>BH:==
>> On the other hand, if the conversation begins with the evolutionist
>> saying "look, this design is imperfect, it couldn't be designed"
>> then the counter is not legit since it introduces a theological
>> question regarding what God would or wouldn't do. The evolutionist
>> has made the charge that the design is not perfect, the onus is on
>> him to prove it by finding a better design without appealing to
>> theological arguments.
>
MA:==
> Why could I not argue as a theistic evolutionist?
>
You could, of course. My point, which I probably didn't state
very well, is that this a theological rather than a scientific
argument. I also am a theistic evolutionist and I agree that
the eye doesn't look designed in the sense that is usually
meant by Creationists. It is one thing to offer an explanation
about how historical contingencies or whatever might account
for certain features of the eye. But people seldom want to stop
there. They also want to say that the eye is poorly designed.
This is really tough to maintain. One of the problems with design
is finding an objective definition that allows one to determine
if something is designed or not. Intelligent designers are always
being asked to define design, and rightfully so. But, if you want
to say a design is bad, suddenly the roles are reversed. It is
you who have to come up with some objective definition of
design and then show that the design of the eye is bad. This
is very hard work. Rather than do the hard work, many resort
to theology.
The argument from imperfection is one that should be of interest
to all theists, regardless of our view of origins. For example, Gould
writes
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.
No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has
shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned
to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the
least sense. Which brings me to the giant panda and its "thumb."
-- Stephen J. Gould, 1980, _The Panda's Thumb_, W.W. Norton,
New York, p.20.
This is a statement against theistic evolution every bit as much
as it is against special creation. How would you answer Gould?
>Does anyone know whether the contigencies of history have been
>documented in the development of roads? It would make a nice
>illustration.
>
I don't consider myself an engineer, but I do have a considerable
background in engineering. My opinion is that practically all human
designs of any complexity are strongly affected by historical
contingency. Interestingly, historical contingency is often used
to distinguish between evolution and design. In principle, a designer
could always start from scratch. Evolution cannot, it must make
do with whatever happens to be around. But this is in principle
only. Designers very seldom start from scratch and they also tend
to make compromises based on the cards history has dealt them.
The reason has to do with a factor that is seldom considered,
efficiency. Again, one could start introducing theological arguments
about how God is not constrained by efficiency considerations,
but in fairness we have to put such arguments aside.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |