This is a response to Brian Harper's post of 2 February 1996.
BH> "Let me try to elaborate some more from the point of view of
the structural biologists (self-organizationalists) such as Brian
Goodwin. Goodwin sees biological structures such as limbs, eyes,
etc. as "generic forms" which may be thought of as strange
attractors in nonlinear dynamics terminology. He views this as
a much more rational explanation of such things as convergent
evolution (have I used the right term?). This would be almost
heresy from the point of view of the ultra Darwinians. Biological
forms are just "there", no need for a Blind Watchmaker stumbling
around :-)."
I think that most structuralists feel that Darwinians have lost
sight of the real issues in biology. Goodwin writes:
"So biology suffers from an unfortunate prejudice that
encourages the belief that organisms are complex accumulations
of historical molecular accidents coded in the genomes. The
structuralist belief is that there are generative principles
operating in organisms that give them an intelligible unity
encompassing their obvious diversity" (1990, p.239)
The legacy from the Darwinistic tradition is that organisms are
not designed - they are the accidents of history, ultimately
defined by the genome. Structuralism has a much stronger
perception of organisms: that the cell rather than the genome is
central in any definition of organisms. The genome controls the
parameters of morphogenesis, but not the process itself.
It seems to me that the structuralist perspective is very
exciting. Not only does it provide a much needed challenge to
Darwinistic perceptions of what biological science is all about,
it also opens the door to seeing organisms as designed entities,
with the Creator laying down the basic body plan and providing
the mechanisms whereby subsequent variation is both possible and
advantageous. Evolutionary geneticists are explaining how the
parameters can be changed, but there is no evidence that these
mechanisms for variation can change the fundamental body plans
of organisms.
BH> "Even more controversial than the above is the view by some,
including Goodwin, that entire organisms are strange attractors.
If the tape were played again, one would get essentially the same
thing. But perhaps not exactly. For example, there could be
"attractors" that haven't been discovered. Also, natural
selection is still viewed as playing a minor role of fine
tuning."
Whilst this may be the view of some, I don't think it captures
the essence of structuralism. Goodwin again:
"However, the structuralist objective is not to reconstruct
the _actual_ history of life on earth, Darwin's tree of
genealogical relations, which is the objective of a theory of
evolution. It is to make _any_ evolution intelligible as an
historical exploration of a realm of order, the living process.
Understanding this order logically precedes any description of
an actual historical progression, or evolution, through it".
(1990, p.241).
Thus, the primary focus of structuralism is on morphogenesis, not
on evolutionary change. As such, the idea of 'laws of
morphogenesis' are of interest to both evolutionary biologists
and essentialists (and in this latter group I include PCs and
YECs). Structuralist concepts can be applied whether one starts
with an ancestral cell (in the Darwinian scenario) or with a
polyphyletic creation of animals and plants.
BH> "I believe that Bill's view is that God could be intervening
in an undetectable way by the ever so slight "tweaking" of
trajectories to be sure that particular attractors are located.
I think Goodwin would probably say that such tweaking isn't
necessary. This would, I suppose, depend upon how strong the
attractors are and also how "close" they are."
I suspect you are right about Bill H's and Brian G's views.
However, as discussed on this Reflector last year, the evidence
suggests to me that the boundaries between Basic Types are not
bridgeable. I'm not wanting particularly to revive that
discussion - but to suggest that we generally recognise that the
academic debate here is wider than convention allows. This is
a situation where ID-based science and naturalism-based science
can both be regarded as legitimate expressions of science.
BH> "Of course, all of this is very speculative at present. If
Goodwin is correct, I personally would find this scenario
strongly suggesting design. Is the view of designing a phase
space which contains organisms as strange attractors really so
different from designing the organisms themselves?"
There is a convergence of view here! However, I'm not clear
about the last sentence. What worries me is that I do not
believe it is meaningful to talk about designing organisms
without addressing the issue of information.
Reference: Goodwin, B.C. 1990. Structuralism in biology.
Science Progress, _74_, 227-244.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***