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