On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 20:41:43 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[continued]
>PM>On the contrary, you are the one claiming not only 'design' but
>intelligent design. Naturalists can show how this apparant design
>can be the result of random change and natural selection.
First, "design *is* "intelligent design". So-called "design" by
unintelligent natural processes alone, is only *apparent* "design":
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not
see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet
the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us
with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress
us with the illusion of design and planning....the purpose of this
chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the
illusion of design." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991
reprint, p21)
Secondly, the fact that "Naturalists can show how this apparent
design *can* be the result of random change and natural selection"
is not good enough. They must show that it *was* "the result of
random change and natural selection". However, the fossil record
does not support this fully naturalistic hypothesis.
Thirdly, even if "Naturalists" were able to "show how this apparant
design" *was* "the result of random change and natural selection" it
would not rule out "design". The Bible affirms that God can "design"
even through events that are "random" to man:
"Even if gene mutation, gene recombinations and chromosome changes
are truly random, divine providence is not thereby excluded from the
evolutionary process. This needs to be clearly understood. Further,
the 'creationist' needs to be reminded that the Bible itself strongly
supports this conclusion. He need only recall the random arrow that
slew king Ahab, (1 Kings 22:34) or think of Proverbs 16:33 to be
reminded of this." (Spanner D.C., "Biblical Creation and the Theory
of Evolution", 1987, p90)
"Nowhere, perhaps, is the providential direction of chance events
more powerfully asserted than in the story of the death of Ahab, an
evil king of Israel. The story is told in 1 Kings 22. Ahab had
seized the vineyard of Naboth after Jezebel his wife had procured the
death of Naboth by stoning on a trumped-up charge. This brought to a
head Ahab's long career of wickedness, and Elijah was sent to
pronounce Judgement against him (1 Kings 21:17f). For three years
the sentence was delayed. Then Ahab joined his neighbour Jehoshaphat
in an attempt to recapture Ramoth-gilead. He was an old hand at the
art of war, and when the prophet Micaiah repeated the warning of
Elijah, Ahab resolved to go into the battle disguised. The ruse was
entirely successful- Jehoshaphat drew the enemy fire and the enemy
turned his attention away from Ahab's sector. 'But' the biblical
historian records, 'a certain man drew his bow at a venture ('at
random', NEB) and struck the king of Israel between the scale armour
and the breastplate'; and mortally wounded, Ahab withdrew from the
field. An obscure archer, a random arrow, a small area of
vulnerability in the armour-what could more vividly convey the sense
of the controlling providence of God? Ahab's final ignominious end
was exactly as foretold by the prophet....To the Bible, therefore,
the fact that an event can be spoken of legitimately in terms of
chance, hap or randomness in no way removes it from the sphere of
God's directing providence. 'The lot is cast into the lap but the
decision is wholly from the Lord' (Proverbs 16:33). That is a truth
the Bible would have us keep continually in mind." (Spanner D.C.,
"Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution", 1987, pp48-49)
An Intelligent Designer may have designed all the laws and initial
conditions of the universe in such a way that the design of living
creatures is *real* not apparent:
"Henry Ward Beecher, America's premier pulpiteer during Darwin's
century, defended evolution as God's way in a striking commercial
metaphor: "Design by wholesale is grander than design by
retail"-better, that is, to ordain general laws of change than to
make each species by separate fiat.' " (Gould S.J., "Bully for
Brontosaurus", 1991, p400)
>PM>The idea that complexity requires a designer and even more an
>intelligent designer requires proof.
More word-play. The question is not whether "complexity requires a
designer" but whether *specified* "complexity requires a designer":
"Molecules characterized by specified complexity make up living
things. These molecules are, most notably, DNA and protein. By
contrast, nonliving natural things fall into one of two categories.
They are either unspecified and random (lumps of granite and mixtures
of random nucleotides) or specified but simple (snowflakes and
crystals). A crystal fails to qualify as living because it lacks
complexity. A chain of random nucleotides fails to qualify because
it lacks specificity. (Orgel L.E., "Origins of Life", 1973, p189).
No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in living things, human
artifacts and written language) have specified complexity. For a
long time biologists overlooked the distinction between these two
kinds of order (simple, periodic order versus specified complexity).
Only recently have they appreciated that the distinguishing feature
of living systems is not order but specified complexity. (Yockey H.
P., Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977, p377). The sequence of
nucleotides in DNA or of amino acids in a protein is not a repetitive
order like a crystal. Instead it is like the letters in a written
message." (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B., "Information & the Origin
of Life", in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994,
pp207-208)
>GG>"I think it is harder to prove the universal negative proposition
>that there *isn't* an intelligent designer, especially by an argument
>that amounts to no more than: "Well, if *I* were God, I'd have done
>it differently..."
I agree with Gene. Apart from the arrogance of those humans who think
that they could do a better job than God at designing a universe, as
Johnson points out, these theological arguments seem a strange way
of proving what purports to be a scientific theory:
"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", 1995, p228)
>PM>Personally I see no reason to try to disprove a supernatural
>entity whose existance is guided by faith not science but I wonder at
>the poor design and how people who do think that god designed it this
>way believe why he did it this way. Especially since from an
>evolution's perspective the 'design' makes perfect sense.
That's why you have to put single quotes around it. But from a
*mediate creation* "perspective the design" (no single quotations
marks needed), indeed "makes perfect sense".
>PM>You don't understand what I am saying here. Why is the flaunder
>born with eyes on both sides and then the eye moves to the top? I
>do understand that the flaunder presents an excellent example of
>evolution in action but I also believe that it shows some poor design
>if an intelligent designer were involved.
excellent example of" the *flexibility* of the "intelligent designer"
in building such adaptability into the genetic code within the fish
genome.
>GG>"Sir, to make this claim, you must have a definite idea of what a
>"better" design would be judging by an essentially subjective
>criteria (or critter-ia since we're talking about a flounder and I'm
>from the American South) Would you make the flounder a better
>predator? Prettier? Better able to digest its food?"
>PM>No I would just have his eyes on the side they end up at rather
>than have it be born with two eyes on either side and then have to
>move them.
This is a good example of the superhuman brilliance of the
Intelligent Designer, as opposed to mere human would-be designers.
The latter would design each fish for a specific purpose. But the
real Intelligent Designer built an all-purpose fish genome that had
the resources within it to respond to environmental changes and new
ecological niches that would open up in the future.
Pim, I would challenge you (or any "if I were God, I'd have done it
differently" claimant) to design another such an all-purpose fish
genome from scratch (ie. not copying the existing fish genome),
and demonstrate that it would survive for hundreds of millions of
years through all environmental changes, and would fit into the
overall ecology so that it would preserve the balance of nature.
>PM>This is not true. It could also be that no mutation has taken
>place to allow for selection or that such change is beyond the realm?
>That something is a major feature in animals does not mean it is
>the best solution, just the best of those available. But for an
>intelligent designer there is the choice to reroute this problem
>area.
This was in answer to my response that "the urinary tract" going
"through the prostate gland of men" presumably must have a selective
advantage, otherwise it would not have remained such a dominant
feature in all mammals.
It is not certain that this is a "problem", at least not to mammals
generally. I have read somewhere that much, if not all, the prostate
problem in humans is due to our fatty diet. If God originally
intended Adam's descendants to be vegetarian, this may have prevented
the problem (Gn 1:30; 9:3).
But granted that an Intelligent Designer *could* choose "to reroute
this problem area", but why *should* He, if "the...solution" is the
best of those available"? Maybe the advantage of the prostate design
in aiding mammalian reproduction, outweighs the disadvantage of it
becoming a problem in later life.
In any event, Biblically, man was made with a potentially mortal body
(Gn 3:22), so that if he did not chose obedience He would die (Gn
2:17). If God made man's body perfect, man could not die, even if he
disobeyed God. If man had chosen to obey God, he would have lived
forever (Gn 3:22), so maybe God would then have then made a "choice
to reroute this problem area" if it was necessary?
>GG>"Again, do you know enough about the cell and developmental
>biology to say that rerouting this problem area wouldn't have drastic
>consequences on the health of the organism? I just sat through a
>(mostly boring) lecture on"
>PM>From an evolutionary point of view that makes sense but from a
>design point of view this doesn't.
Why? The "design point of view" encompasses the *whole* picture,
including "cell and developmental biology". Pitman points out that
prostate is the homolog of the uterus, controlled by chromosome
switches:
"Human sex is codified by a small and economical genetic difference
in just two out of the forty-six chromosomes in the zygote. Two
chromosomes carrying an X factor will result in a woman; an X
chromosome and a Y chromosome will result in a man. This microscopic
switch shunts development into alternate pathways that use the same
basic materials to produce different end-products. The knot of
tissue that under XX guidance becomes an ovary, under XY becomes a
testis: the folds of skin that in the female become labia, in the
male fuse to form a scrotum. Clitoris and main shaft of penis,
uterus and prostate are similar alternatives, triggered from the same
elements but developed differently by the chromosome switch."
(Pitman M., "Adam and Evolution", 1984, p114)
There may be no other way for this to work as well within all the
circumstances. The burden of proof is on the anti-design theorists to
design from scratch, not using the existing prostate-uterus design as
a template, a system that works as well, all things being considered.
If "cell and developmental biology" did "say that rerouting this
problem area wouldn't have drastic consequences on the health of the
organism" that would be the answer as far as "design point of view"
was concerned.
>GG>prostate cancer and how the epithelial tissue of the prostate
>needs the surrounding tissues to differentiate into the prostate.
>You must be quite well versed in the fields that pertain to this
>area--more well versed than anybody living in fact--to make such a
>claim. Developmental biology is pretty far along for such organisms
>as C. elegans and Drosophila and such, but not nearly well enough
>advanced for you to make claims like this about higher organisms."
This is what I find so amazing about the presumtion of those who
claim they could do a better job at designing than God. When (if)
science finally unravels all the intricate details of biology
(including its subset "Developmental biology"), I wonder if they will
still think they could do a better job. Well the test will be -
design your own complete biological system that is equally as complex
as the existing one (complete with an arrogant member species of that
system who thinks he can do a beter job), but without copying the
existing system, and prove that it could last 3 billion years!
>PM>From an evolutionary point of view the prostate does make sense we
>agree.
It makes sense from a Mediate Creation "point of view" as well. As
you yourself pointed out, God could have used an `evolutionary'
process in developing His creation. I believe He did, but then it is
not "evolution" in the Darwinian sense, but mediate creation.
>PM>And the reason is? Have you ever looked at the route the urinary
>tract makes in males? Looks like a plumber gone haywire.
Have you ever looked at the route a plumbing system makes in a
complex building that was developed in stages over many years by an
intelligent designer? Looks like a urinary tract!
But again the challenge to Pim is to prove that he can design a
better system from scratch without copying the existing system, while
complying with all the other developmental contraints (eg. must be
homologous with the female urinary tract, etc), and flexible enough
to accommodate all vertebrates for half a billion year, as the
present system has done.
>GG>"So you don't suppose that we'll figure out why the tract does
>this (rather, why it couldn't be otherwise)? Is this an unbelief of
>the gaps?"
>PM>No just an unbelief of the poor design. Perhaps you are right and
>there is a reason for the prostate's location. Perhaps the location
>close to the anus means that we are to enjoy anal sex<g>?
Since that would do nothing for the reproduction of the species, I
doubt it!
>PM>Why would a designer design a whale with hind legs? Why would a
>designer design Or whale embryos growing teeth which then
>'disappear'? There are plenty of examples.
See above. I presume this reflects some form of development from a
common ancestor. But common ancestry is not necessarily Darwinian,
and indeed may be creationist:
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, here
the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as
we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and
the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some
kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us anything about how
the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the
process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism
was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist. Such a
theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and
equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton
M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp154-155)
But such common ancestry appears to be non-Darwinian in that
homologous structures are not controlled by homologous genes:
"The term "homology" was first used by Darwin's rival Richard Owen,
the founding director of the British Natural History Museum. It is
derived from the Greek word for agreement. As noted in the text,
Darwin included a glossary in the sixth edition of The Origin of
Species that defined "homology" as "that relation between parts that
results from their development from corresponding embryonic parts."
According to a 1971 monograph by Sir (Gavin de Beer, former director
of the British Natural History Museum and renowned authority on
embryology, "this is just what homology is not." De Beer reported
that "correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed
back to similarity of positions of the cells of the embryo or the
parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately
differentiated." Moreover, "homologous structures need not be
controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not
employ similarity of genotypes." De Beer rhetorically demanded to
know: "What mechanism can it be that results in the production of
homologous organs, the same `patterns,' in spite of their not being
controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it
has not been answered." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
p188-189)
This would not be a problem for Intelligent Design because a Creator
can use different means to carry out a common plan.
>GG>"Gosh, you aren't just an expert on prostates and flounder eyes,
>your knowledge extends to the inner workings and necessities of the
>>developmental biology of marine mammals, too! Maybe I should be
>>worshiping you!"
>
>PM>Not at all, I am pointing out examples of poor design. Why have a
>whale develop teeth which then whither away. Again from an
>evolutionary point of view this makes perfect sense, from a design
>point of view I wonder what the designer was thinking.
As Gene points out, you would have to be an "expert on...the inner
workings and necessities of the developmental biology of marine
mammals" to be able to say these were examples of poor design. The
likelihood is that what you claim is "poor design" will turn out to
reveal the ingenuity and the sheer brilliance of it:
"There is simply no denying the breathtaking brilliance of the
designs to be found in nature. Time and again, biologists baffled by
some apparently futile or maladroit bit of bad design in nature have
eventually come to see that they have underestimated the ingenuity,
the sheer brilliance, the depth of insight to be discovered in one of
Mother Nature's creations...." (Dennett D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous
Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life", Penguin: London UK,
1995, p74)
>PM>I am confused that a supernatural, all powerful being could not
>design more properly?
There is a fallacy here that because an "all powerful being" *did*
not "design more properly" (ie. in an ideal engineering sense),
that He "*could*not design more properly". This assumes without
warrant that such an "all powerful being" *wanted* to "design"
everything "in an ideal engineering sense". But why would He want
to? I can think of one good reason why He would *not* want to - it
would be a temptation to idolatry: the worship of the creature more
than the Creator (Rom 1:25).
The Bible certainly makes no claim that God designed everything in
an ideal engineering sense. All that Genesis claims is that God
created everything "good" (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31).
Elsewhere man's body is claimed to be "wonderfully made" (Ps
139:14).
>GG>"Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that none of us are in
>a position from which we can judge the whole of creation in such a
>manner as would allow us to call any particular organism "flawed".
>Whether we believe in the God of the Bible or not."
Agreed. Atheists must use emotive language like "flawed" to carry
their arguments by rhetoric. Their argument collapses without it.
>PM>Perhaps but that assumes that we can not wonder about the whales
>with feet, the whales with teeth that disappear for instance and
>marvel at how well they are explained by evolution and wonder why a
>designer would use a similar approach. Perhaps because the designer
>is working through evolution?
It is more correct to say that the "designer is working through"
*natural processes*. If "the designer is working through evolution",
then it is no longer "evolution" but mediate creation.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------