On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:45:25 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[continued]
>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.
>SJ>From a mediate creation perspective the "flounder presents an
>excellent example of" the *flexibility* of the "intelligent designer"
>in building such adaptability into the genetic code within the fish
>genome.
PM>Similarly from evolutionary perspective this makes perfectly good
>sense but it does not require additional constraints. Occam's razor
>applies once again in favour of the more simple explanation.
Please make up your mind. You claim that "the flounder presents an
excellent example of evolution in action" but "shows some poor design
if an intelligent designer were involved". I then show that it is a
"excellent example" of flexible design, and then finding your
argument fails, you invoke "Occam's razor". Since you could have
invoke "Occam's razor" from the beginning (and thus ruling out
intelligent design apriori), which is it to be? "Occam's razor" or
"poor design'?
>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.
>SJ>This is a good example of the superhuman brilliance of the
>Intelligent Designer, as opposed to mere human would-be designers.
PM>Is it ?
Yes. See below.
>SJ>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.
PM>Huraah, we agree on one thing that evolution is taking place. We
>just disagree on the necessity of an intelligent designer for this
>to happen.
No. We don't agree that it's not "evolution...taking place" at all.
*You* believe it is "evolution". *I* believe it is *Mediate
Creation*.
>SJ>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>If I were an all powerful god then I would design my creatures to
>be well-adapted and would not use different designs to optimize for
>different circumstances. Why go for a design which is sub-optimal
>if I have the potential to make the design perfect?
Why not? An "all powerful" God is not obliged to make everything
perfect. The Bible nowhere claims He has. And I have given good
reasons why God might create "sub-optimal" design previously.
PM>Your assumption that a god would design an all purpose fish
>implies a designer who reuses a sub-optimal design rather than use a
>more appropiate design for different situations. After all an all
>powerful and knowledgeable god would not be limited.
This is a fallacy. It does not follow that even "an all powerful and
knowledgeable" God "would not be limited":
"Omnipotence does not imply power to do that which is not an object
of power; as, for example, that which is self-contradictory or
contradictory to the nature of God. Self-contradictory things...the
making of a past event to have not occurred...; drawing a shorter
than a straight line between two given points; putting two separate
mountains together without a valley between them. Things
contradictory to the nature of God: for God to lie, to sin, to die.
To do such things would not imply power, but impotence. God has all
the power that is consistent with infinite perfection-all power to do
what is worthy of himself....Even God cannot make wrong to be right,
nor hatred of himself to be blessed...Sunday-school scholar: `Say,
teacher, can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?'..."
(Strong A.H., "Systematic Theology", 1967 reprint, p287)
Moreover, God is not obliged to use all his omnipotence:
"Omnipotence does not imply the exercise of all his power on the part
of God. He has power over his power; in other words, his power is
under the control of wise and holy will. God can do all he will, but
he will not do all he can. Else his power is mere force acting
necessarily, and God is the slave of his own omnipotence....
omnipotence is not instinctive; it is a power used according to God's
pleasure. God is by no means encompassed by the laws of nature, or
shut up to a necessary evolution of his own being, as pantheism
supposed.... God has a will-power over his nature-power and is not
compelled to do all that he can do. He is able from the stones of
the street to `raise up children unto Abraham,' but he has not done
it. In God are unopened treasures an inexhaustible fountain of new
beginnings, new creations, new revelations. To suppose that in
creation he has expended all the inner possibilities of his being is
too deny his omnipotence." (Strong A.H., "Systematic Theology", 1967
reprint, p287)
[...]
>SJ>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).
PM>So god did not predict this change in diets?
I cannot see how you get this. If Adam sinned, God "predicted" that
Adam would die: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Gn
2:17)
PM>But your assertion that the prostate needs to have an selective
>advantage is mistaken. Evolution does not require disappearance of
>features if they do not have a selective advantage.
That's correct. "Evolution does not require" anything!
>SJ>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.
PM>Perhaps? But that requires some additional data supporting such
>assertion. Absence of such data makes such speculation meaningless
>since it can be invoked to explain any discrepancy.
I'm glad you say this, because the above could just as easily be an
*evolutionary* argument - indeed it probably is.
>SJ>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
PM>Darn, all I need is obedience and I my body will live? Has this
>been tested?
"Biblically" it's too late now. Adam was our representative. When
he disobeyed God, he forfeited immortality, and therefore so did all
his descendants. But "Biblically" if you believe in Jesus Christ,
the second Adam (Rom 5:14ff; 1Cor 15:22ff), you will be saved through
His perfect "obedience".
>SJ>disobeyed God. If man had chosen to obey God, he would have lived
PM>A perfect body can still die when disobeying an all powerful
>designer. What would be stopping the designer from this?
I would have thought that if "A perfect body can still die", it would
not be "A perfect body". Isn't all death (apart from being killed) a
result of the accumulation of imperfection? Explain how a "A perfect
body can still die", without becoming at some point less than "A
perfect body".
>PM>From an evolutionary point of view the prostate does make sense
>we agree.
>SJ>It makes sense from a Mediate Creation "point of view" as well. As
PM>True but it requires increased complexity in its explanation which
>makes it a far less viable candidate.
First, I am pleased that you at least acknowledge that "from a
Mediate Creation `point of view'" "the prostate does make sense".
Second, that it "requires increased complexity in its explanation" is
irrelevant. What matters is which model best fits *all* the facts.
I have already pointed out that non-theists are forced to postulate
multiple universes to explain the fine-tuning of the universe, which
really *does* "require increased complexity in its explanation", as
even non-theists like Paul Davies acknowledge:
"In spite of the apparent ease with which the many-universes theory
can account for what would otherwise be considered remarkable feature
of the universe, the theory faces a number of serious objections.
Not leas of these is Ockham's razor: one must introduce a
vast (indeed infinite) complexity to explain the regularities of just
one universe. This "blunderbuss" approach to explaining the
specialness of our universe is scientifically questionable." (Davies
P., in Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose", 1994, pp52-53)
Indeed, as Oxford philosopher Swinburne points out, the
"It is interesting that recently Bayes' theorem has been used to give
quantitative substance to the Occam's razor type of choice among
competing physical theories. A chief feature of Swinburne's
(Swinburne R., "The Existence of God", 1991) argument is his
application of just such an Occam's razor type test to the hypothesis
that God exists uncaused. He regards this as the simplest of
hypotheses and therefore of higher prior probability than other
hypotheses, such as the existence of an uncaused universe." (Holder
R.D., "Nothing but Atoms and Molecules?: Probing The Limits of
Science", Monarch: Tunbridge Wells, 1993, pp163-164)
>SJ>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>You are confused, evolution does not care about how creation
>happened it just explains the observations of evolution using a
>scientific theory.
I am not "confused" at all. My point is that if "God could have used
an `evolutionary' process" then it is no longer "evolution" but
"creation".
PM>If as you say you believe that evolutionary 'processes were used
>in the creation' then Darwinian evolution can coexist very well with
>a deity. Of course Darwinian evolution exists as well or better (in
>a scientific sense) with a purely naturalistic explanation.
If there is a "deity" then "Darwinian evolution" loses all its
metaphysical status as a God-substitute. It becomes just another set
of secondary causes that the "deity" used in developing His creation.
And then there is no need to force recalcitrant *origins* data (eg.
origin of the cosmos, origin of life, origin of life's major groups),
into the procrustean bed of "a purely naturalistic explanation".
>PM>And the reason is? Have you ever looked at the route the urinary
>tract makes in males? Looks like a plumber gone haywire.
>SJ>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!
PM>But we are not talking about just an intelligent designer but an
>all powerful designer who could have predicted such future
>complications.
Yes. But there is no reason why "an intelligent designer" who is
also "an all powerful designer" who therefore "predicted such future
complications", nevertheless went ahead with "the route a plumbing
system makes in a complex building that was developed in stages over
many years".
PM>As such this explanation does not make for very good
>science.
Why not? "science" is about describing what happened, not prescribing
up front what can, or cannot happen.
>SJ>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.
PM>Why do I have to prove that I can design a system under all these
>conditions? Evolution has shown it to be possible, all we disagree
>about is the necessity of a deity using evolution as a creative
>process.
No. You are claiming that there can be a "better system". My
challenge is *prove it*!
>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>?
>SJ>Since that would do nothing for the reproduction of the species, I
>doubt it!
PM>So perhaps it was just 'fortuitous' circumstances but perhaps
>there is a selective advantage to anal sexual relationships ?
>Perhaps anal sex should not be dismissed as sinful after all but
>part of a design ?
Red herring noted! If you want to argue the "selective advantage to
anal sexual relationships" go right ahead.
>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.
>SJ>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:
PM>We agree that this is the only viable theological approach, a
>deity who used naturalistic processes to 'create'. So evolution in
>the Darwinian sense is correct in either scenario.
No - "evolution in the Darwinian sense" *may* be "correct" at lower
levels, eg. microevolution. It may be in-"correct" to extrapolate
this to macroevolution, just because there is nothing else
*naturalistically* available. Once a "deity" enters the picture,
there is something else :
"If God exists He could certainly work through mutation and selection
if that is what He wanted to do, but He could also create by some
means totally outside the ken of our science. Once we put God into
the picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the
creation of biological complexity to random mutation and natural
selection. Direct evidence that these mechanisms have substantial
creative power is not to be found in nature, the laboratory, or the
fossil record. An essential step in the reasoning that establishes
that Darwinian selection created the wonders of biology, therefore,
is that nothing else was available. Theism is by definition the
doctrine that something else was available." (Johnson P.E., "What is
Darwinism?", 1993. http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/wid.htm)
>SJ>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)
PM>meaning is something we might search for but there need not be
>meaning to our existance in a theological sense.
Another red-herring? My point was simply that common ancestry is
"compatible with almost any philosophy of nature", not exclusively
Darwinian evolution. I take your failure to dispute that, and the
attempt to change the subject, as tacit agreement.
>SJ>"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)
PM>Denton is more resourceful in his attack on anatomical
>similarities. He states:
Attempt to change the subject noted! Also noted by the "<Pnt but similarly applied it
undermines
>your statements about naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis.
Why is it "a very poor argument"? Dennett himself admitted that
claimed examples of "bad design" *have* "Time and again" turned out
to show that "biologists" "underestimated the ingenuity, the sheer
brilliance, the depth of insight" of "Mother Nature's creations".
("Darwin's Dangerous Idea", p74). On this basis, there is every
reason to expect that your "examples of poor design" have a very good
reason for them.
>PM>I am confused that a supernatural, all powerful being could not
>design more properly?
>SJ>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).
PM>The mystery deepens as it requires more and more assumptions to
>explain away the discrepancies. Occam's razor shreds such arguments
>to bits and pieces.
Again you are mixing your arguments. Either: 1. you can claim
"Occam's razor" at the outset, and rule out a Designer apriori, or 2.
you can argue that there may be a Designer, and cite examples of
imperfect design that present difficulties for some versions of that
hypothesis. But it to argue 2 and then when your argument fails, to
oscillate back to 1 is a mark of confusion or more likely
dsperation! Please make up your mind which argument you wish to make
and then let's take it one at a time.
[...]
SJ>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.
PM>Nonsense, evolution does not give a darn about an intelligent or
>natural 'creator' of life. Darwinian evolution exists equally well
>in either scenario.
When someone starts a sentence with "Nonsense" I suspect he is
bluffing. It's like the old preacher's sermon notes: "Argument weak
here. Shout!"
The point is that if there is "an intelligent or natural 'creator' of
life" then there is no reason to rule Him out in "evolution",
especially in those areas where "Darwinian evolution" has
difficulties explaining the evidence. Mediate Creation then becomes
the General Theory with "Darwinian evolution" merely a Special Theory
within it.
PM>To require a creator when in fact naturalistic explanations
>suffice fails the occam razor as well as scientific foundation.
The point is that "naturalistic explanations" do not "suffice" to
fully explain:
1. The origin of the cosmos
2. The origin of life
3. The origin of life's major groups
4. The origin of human consciousness
The only area where "naturalistic explanations" seem to
"suffice" is in
5. The origin of life's minor groups
The anti-creationists Hoyle & Wickramasinghe point out:
"So how has the situation turned out over the past century, as a
veritable army of geologists -have examined exposed rock sequences
from all over the world? It has turned out no different from what
was known already at the time of publication of the Origin of
Species. Not only does the supposed evolutionary tree of life have
no proper roots in some 'little pond' full of all manner of
phosphoric salts, but it has no primary trunk. No connections have
been found between first- order branches (kingdoms) and second-order
branches (divisions or phyla). Nor have connections been found
between second-order branches and third-order branches (classes), or
with fourth-order branches (orders). Some connections may exist
between fourth and fifth-order branches (families), although the
botanist J. C. Willis denied that any existed for plants. According
to Willis, it is only when one comes to sixth-order branches (genera)
that connections with fifth-order branches (families) appear to
exist. Even this limited success for the evolutionary theory is
tempered, however, by connections not being gradual, as they were
supposed to be: natura facit saltum, rather than Darwin's natura non
facit saltum." (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Our Place in the
Cosmos", 1993, pp132-133).
No less than Stephen Jay Gould has recently admitted that
Neo-Darwinist microevolution does not extrapolate out to yield the
full tree of life:
"I have argued that gene selectionism is an ultimately incorrect view
of evolutionary mechanics...Darwin himself relied crucially on such
an extrapolative vision: smoothly extend the adaptive struggles of
generations across millions of years in geological time, and you will
obtain the entire wonderously ramified tree of life...If this
uniformitarian vision of extrapolation fails, then we must conclude
that while adaptationism may control immediate changes in the overt
forms of organisms, it cannot render evolution at other scales. The
main excitement in evolutionary theory during the past twenty years
[has been] ... the documentation of the reasons why Darwin's crucial
requirement for extrapolation has failed. Selectionism is not a
general model for evolutionary change at most scales....But the
ultimate failure of Cronin's adaptionism, as a general evolutionary
model, appears most clearly when we consider the paleontological
record. Darwin's vision may prevail in the here and now of immediate
adaptive struggles. But if we cannot extend the small changes
thereby produced into the grandeur of geological time to yield the
full tree of life, then Darwin's domain is a limited corner of
evolutionary explanation. New documentation on the rapidity and
intensity of mass extinction (including the event that wiped out the
dinosaurs) has provided the strongest argument for rejecting
Darwinian extrapolation....if mass exctinctions are true breaks in
continuity, if the slow building of adaptation in normal times does
not extend into predicted success across mass exctinction boundaries,
then extrapolationism fails and adaptationism succumbs." (Gould
S.J., "The Confusion About Evolution" in "The New York Review of
Books", November 19, 1992, a review of "The Ant and the Peacock:
Altruism and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today", Cambridge U.
Press, 1991, by Helena Cronin)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------