On Wed, 20 Dec 1995 15:16:44 -0800 (PST) you wrote:
RW>This is part III iteration 1 of my pamphlet.
>
> "The Argument from Imperfection"
>
>Summary of the Argument:
>
>This argument was best summarized by Stephen Jay Gould, it's leading
proponent:
>The second argument-that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution-
>strikes some people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be
>most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed
>by some organisms-the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that
>cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely.
>But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural
>selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past
>history-the evidence of descent-is the mark of evolution.
[...]
Thanks for this. If you want any more info you could try Kurt Wise's
chapter in Moreland's "The Creation Hypothesis", p221ff. The following
is based on an extract about Gould's panda's thumb argument that I
posted on the Australian fidonet Creation v Evolution echo.
Gould's argument in "The Pandas Thumb", cites the imperfection of the
panda's expanded radial sesamoid (wrist) bone as evidence against a
Creator:
"If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and
power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally
fashioned for other purposes. Orchids were not made by an ideal
engineer; they are jury-rigged from a limited set of available
components. Thus, they must have evolved from ordinary flowers....Our
textbooks like to illustrate evolution with examples of optimal
design- nearly perfect mimicry of a dead leaf by a butterfly or of a
poisonous species by a palatable relative. But ideal design is a
lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of
an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the
proof of evolution-paths that a sensible God would never tread but
that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce."
(Gould S.J., "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London, 1980, p20).
As Johnson points out, this attempt at falsification by Gould is
at least a tacit recognition that intelligent design is a scientific
theory:
"The most famous example of this approach is an article by Stephen
Jay Gould called "The Panda's Thumb," which relies on a few selected
examples and a spectacularly shallow theology to establish the "fact
of evolution"...Gould's approach implicitly concedes that intelligent
design is a legitimate hypothesis, subject to proof and disproof. If
a genuine public debate on that subject were to occur, the shaky
premises of blind watchmaker evolution would get a lot of unwanted
attention." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p90)
In the words of Dawkins this argument of Gould's "is a transparently
feeble" one! There is absolutely no reason why "God...would not have
used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes".
It is a sign of better design, not worse, that an Intelligent Designer
can ingeniously re-use existing designs "for other purposes". As
Denton points out, "it is not just the complexity of living systems
which is so profoundly challenging, there is also the incredible
ingenuity that is so often manifest in their design." (Denton M.,
"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 1985, p33).
The strange thing is that Gould himself admits that the Panda's thumb
is "elegant", "lovely" and a "quite workable solution" which "does its
job" and in the process "excites our imagination":
"The panda's thumb provides an elegant zoological counterpart to
Darwin's orchids. An engineer's best solution is debarred by history.
The panda's true thumb is committed to another role, too specialized
for a different function to become an opposable, manipulating digit.
So the panda must use parts on hand and settle for an enlarged wrist
bone and a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable, solution. The
sesamoid thumb wins no prize in an engineer's derby. It is, to use
Michael Ghiselin's phrase, a contraption, not a lovely contrivance.
But it does its job and excites our imagination all the more because
it builds on such improbable foundations." (Gould, p23)
Also, Gould notes that "The sesamoid thumb of pandas is a complex
structure formed by marked enlargement of a bone and an extensive
rearrangement of musculature" and "may have been fashioned by a simple
genetic change, perhaps a single mutation affecting the timing and
rate of growth." (Gould, p22)
This precise targeting of a beneficial genetic mutation in the right
place at the right time, would be expected of an Intelligent Designer,
not of a blind watchmaker. Indeed, what possible selective advantage
would an enlarged radial sesamoid bone have for a Panda? Other bears
make do without it, and presumably the Panda's ancestors survived and
flourished for millions of years before they received the favourable
mutation?
Darwinists often chide creationists for adopting a simplistic
"disprove evolution and thereby prove creation" type of argument. Yet
Gould's Pandas Thumb is exactly that! Johnson concludes:
"In any case, the use of theological arguments-"God wouldn't have done
it this way"-is a very questionable way of proving that Darwinian
evolution was capable of creating complex biological organs."
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", p228).
Happy New Year!
Stephen
PS: If you want to read a recent example of the fallacious "God
wouldn't have done it this way", see Dawkins' "God's Utility
Function", (a summary of his recent book, River Out of Eden" in
Scientific American, Nov 95, p62.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------