Doug,
We may have reached the point of diminishing returns on this subject. I do
think this discussion touches upon some important and interesting ideas that I
personally would like to explore in the future.
Doug Hayworth wrote:
> At 03:56 PM 7/11/00 -0500, Bryan R. Cross wrote:
> >Doug Hayworth wrote:
> >
> > > In response to Preston G's post, Bryan Cross wrote:
> > >
> > > >I don't know much about the HIV virus, so I cannot say whether it shows
> > > >signs of intelligent design. The ID thesis has no problem with natural
> > > >evil, because the ID thesis makes no claims about the moral character of
> > > >the designer(s). The problem of natural evil falls upon those who identify
> > > >the designer as a good, omniscient, omnipotent God who continually
> > > >sustains and governs His creation, i.e. the problem falls upon theists. If
> > > >the HIV virus contains SCI or IC systems, then those theists who maintain
> > > >that these cannot arise by [providence-governed] chance alone might claim
> > > >either that the HIV virus (1) was created de novo or (2) was formed by
> > > >mutations caused by direct divine action or (3) resulted from a
> > > >devolution, or loss of original proper function by loss of information or
> > > >removal from the environment in which it was designed to function. Those
> > > >theists who claim that the formation of natural evils such as HIV
> > virus were
> > > >either codified into the initial settings of the universe or effected by
> > > >providence-governed mutations are no more immune to this problem than are
> > > >the theists who maintain that SCI and IC cannot arise by
> > > >[providence-governed] chance.
> > >
> > > In general, I would have to agree with Bryan that such cases of "natural
> > > evil" (a term that I use lightly, since I am not exactly sure how it is
> > > used in such discussions and have little sense of whether or not it is a
> > > sound theological notion) are fundamentally no more of a problem for
> > > Christian IDologists than for any other Christian. The problem of pain
> > > (I'll back away here on whether it is evil) is a basic theological problem
> > > for all of us who are theists.
> > >
> > > There are problems, however, with Bryan's three explanatory options for the
> > > Christian IDologist with regard to HIV. The first option is simply false;
> > > HIV is phylogenetically related to other natural viruses (I could get some
> > > references if necessary).
> >
> >As you yourself know, relation of any sort does not exclude de novo creation.
> >Therefore this first option is still an available option.
>
> No, I do not know or acknowledge this, at least as you are applying it
> here.
The reason I said "as you yourself know" is because on June 29 you said in your
post titled "Homo erectus genes us"
"The complex pattern of biodiversity is so compelling and complete on this point
that any alternative explanation
(short of the cop-out notion that God just created the diversity de novo to look
that way) is precluded."
> This seems to be the old excuse that "Well, God might have just
> created it to look like it was the product of common ancestry." I do not
> accept this type of thinking as worth its breath to speak it. IDologist
> want to make a lot out of recognizing the "signature" of a designer based
> on a complex specified pattern. Well, the nested, hierarchical structure
> of genetic and morphological homologies among species is exceedingly
> complex in unequivocally specifying common ancestry as fact. It is the
> best case of complex specified complexity there is. I think this is why
> folks like Behe don't try to argue against this.
Just because *you* do not "accept this type of thinking" does not mean that it is
not an available option for the sort of ID proponent I described. In fact, nothing
you have said here rules out this option for the ID proponent. You seem to think
that endorsing ID requires endorsing common ancestry. Although belief in common
ancestry is compatible with ID, endorsing ID does not commit one to common
ancestry. The fact that there are YECs who believe in creation of apparent age and
who also endorse ID makes that evident. Therefore, some ID proponents (i.e. those
not committed to common ancestry) do have the option of claiming that an organism
was created de novo.
> > > The second option does not support ID unless
> > > those mutations (from a pre-existing ancestral viral "species") could not
> > > have occurred by known forms of genetic mutation; ID would have to show not
> > > simply that HIV was amazingly designed as a whole but that the mutational
> > > steps between related viruses and HIV could not have taken place naturally
> > > while maintaining a viable virus. I find the possibility of being able to
> > > prove such a thing to be very nearly zero.
> >
> >Of course if you put the burden of proof on the one who has to prove that an
> >organism couldn't evolve by known forms of genetic mutation then you've won by
> >default. To avoid begging the question it is better (in my view) to withhold
> >judgment until a continuous genetic trajectory without any viability gaps has
> >been discovered or (what is harder) it is shown that there is no continuous
> >genetic trajectory without any viability gaps for the feature/organism in
> >question. So this second option also is still available to the ID
> >proponent who
> >denies that SCI and IC can arise by [providence-governed] mutations, and who
> >claims that the HIV virus contains SCI and IC.
>
> Indeed, I have put the burden of proof there, but with very good
> reason.
The history of science gives us good reason to put the burden of proof on those who
claim something that has not been demonstrated (including proponents of ID). Until
we have discovered a continuous genetic trajectory without viability gaps, then any
claims that such a trajectory exists are mere speculation. Those making such
speculations clearly have the burden of proof.
> As I stated above, common ancestry (here, I'll only require it
> going back to major phyla, though I think the evidence is great for all of
> life) is a compelling specified complex pattern as to dispel any doubt
> about it.
How is common ancestry a "specified complex pattern"? Common ancestry is a theory,
not a pattern.
> Likewise, the mechanisms which inherently cause descent with
> modification and the multiplication of species (i.e., the mechanisms which
> specify the complex pattern of hierarchical relationships of species) are
> known. The mechanism of inheritance is well-characterized, as are the
> various mechanisms of mutation.
>
> Your demand for a "continuous genetic trajectory without viability gaps" is
> completely unreasonable and fruitless. No human epistemology works that
> way. Only God sees all evidence and all of history completely without
> epistemological gaps. Consider as an example a single set of human
> footprints in the sand. As a pattern, they are discrete, without a
> continuous trajectory. By your epistemological criterion, you would not
> accept that they were made by a single individual walking along the beach
> unless you saw the individual make them (i.e., unless you saw the
> continuous human trajectory lay them down). On the other hand, an
> ordinary, rational person would understand from what he/she knows about
> mechanisms that cause such patterns (namely, humans that walk) that the
> pattern is sufficiently complex and specified in relation to that known
> mechanism that a human being must have produced it.
This is a poor analogy. We know that is possible for a human to make footprints. We
do not know that natural causes can explain the formation of say, human beings,
from simple life forms. To assert it is just to beg the question, even if we know
what small sections of that genetic trajectory look like.
> The plain and unequivocal evidence based on known mechanisms of descent and
> modification (inheritance and mutation) is that it actually occurred by
> these ordinary natural processes. Given this present knowledge about
> mechanisms and complex patterns in the real world, the burden of proof is
> on ID to show that natural mechanisms could not have produced the
> change. Again, let me go back to the footprint example and consider a
> crime detective who wishes to prove that the footprints were actually
> placed there by a trained animal wearing foot-like booties whose footprints
> in the sand acted as an alibi for a murderer. Everyone accepts that the
> burden of proof would be on the detective to show that the footprints were
> not made by the ordinary means understood from the known mechanisms about
> humans walking on the beach. He would have to find compelling, positive
> evidence that the footprints could not possibly have been made by a human.
>
> > > If indeed some ancestral virus lost or rearranged
> > > some genetic material that caused it to become HIV, this is evidence for
> > > UNintelligent design (by mutation).
> >
> >Agreed. And this would be a problem for ID only if ID claimed that every
> >feature/property of every organism was intelligently designed. Since ID
> >does not
> >make such a claim, this is not a problem for ID. When an intelligently
> >designed
> >organism acquires a mutation, clearly the organism itself does not thereby
> >become
> >UNintelligently designed. Therefore, the presence of mutations within an
> >organism
> >is compatible with it being intelligently designed and having derived
> >functions
> >that were not intelligently designed.
>
> I know that ID does not claim that every feature is intelligently
> designed. But I understood Preston's original question to be aimed at how
> ID would deal with the problem of a "natural evil" if the "evil" aspect of
> the organism was found to be intelligently designed. Hence, his comment
> about the devil getting to design things too. I was critiquing your
> response in light of that specific form of his question.
I'm not exactly sure what it means to say that "the evil aspect of the organism was
found to be intelligently designed". But it seems quite clear that the theistic ID
proponent could claim that the evil aspect of the organism was the product of a
devolution from its original design. Because "intelligently designed" does not
entail "identical to its state when first assembled by an intelligent designer",
therefore, there is no reason that the ID proponent must believe that there are no
cases in which intelligent design can be detected in a feature that has 'devolved'
from another intelligently designed feature. For example, we might discover
intelligently designed features in the cancer cells of an organism. The cancer
cells are widely successful and typically 'evil' (i.e. harmful to the organism),
but arose when deletions occurred in an oncogene (e.g. the EGFR oncogene). Even if
the oncogene shows evidence of intelligent design, the fact that a deletion within
this oncogene initiates rapid cell-division, metastasis, etc. does not require that
the deletion be intelligently designed, or that the present behavior of the cancer
cells be attributed to the purpose of the intelligent designer.
>>> I know that Bryan was (probably off the top of his head) voicing what a
> > > theist IDologist might say. Nevertheless, let me clarify that in natural
> > > science, there is no such thing as "devolution" or "proper"
> > > function. There is only evolution (change) and function. Function is by
> > > definition whatever something DOES, not what it OUGHT to do.
> >
> >But there is 'proper function', and it differs from what a thing does. See
> >_Nature's Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology_ Collin
> >Allen and
> >Marc Bekoff, eds. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998). See also _Function,
> >Selection, and Design_ David Buller, ed. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1999). It is
> >generally accepted that biological features have proper functions. For
> >example, a
> >human eye has a proper function (i.e. vision) which it retains even when
> >it loses
> >the ability to perform that function. On one standard description, the proper
> >function of a device token is *roughly* that function of the device type which
> >contributed historically to the increased reproductive success of members
> >of its
> >reproductive family and thus the preservation of the device type. For this
> >reason, a device can have a proper function even if it cannot presently
> >perform
> >that proper function.
>
> Okay, in some contexts, I suppose it is meaningful to talk about "proper"
> function. But we were talking about HIV. The properties of HIV that make
> it a successful pathogen in humans are its genuine current function, and
> they should not be interpreted as "devolutions" (whatever that means) of
> some "proper" function. It is a hugely successful "species" precisely
> because of those changes in function which make it pathogenic.
I do not see how the degree of success of a species proves or implies that it is
not a product of 'devolution' (i.e. the result of the loss of complexity and/or
original function) from a previous species. That would be the case only if products
of devolution could not be successful, but that has not been established.
My original claim still stands, that "If the HIV virus contains SCI or IC systems,
then those theists who maintain that these cannot arise by [providence-governed]
chance alone might claim either that the HIV virus (1) was created de novo or (2)
was formed by mutations caused by direct divine action or (3) resulted from a
devolution, or loss of original proper function by loss of information or removal
from the environment in which it was designed to function." As far as I can tell,
nothing you have said implies or entails that this claim is incorrect or
misleading.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 13 2000 - 00:52:54 EDT