The notion of front-loading has a very strong smell of deism. Why applied only to evolution why not everything or almost everything that there is? Christians have to reconcile the notion of a Creator who upholds His creation with the results of science. If one is dealing with experimental science, then that is quite easy since the regularity of our experimental results implies a metaphysics that is quite compatible with what Christians believe. Of course, if by science one means that all must be explainable by science, then one has an extreme form of reductionism, which is unacceptable. It is the latter reason that I have tried to define science by delimiting its subject matter to only the physical aspect of Nature.
It is in the area of history of the universe and, in particular, that of man that things get very sticky. I indicated in a previous post that if God is not in spacetime, He “sees” all that there is in spacetime at an instant or, as C.S. Lewis said, an Eternal Now. If such is the case, then does it mean that if He sets up the initial conditions, then all is known to Him and for us chance is just our embedded-in-spacetime point of view? The latter would a strong version of front-loading since it would encompass everything and not only evolution.
Is our entire existence--past, present, and future--like a book whose content is already known to God and, for all I know, He may be the author? This is quite possible according to what I read long ago in the “Clockwork Image” by Donald M. Mackay and what C.S. Lewis ascribed to Dorothy Sayers
Let us face it; we are never going to understand truly how the Creator interacts with His creation. What we learn from the different kinds of knowledge that we use to study and know the whole of reality must be integrated into a whole and this is the only way that would lead us to the elusive truth that we are all seeking.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Nucacids [nucacids@wowway.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 12:55 AM
To: Cameron Wybrow; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] compatibility of front-loading and irreducible complexity
Since I have been writing about the front-loading of evolution for almost 10 years now, I could hardly ignore this thread. Let me simply distinguish my views of front-loading from the views outlined by Michael Denton (as helpfully summarized by Cameron). That will help people appreciate there are different versions of front-loading out there.
Denton: “1. Macroevolution happened.”
Agreed.
Denton: “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).”
I envision front-loading at the origin of life, which would entail intelligent intervention at that point. However, I am also very open to the front-loading at the origin of the universe, as there are clues that point in that direction.
Denton: “3. The process was largely necessitarian, following from the fundamental properties of the chemical elements and the fundamental laws of nature.”
I do not view front-loading as necessitarian. I view it more along the lines of stacking the deck, such that the blind watchmaker receives guidance from the intelligently designed initial conditions.
Denton: “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.”
I think chance plays a significant role, such that front-loading is the intelligent use of chance. Or, to play off of Pasteur, Chance Favors the Prepared Cell.
Denton: “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.)”
I agree with the gist of this, but not the emphasis. The marks of design are not unmistakable, but instead are subtle, and depend on the ability to perceive such subtleties.
BTW, when I first started to use the term “front-loading evolution” I did not consciously borrow it from anyone else (at least that I can recall). Does anyone know who first used this phrase?
-Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Cameron Wybrow<mailto:wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
To: asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] compatibility of front-loading and irreducible complexity
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.
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.18/2243 - Release Date: 07/17/09 06:08:00
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 20 07:24:05 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 20 2009 - 07:24:05 EDT