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

Cameron:

You will appreciate, I think, a case study I was reading today that may
have relevance for front-loading.

The study investigated the history and context of Newton's theory of
colors (or colours). Newton's theory was that sun light is composed of
various primary colors. Hooke's (and other's) theory was that light was
modified in passing through various material (e.g., prisms). Every
experiment that Newton could conceive of to try to distinguish between
the two required that light pass through material. Newton demonstrated
that light that had been "separated" by a prism and later combined
produced white light. In order to hold to Hooke's modification theory
one would have to conclude that the light that was later formed by the
addition of colors was a different light than sun light.

Ultimately, Newton concluded that there was no way to distinguish
Hooke's modification theory from his own. Nonetheless, he suggested that
his theory ought to be accepted because of parsimony of explanation
(Occam's Razor). He thus appealed to non-empirical meta-theoretical
criteria.

I wonder if the same could not be said of any form of front-loading.

For example, how would one distinguish empirically a "necessitarian"
fusion of chromosome #2 from one of chance?
While in principle this appears possible, it does not seem that we have
the tools to do so. Hence, one might always appeal to some
meta-theoretical criteria to reject front-loading in favor of some perhaps
equally vague process, but one more familiar nonetheless.

bill

  On
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, 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
> To: asa
> 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
> To: 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> 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 21:18:52 2009