On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:45:25 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>PM>On the contrary, you are the one claiming not only 'design' but
>intelligent design...
>SJ>First, "design *is* "intelligent design". So-called "design"
>by unintelligent natural processes alone, is only *apparent*
>"design":
PM>Of course the problem then arises how to distinguish apparant
>design from intelligent design.
According to Dennett, it is not possible to "distinguish apparent
design from intelligent design":
"Indeed, all the biologists I have queried on this point have agreed
with me that there are no sure marks of natural, as opposed to
artificial, selection...Should this conclusion be viewed as a
terrible embarrassment to the evolutionists in their struggle against
creationists?...It would be foolhardy, however, for any defender of
neo-Darwinism to claim that contemporary evolution theory gives one
the power to read history so finely from present data as to rule out
the earlier historical presence of rational designers-a wildly
implausible fantasy, but a possibility after all." (Dennett D.C.,
"Darwin 's Dangerous Idea", 1995, pp317-318)
As Dennett's final "implausible fantasy" comment shows, "intelligent
design" is simply ruled out on naturalistic philosophical grounds.
>SJ>"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not
>see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet
PM>A design need no purpose.
Dawkins' point that naturalistic evolution has no "purpose", so it's
"results" have only the "appearance of design", "the illusion of
design". But perhaps you could give an example of a "design" that
has 'no purpose"?
>SJ>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)
PM>So indeed this 'apparant' design is often mistaken for intelligent
>design.
A theist would say that this "apparent design" is in fact *real*
"intelligent design":
"Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with the statement
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose." A theistic realist finds the
appearance of design unsurprising, because living things really are
the product of a designer." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
1995, p209)
>SJ>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.
PM>The first step is to show that it can be the result of random
>change and natural selection, the second step is proving that this
>is the case. The fossil record does support this fully naturalistic
>hypothesis quite well. But perhaps you can share with us why you
>believe the contrary?
I was afraid you would never ask! ;-) Here it is sumarised by:
"Because Darwinism is assumed to be a purposeless, undirected
process, it could not proceed from a starting point to a destination.
The expectation is that instead of lines of descent you would have a
thick bush with branches going off on each side and to failing and
extinct organs. And so one has to imagine a whole *forest* of
intermediates between the hypothetical animals and each of the later
groups that emerges. As Darwin himself put it, if Darwinism is true
the Precambrian world must have `swarmed with living creatures' many
of them ancestral to the Cambrian animals." (Johnson P.E., "The
Blind Watchmaker Thesis" , tape 2 of 3, Trinity Founders Lectures,
Access Research Network, Colorado Springs CO, 1992)
Denton states the problem in more detail:
"There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil record provides
a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution, because to
close the very considerable gaps which at present separate the known
groups would necessarily have required great numbers of transitional
forms. Over and over again in the Origin Darwin reiterates the same
point, leaving the reader in no doubt as to his belief that to bridge
the gaps innumerable transitional forms would have to be
postulated...
Darwin's insistence that gradual evolution by natural selection would
require inconceivable numbers of transitional forms may have been
something of an exaggeration but it is hard to escape concluding that
in some cases he may not have been so far from the mark. Take the
case of the gap between modern whales and land mammals. All known
aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals such as seals, sea cows (sirenians)
or otters are specialized representatives of distinct orders and none
can possibly be ancestral to the present-day whales. To bridge the
gap we are forced therefore to postulate a large number of entirely
extinct hypothetical species starting from a small, relatively
unspecialized land mammal like a shrew and leading successfully
through an otter-like stage, seal-like stage, sirenian-like stage and
finally to a putative organism which could serve as the ancestor of
the modern whales. Even from the hypothetical whale ancestor stage
we need to postulate many hypothetical primitive whales to bridge the
not inconsiderable gaps which separate the modern filter feeders (the
baleen whales) and the toothed whales. Moreover, it is impossible to
accept that such a hypothetical sequence of species which led
directly from the unspecialized terrestrial ancestral form gave rise
to no collateral branches. Such an assumption would be purely ad
hoc, and would also be tantamount to postulating an external unknown
directive influence in evolution which would be quite foreign to the
spirit of Darwinian theory and defeat its major purpose of attempting
to provide a natural explanation for evolution. Rather, we must
suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to
many unknown types. This was clearly Darwin's view and it implies
that the total number of species which must have existed between the
discontinuities must have been much greater than the number of
species on the shortest direct evolutionary pathway...
Considering how trivial the differences in morphology usually are
between well-defined species today, such as rat-mouse, fox-dog, and
taking into account all the modifications necessary to convert a land
mammal into a whale - forelimb modifications, the evolution of tail
flukes, the streamlining, reduction of hindlimbs, modifications of
skull to bring nostrils to the top of head, modification of trachea,
modifications of behaviour patterns, specialized nipples so that the
young could feed underwater (a complete list would be enormous) - one
is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands,
of transitional species on the most direct path between a
hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales.
Further, when we repeat the above process to envisage the bridging
of all the gaps between different types of organisms and to connect all
the unique and isolated groups such as whales, icthyosaurs, pleisiosaurs,
turtles, seals and sea cows we are forced to admit with Darwin
that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral
branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the
number of transitional species must have been inconceivably
great."
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
1985, pp172-174)
It is for these reasons that Darwinists have largely abandoned the
fossil record as evidence for Darwinism. For example, Dawkin's
colleague, Oxford zoologist Mark Ridley:
"This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the
false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the
evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by
a totally separate set of arguments-and the present debate within
palaeontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports
evolution...One reason that keeps on betraying itself is that a lot
of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution
stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual
descent of one species from another in the fossil record. However,
the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the
evidence for evolution...Darwin showed that the record was useless
for testing between evolution and special creation because it has
great gaps in it. The same argument still applies...In any case, no
real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the
fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as
opposed to special creation." (Ridley M., "Who doubts evolution?'
New Scientist, 25 June 1981, pp830-832)
>SJ>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:
PM>The bible is not scientific in any sense so should not be used as
>evidence of the existance of such a supernatural force.
This is what philosophers of science call the "genetic fallacy":
"`Creation science is a theory derived from the Bible and is
therefore not Scientific.' This criticism is frequently encountered
in popular discussions of creation and evolution (e.g., the editorial
pages of newspapers). Unfortunately, it is an example of the genetic
fallacy, the mistake of confusing the origin of a claim with its
evidential warrant and undermining the claim by calling attention to
its origin. What is relevant to the rationality of a claim is the
evidence for it, not its source. The medieval practice of alchemy
was the historical source of modern chemistry, but that is hardly a
good objection to the rationality of chemical theory. F. A. Kekule
formulated his idea of the benzene ring by having a trancelike dream
of a snake chasing its own tail in a circle. But the origin of his
idea was not what mattered; what mattered was the evidential support
he could muster for it. It makes no difference whether a scientific
theory comes from a dream, the Bible, or bathroom graffiti. The
issue is whether independent scientific reasons are given for it."
(Moreland J.P., "Christianity and the Nature of Science", 1989, p229)
Even if "The bible is not scientific in any sense", there is no
reason whatsoever that "The bible" could not be used to support a
"scientific" theory.
But there is even greater confusion in claiming that because "The
bible is not scientific in any sense" it "should not be used as
evidence of the existance of such a supernatural force". Since
current naturalistic science claims the "supernatural" is beyond its
domain , how could it pronounce that "The bible...should not be used
as evidence of the existance of such a supernatural force?
In any event, my main point was that *Biblical* Christianity can be
consistent and believe even in `blind watchmaker' evolution, if that
was proven.
PM>It is very well possible that a designer acts through random acts
>which is the only viable hypothesis of intelligent design. That a
>designer created the cosmos through a big bang and let naturalistic
>forces take its turn. Sort of a giant experiment.
I agree that "a designer acts through random acts" would be a "viable
hypothesis of intelligent design", but I disagree that it is "the
*only* viable hypothesis of intelligent design".
PM>[...] interesting but meainingless biblical story deleted.
How can it be *both* "interesting" and "meainingless"?
>SJ>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:
PM>True but then again chance could have done this as well through
>naturalistic forces so this explanation would fail under the Occam razor.
That "chance could have done this as well through naturalistic
forces", would have to be independently demonstrated, *before* "Occam
razor" came into it.
>PM>The idea that complexity requires a designer and even more an
>intelligent designer requires proof.
>SJ>More word-play. The question is not whether "complexity requires a
>designer" but whether *specified* "complexity requires a designer":
PM>The question is irrelevant since there is no 'specified'
>complexity. You are assuming that the end result was specified.
I could equally reply that "You are assuming that the end result was"
*not* "specified"! Origin-of-life specialist Orgel notes:
"Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity.
Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity;
mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack
specificity." (Orgel L.E., "The Origins of Life", 1973, p189, in
Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin", 1992, p130).
Even Dawkins admits that living things have a "quality that is
specified in advance":
"This has been quite a long, drawn-out argument, and it is time to
remind ourselves of how we got into it in the first place. We were
looking for a precise way to express what we mean when we refer to
something as complicated. We were trying to put a finger on what it
is that humans and moles and earthworms and airliners and watches
have in common with each other, but not with blancmange, or Mont
Blanc, or the moon. The answer we have arrived at is that
complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is
highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the
case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is,
in some sense 'proficiency'; either proficiency in a particular
ability such as flying, as an aero-engineer might admire it; or
proficiency in something more general, such as the ability to stave
off death, or the ability to propagate genes in reproduction."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p9)
>SJ>specified but simple (snowflakes and crystals). A crystal fails
>to qualify as living because it lacks
PM>Specified ? How do you define specified? There is no designer
>here and no inherent specification in crystaline structure.
Your further comments below show that you *know* what "specified"
means.
PM>Just adherence to some basic physical laws.
No. The genetic code is *not* the consequence of "physical laws" any
more than ink writing on paper is a "consequence of `physical laws'".
Physical laws of ink on paper just create blobs:
"Given this characterization of intelligent causes, the next question
is how to recognize their operation. Intelligent causes act by
making a choice. How do we know when an intelligent cause has so
acted? A bottle of ink spills accidentally onto a sheet of paper;
someone takes a fountain pen and writes a message on a sheet of
paper. In both instances ink is applied to paper. In both instances
one among an almost infinite set of possibilities is realized. In
both instances a choice is made-one possibility is selected and the
rest are ruled out. Yet in one instance we infer design, in the
other we don't. (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design as a Theory of
Information", January 1997, Indiana, USA.
http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/
Dembski.html).
Wilder-Smith illustrates:
"A better grasp of this subject-matter is provided by the following
illustration: the ink molecules mediating the contents of this book
possess their own chemical architecture, rendering the written
sentences black, legible, and perceptible. This architecture of the
ink molecules exists as a closed system and makes the ink-or the
printer's ink-black. Simultaneously, it also provides a basis for
the superimposed code-form of a language. This written form of
language is based on the architecture of the printer's ink, without
originating from it. The information contained within the molecules
of printer's ink does not in the least provide a basis for the
contents, the coded contents of the completed book, although the
architecture of ink and the architecture of a sentence or of writing
are certainly interdependent. However the chemical constitution of
ink is totally independent of the coded contents of the text in the
book. Information from without has been imposed onto-ink chemistry
and this information belongs to order of the second kind. If water
is poured onto a text written in ink, this text will thus be modified
or partly smudged; but never is fundamentally new information added
to the text in this manner.' (Wilder-Smith, A.E., "The Natural
Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", 1981, pp46-47)
>SJ>complexity. A chain of random nucleotides fails to qualify because
>Complexity is evidence of 'life' ? That requires some explanation.
>SJ>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."
PM>Unfounded similarity implying design and actual intelligent
>design.
Why?
>SJ>...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:
PM>It is not used to prove a scientific theory but disprove the
>argument from design. The error of a dichotomy between
>evolution/abiogenesis and intelligent design is a common one but
>needless.
If the "dichotomy between evolution/abiogenesis and intelligent
design" is an "error', why then are you trying to "disprove the
argument from design"?
>SJ>"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>The argument was not that this proves Darwinian evolution to be
>right but creationism which requires an active deity to be faulty.
Earlier you said that "a designer" who "acts through random acts" is
a "viable hypothesis of intelligent design", now you are saying
design "requires an active deity'. Please clarify.
>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.
>SJ>From "evolution's perspective" *no* "`design' makes" *any* "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>Proof by assertion and word play without relevance.
No. It is a logical consequence of "evolution" claiming there
really is no Designer and "creation" claiming there really is.
PM>You claim design where there need not be any. The poverty of the
>argument lies in the subjective assumption that complexity as
>observed in living organisms requires an intelligent designer.
It is not just a "subjective assumption". Naturalism has simply not
demonstrated its thesis that "living organisms" do not "require an
intelligent designer". Even non-theists like Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe admit this:
"It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave
William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than
a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the
ultimate winner.' (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Evolution from
Space", 1981, pp96-97)
[continued]
Regards
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------