid stock, involve spot interventions or local actions of God
> (or any other intelligent being).
> 3. The process was largely necessitarian, following from the
> fundamental properties of the chemical elements and the fundamental
> laws of nature.
> 4. Chance had an almost negligible role, limited to (1) the
> determining of where and when (not whether) an intelligent being would
> evolve, and (2) some local variation in plants and animals not
> relevant to the main thrust of evolution.
> 5. The anthropogenic "tilt" of the universe bears the unmistakable
> marks of design; cosmic and organic evolution are the unfolding of an
> unimaginably complex computer program; macroevolution is a designed
> process, and some Mind is the designer. (Denton frequently calls this
> mind "God", though it is unclear whether or not that implies any
> personal religious faith in his case.)
>
> In contrast with his own view, Denton explicitly and frequently
> criticizes Darwinian mechanisms, which for him grossly overestimate
> the power of chance and contingency. He regularly contrasts "chance"
> with chemical, biochemical, and biological necessity, a necessity
> which for him reflects a higher mathematical form lying at the heart
> of nature. He understands himself to be anti-Darwinian, and thinks
> that the detailed design in nature revealed by modern science has
> basically rendered Darwinism obsolete. This does not mean that
> "selection" plays no role, but the forms which have come up for
> "selection" are for Denton no accident. Whereas Darwin consciously
> formulated his theory so as to exclude design from nature, Denton
> makes the design in nature the motor of his theory.
>
> Thus, if we subdivide the genus "naturalistic macroevolution", we can
> come up with at least two variations, "Darwinian macroevolution" (more
> emphasis on chance, stochastic processes, etc.) and "Dentonian
> macroevolution" (almost entirely necessitarian). Some people here
> will of course argue (as they frequently do when they wish to avoid
> stating directly what they believe) that there is no empirical way of
> distinguishing between these two forms of evolution, but they are
> certainly conceptually distinct, and strikingly different in their
> implications. The most obvious one is that Dentonian macroevolution
> is logically incompatible with atheism, whereas Darwinian
> macroevolution is logically compatible with it. Further, there are
> immense difficulties in making pure Darwinian macroevolution -- where
> "Darwinian evolution" is understood as Denton, Behe and I understand
> the term -- compatible with genuine theism, as opposed to a colourless
> Deism, whereas Dentonian evolution implies *at least* a colourless
> Deism, and is compatible in general terms with historical theism.
>
> Cameron.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jim Armstrong <mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>
> *To:* asa <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2009 4:56 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] compatibility of front-loading and
> irreducible complexity
>
> Re: " front-loading is an inherently anti-Darwinian concept"
> Depends on the definition of both. I do not find this to be the case.
> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
> Cameron Wybrow wrote:
>> Schwarzwald is quite correct, and so is John Walley. The belief
>> that irreducibly complex structures cannot be formed by Darwinian
>> means is not in contradiction with the belief that they might be
>> formed by means of front-loading, since front-loading is an
>> inherently anti-Darwinian concept. Bernie does not understand
>> what Behe means by "irreducibly complex", and he doesn't
>> understand what ID proponents mean when they speak of
>> "front-loading". The only thing I can suggest to Bernie is that
>> he take the time to read and digest the works of Behe and Denton
>> before commenting any further on the concepts they advocate. One
>> can't add to the discussion if one hasn't done the homework.
>>
>> Cameron.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Schwarzwald <mailto:schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2009 2:16 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent
>>
>> I'm not an expert on molecular biology (Behe can defend
>> himself, in other words), but that strikes me as incorrect. I
>> imagine the response would (or at least could) be that a
>> "natural process" (meaning, no on-the-spot
>> intervention/intercession) could produce a given IC artifact
>> - but said artifact would indicate that intelligence were at
>> work somewhere in the chain. At the beginning (front-loaded)
>> is an option, as is on the spot (intervention), etc.
>>
>> Before you fire back another question though, Bernie, I'm
>> going to say flat out that I'm not interested in defending
>> specific ID proposals here. I've pointed to Dembski arguing
>> teleology is present by necessity in Darwinian evolution.
>> I've pointed to ID proponents (or at least ID thinkers) who
>> are quite at home with evolution, though they reject or have
>> doubts about "Darwinism" or "Darwinian evolution' in the
>> sense Cameron would discuss it. That's more than enough to
>> establish my point. Trying to fend off attempts at a
>> "gotcha!" is of no interest to me in this thread.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Dehler, Bernie
>> <bernie.dehler@intel.com <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> “Behe accepts evolution, common descent, etc - he has
>> questions about particular mechanisms, but also is on
>> record as thinking all of life could have unfolded
>> "naturalistically" in a front-loaded way.”
>>
>>
>>
>> If Behe accepts the possibility of front-loading, then
>> that says he doesn’t have a firm conviction of his
>> “irreducibly complex” theory. You can’t hold both- they
>> are mutually exclusive. Correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> …Bernie
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 17 19:47:50 2009