Re: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells

From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 23:42:49 EDT

  • Next message: Don Winterstein: "Re: A "God" Part of the Brain?"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
    To: <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 7:36 PM
    Subject: RE: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells

    > David Wrote-
    >
    > "The main claim of the current ID movement is that specifications in
    > biochemical systems are evidence of direct, intervention-style action in
    the
    > construction of the system, rather than, e.g., creating the universe in
    just
    > the right way so that the proper systems would evolve. This reasoning
    would
    > also imply that the mollusks must be intelligent to make such
    well-designed
    > shells. Thus, it is unfortunately not a straw man."

    Or that God inserted the relevant coding, etc into
    organisms. The reasoning does not at all imply that the
    organisms themselves have to be intelligent, I think.

    <snip>

    Josh wrote -

    > "I'm willing to accept that RM&NS may not solve all of the riddles in
    light
    > of the ignorance we have about these systems (NOTE: This is in sharp
    > contrast to arguing that RM&NS and Sarah's mechanisms will NOT solve any
    > riddles--something I do not advocate despite the occasional abuse of my
    > words), others seem quite committed to never permitting such a ludicrous
    > possibility, despite our ignorance.
    >
    > You are falling into the same error that you are objecting to. Asserting
    > that current ID approaches are unsound does not necessarily equate to
    > rejecting the possibility of supernatural mechanisms, much less does it
    > reject the possibility of appreciating design in nature."
    >
    > Hmmm, the ability of RM&NS to problem solve natural systems says nothing
    > about the origin of RM&NS and its association with a creator, so I'm
    afraid
    > you aren't following closely to what I'm saying. Perhaps you need to read
    > up on Van Till to avoid this kind of either/or thinking about evolution.
    > Besides that, the category of "others" may or may not include yourself,
    but
    > Howard and Glenn certaintly fit there. Neither does the ability of RM&NS
    to
    > problem solve have anything at all whatsoever to do with appreciating
    design
    > in nature. Now your doing it to me, STOP!

    This criticism is unfair in light of the previous messages,
    and, in fact, your responses to me that David has cut.

    Your original claim, albeit phrased as a question, was
    that it is more difficult to claim a lack of intelligent
    intervention in a biological process (in this case, the
    patterns of sea shells) if the resulting traits lack an identifiable
    relationship to survival. Later you have
    qualified the claim to relate only to "random mutation and
    natural selection". (However you do not reiterate your
    claim, and I can't think of any way to do that that makes
    sense.) At this point it is entirely unclear to me what
    you mean, although you appeared to be setting "RM &
    NS" against "intelligent intervention" and to be making
    the claim naturalistic mechanisms cannot explain
    complexity that arises without apparent function, ie

    " If we find extremely complex phenomena appearing all
    over creation that has no other purpose than to produce
    complex patterns and beautiful organization of shells, etc.
    it is much harder to suspect that naturalistic mechanisms
    continue to produce these in the absence of functional
    meaning."

    This is teleological thinking, and teleology has not been
    incorporated into science for many years. This is a
    historical development in science that is discussed in the preface of
    Futuyama's Evolutionary Biology textbook
    (which P. Johnson quoted grossly out of context in
    _Reason in the Balance_). When teleology was involved
    in science, appeals to metaphysical entities were common
    (eg, _Natural Theology_). The shift from looking at
    things in terms of secondary causes, or mechanisms, or
    whatever you want to call it, instead of in terms of
    function or purpose has simultaneously reduced the
    scope of science as a discipline and increased its
    productivity in terms of results (useful models that
    predict how things may behave and intersubjectively
    verifiable results.) You appear to be asking why science
    fails to solve a problem that it doesn't work on, and are
    dissatisfied that there is no answer. My view is that
    it is more productive to raise public awareness of
    the *limits* of modern science, not to go back and
    increase science's scope. What these limits mean
    is exactly what you finally say. No, naturalistic
    mechanisms and ultimate intelligent causation are not
    mutually exclusive. What's the argument, then? Why
    spend all this time criticizing the inadequacy of "RM &
    NS" to explain a phenomenum when that has not been
    offered as the explanation, and when the existence
    of naturalistic explanations doesn't preclude belief in
    design and a designer? David's original phrasing was
    I guess provocative, but not if you take the meaning
    that "intelligent intervention" means "only a miracle
    would get you from here to there" or as I think Van
    Till has described it, "God's hand-like action" was
    required. This is not a scientific answer. The scientific
    answer is "I don't know. Let's develop some tests to
    try to figure it out. Failing that, we just don't have
    an answer to this question right now".

    You further claim that

    "if RM&NS is the overall basis for understanding the
    origin of biological systems, "

    As regards evolutionary biology, this is so incomplete as
    to be grossly inaccurate!

    See, for example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

    and
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

    "then highly complex
    phenomena derived in the absence of any or extremely
    weak NS does not fit well with the hypothesis. Your suggestions are possible
    hypothises, but it is EASIER to
    defend RM&NS when NSive pressure is an obvious
    component of the equation for the structure's existence."

    I just plain don't understand implication of this
    statement, and how it relates to whether and when
    it is appropriate to posit supernatural action as
    an explanation for natural processes. My "suggestions"
    are areas of standard evolutionary biology! They
    are well-known alternative mechanisms to NS! I have
    not even mentioned more speculative areas, such as self-
    organizing systems. I would not have responded at
    all except I read your comments as equating evolutionary
    biology with RM & NS, and that is quite simply
    inaccurate. And likewise, any formulation that says
    if RM & NS not true, then ID is also incorrect because
    of the numerous excluded possibilities. I am not saying
    that you said this, because you never did restate your
    claim so at this point I have no idea at all what you
    are actually claiming. I just wished to explicitly clarify
    the relationship between evolutionary biology & NS
    (ie, they are *not* equivalent!)

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 23:48:47 EDT