Thanks for your private comments to me Re: Design & Imperfection 2/2
(was NTSE #11). Regrettably, I haven't got the time to have private
debates with individual Reflectorites, unless they are about a
confidential issue. Besides, I believe that Creation vs Evolution
should be debated publicly. Please repost your message to the
Reflector and I will respond to it.
On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 15:21:04 -0700, Russell Stewart wrote:
>SJ>There is no necessary contradiction between "God's will and
>intentions" being in the final analysis inscrutable, and the fact
>that "science" works with a methodology of prediction and
>refutation.
RS>There is a huge contradiction. If God's will and intentions are
>ultimately unknowable, then the question of His existence will
>forever be beyond the boundaries of scientific investigation.
I didn't say "unknowable", I said "inscrutable". God's will and
intentions are knowable, but they are impenetrable (the literal
meaning of "inscrutable").
But if "the question of His existence will forever be beyond the
boundaries of scientific investigation", so what? Science is limited
- ultimate origins are "forever be beyond the boundaries of
scientific investigation". For example, science can never penetrate
behind the Big Bang.
RS>And this provides an easy tool for Creationists to deal with any
>inconsistencies in their theory by saying, "well, God works in
>mysterious ways!" This is what leads to bad science.
First we need to define what you mean by "Creationists". Do you mean
only young-Earth "Creationists" or Progressive Creationists and even
Theistic Evolutionists?
Second, what actual evidence do you have that "Creationists...deal
with any inconsistencies in their theory by saying, `well, God works
in mysterious ways'"?
Third, how do you know that there isn't a God who does "work in
mysterious ways"? If such a God does exist, then ignoring Him may
"lead to bad science".
[...]
>SJ>I personally have no problem even if it is a "flaw" from the
>standpoint of ideal engineering design. There is no requirement
>that a designer who is capable of perfect design, must always and in
>every case employ it:
RS>No, but if you are arguing that imperfect designs are deliberate,
>then you should be able to back up that argument by providing some
>good reasons why an imperfect design was employed when a perfect one
>would have been just as easy.
In fact I did just that in this very post you are responding to.
>SJ>The argument from imperfection assumes incorrectly that the Designer
>has only one motive - engineering excellence:
RS>No, it assumes that the person arguing intelligent design should
>be able to provide a good argument for it.
In your view the only "good argument" being for "engineering
excellence", no doubt? But nature does contain many examples of
near perfection in design that it is difficult to believe that random
natural processes could produce, as the non-theist Denton admits:
"It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere
we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity
of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the
idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could
have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a
functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative
capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which
excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?
Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the
molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear
clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of
twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that
what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the
full extent of biological design. In practically every field of
fundamental biological research ever- increasing levels of design and
complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate. The
credibility of natural selection is weakened, therefore, not only by
the perfection we have already glimpsed but by the expectation of
further as yet undreamt of depths of ingenuity and complexity."
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
1985, pp342-343)
>SJ>An Intelligent Designer may have reasons for sub-optimal design. For
>example, He may not want any one creature to have an overwhelming
>advantage over another, because that would contradict His design
>goals for the whole system:
RS>How would it give us an "overwhelming advantage" over squids if we
>were to have the same anti-blindspot retinal design that they do?
Humans and "squids" do not share the same ecological space, so the
example is irrelevant.
But in any event, there is no real evidence that the human "retinal
design" as inferior to that of "squids".
RS>Besides, if God's goal has been to prevent any species from
>achieving an overwhelming advantage over another, then He has failed
>numerous times, according to both the fossil record and many direct
>observations.
I actually said "creature" - I was thinking of higher taxonomic
levels, eg. classes, orders and genera, rather than "species". And
no "species" (apart from man) has such "an overwhelming advantage"
that it wipes out entire classes, orders or even genera.
RS>[Quoting Behe]
SJ>"...we are far from understanding the complexity of individual
>organisms, let alone the entire ecosystem in which that organism
>lives. What appears to be less than optimal design to us with our
>limited knowledge may actually be an optimal design when the entire
>system is considered."
RS>"may be" does not constitute a strong scientific argument.
Why not? I thought that "may be" is what "hypothesis" means. Please
provide a philosophy of science reference to back up your statement?
SJ>"Consider the thickness of armor plating on the side of a
>warship...The actual thickness of the armor on a warship is a
>tradeoff-not so thin as to make the ship too easily sinkable, and
>not so thick as to make the ship too slow."
RS>An interesting example, but I fail to see how it applies to, say,
>the placement of blood vessels on a mammalian retina, or the pathway
>of the human urethra, or any of the other examples that I've read
>about.
"how it applies" is the basic principle is design constraints forcing
trade-offs. Even an omnipotent/omniscient Intelligent Designer may
chose to limit Himself to the design constraints arising out of prior
designs. Of couse He could design each individual creature new, but
then that might result in lack of unity. He has chosen instead to
work by varying existing themes, which arguably is more difficult and
is the mark of real virtuosity in design:
"Notice, this is exactly what we would expect as evidence of good
creative design and engineering practice. Suppose you were in the
bridge-building business, and you were interviewing a couple of
engineers to determine whom you wanted to hire. One fellow says,
"Each bridge I build will be entirely different from all others."
Proudly he tells you `Each bridge will be made using different
materials and different processes so that no one will ever be able to
see any similarity between the bridges I build.' How does that
sound? Now the next fellow comes in and says, `Well, out back in
your yard I saw a supply of I-beams and various sizes of heavy bolts
and cables. We can use those to span either a river or the San
Francisco Bay. I can adapt the same parts and processes to meet a
wide variety of needs. You'll be able to see a theme and a variation
in my bridge building and others can see the stamp of authorship in
our work'" Which fellow would you hire?" (Parker G.E., "Creation:
the Facts of Life", 1980, p26)
SJ>"We know too little about the complexity of organisms and the
>environment in which they live to conclude that any one particular
>feature is actually less than optimal." (Wise K.P., in Moreland
>J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp221-222)
RS>We know when a feature causes an inherent disadvantage (such as
>the blindspot in mammals
Please give details of any *real* (as opposed to imaginary)
"disadvantage" of "the blindspot in mammals".
RS>or the dangerous layout of the human urethra, which makes it
>prone to blockage when the prostate swells), and many of these
>features cannot possibly be seen as an advantage.
I did not say they were an "advantage". I claim them only as
examples of design trade-offs.
RS>However, if Behe, Stephen Jones, or anybody else has examples of
>how such features might prove advantageous in "the big picture",
>they are welcome to present that evidence.
You are now raising the bar by shifting the argument from these
designs are/are not suboptimal to are/are not "advantageous".
According even to Darwinism they would be by virtue of being the
fittest designs that survived:
"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and
hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations;
rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are
good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in
relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life" (Darwin C.,
"The Origin of Species", 6th edition, 1967 reprint, p84)
But all I claim is that they are design trade-offs that all
intelligent designers encounter in order to preserve unity in
diversity.
>SJ>In fact, the argument from imperfection assumes without warrant
>that we would infallibly know what was in the mind of the Designer:
RS>It only assumes a certain level of common sense. Surely an
>omnipotent being would be capable of that.
As we are all taught in Science 100, what seems true to "common
sense" is not necessarily true in nature. It is "common sense" that
the sun goes around the Earth! How much more inapplicable is "common
sense" in complex issues of biology, let alone "what was in the mind
of the Designer"? The Bible plainly declares that God's ways and
thoughts are not necessarily the same as ours:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your
thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)
>SJ>But archaeology has major problems in understanding why *human*
>minds did what they did, as no less than Daniel Dennett points out:
RS>And even we fallible, imperfect humans can see ways that life
>could have been designed better.
I would emphase the "fallible"! But this is not the argument. ID
theorists would freely admit that *individual components* "could have
been designed better" from the standpoint of ideal engineering
excellence. What they are arguing is that: 1. an Intelligent
Designer may have had other goals, rather than engineering
excellence; and 2. from the standpoint of *the total system* life may
not have been able to be designed better.
The burden of proof is on "fallible, imperfect humans" to show how
*as a total system* "life could have been designed better".
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------