Chris
If you believe this, then why go to the extra conceptual clutter of
non-naturalism? The ONLY sound general reason for accepting non-naturalism
would be that naturalism *wasn't* viable. If you accept that it a
materialist philosophy *is* viable, then you accept that non-naturalism has
no adequate cognitive basis. Or do you mean something much more limited by
"viable"?
Bertvan
> Anyone should be free to choose. If Darwinism is defined
> >as excluding plan, purpose or design, anyone should be free to be
skeptical.
Susan
> Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population over time.
Chris
This is true only if going from none to some a gene is counted as a change
in gene frequency. Obviously, evolution *includes* this, but it has to allow
also for the introduction of completely new genes (if only on a
codon-by-codon basis). Evolution is cumulative genetic variation over time.
Evolutionary *theory* holds that this change comes from variations, and that
we see *only* the organisms we do because all others have been prevented by
unfitness from joining or staying at the party long enough for us to see
them and chat with them about their genes. *Specific* evolutionary theories
may emphasize some forms of variation over others (i.e., mutation vs.
recombination, etc.), but the basic principle remains in any case.
Susan
> Variation--upon which natural selection acts--appears to occur by chance,
> but may or may not, of course. Science can't really speak to whether a
> "designer" (not the Christian god, of course, maybe Little Green Guys from
> outer space) is influencing gene replication errors. Whether the LGGs are
> involved or not evolution proceeds as usual.
>
> If you drop a rock and it falls straight down to the ground you have a
data
> point supporting the Theory of Gravity. What's irritating is when the
> "skeptic" says "Angels pushed it to the ground, you can't prove otherwise
> and it's religion to say something you can't see like gravity pulled it
down."
>
> Before you go to work scientifically proving that LGGs influence gene
> relplication errors, I want to see you scientifically prove the existence
of
> the LGGs.
Or that there *are* such influences on genes. There still seems to be no
evidence of this, though the lack of supporting data does not seem to bother
ID theorists at all. Unless they deny naturalistic microevolution, they have
the burden of proving that macroevolution either does not occur or occurs
only because of some intelligent outside force. Macroevolution appears to be
no more than microevolution over time. This is the big problem. There is no
*logical* reason to deny macroevolution, so the only thing left is to assert
that it doesn't occur because they don't understand how it can occur. That
is, it's an argument from ignorance, because there is no *positive* evidence
for a designer, or at least none that is not at least consistent with
naturalistic evolution, and which therefore does not support a designer
hypothesis *over* the naturalistic evolution hypothesis.
ID theorists might, of course, back up a step and deny naturalistic
evolution altogether, including microevolution (and thus macroevolution as
well). But it's too easy to prove that microevolution occurs on a grand
(i.e., worldwide) scale, so even the most zealous of ID theorists won't
generally go *that* far.
The bottom line is that there is nothing different in *kind* between
microevolution and macroevolution, so if macroevolution is denied, it also
denies microevolution unless a special proof can be found that allows some
sort of microevolution but prevents it from occurring in larger amounts over
longer periods of time.
This is where Bertvan, et al, need to have their Alien Design Team step in
and twiddle needlessly with the genes. The problem is that there is no
genetic statistics to show that this is happening or that it ever *did*
happen. It's possible, I suppose, just as it's possible that Bill Clinton is
from Mars, that Bertvan herself is God's left arm, and that there really
*are* goblins about at Halloween time. But we can't go around believing that
everything we can't positively *disprove* is true (since *most* of that sort
of thing is false). That's why we demand evidence, and evidence that makes
such conclusions *rationally* (i.e., *cognitively*) better than other
conclusions, not just evidence that makes them more *psychologically*
acceptable.
Scientific theories are nearly always competitive. We choose the ones that
do the best job of logically requiring the known facts and predicting the
discovery of new facts. If there are more than one such theory, we choose
the one with the least demanding premises (i.e., naturalism vs. theism). If
there are *still* more than one in the race, we choose the one with the
simplest *principles* that enable us to produce the same body of thought.
The principle of naturalistic evolution is simple, it does not require any
supernatural realm or infinite beings, and it does enable us to make
*reliable* predictions (camels will *not* evolve at the bottom of the
Mindanao trench, but a suitable designer could *easily* put a hundred
*billion* of them there. Evolution actually explains why there are none
there (we can tell from studying camels on dry land that they will not be
fit for such an environment[1]) while designer theory does not (unless you
count "Because!" (as in, "Because he *wanted* to!") as an explanation --
which I assuredly do not)).
Designer theory's "explanation" for all possible and any *imaginable* fact
is: "Because that's what the designer *designed*!" This is the *sole* reason
it "fits" the facts so well. The "fit" is *absolutely* ad hoc. *Every* fact
is explained by a *massively* complex chain of "reasoning" going from fact
to "explanation" in one step, and that step is: "Because the designer did it
that way. Period."
Evolution's explanation for facts, however, often requires *several* steps.
Evolution's *predictions* of facts often require several steps in reasoning.
Why? Because it's *not* arbitrary. Designer theory explains things away;
evolutionary theory tries to offer *actual* explanations, explanations that
can be tested, that involve *reasoning* (i.e., thinking with *logic*
involved) to get from premises and established facts to conclusions and
predictions.
Naturalistic evolutionary theory, *were* it false in a fundamental way,
could probably easily be proved to be false. Organisms would always
replicate exactly (but they don't). Or no new genes would ever appear in
experiments or in people (but they do). Or organisms would give birth to
*radically* different organisms (dogs might give birth to potato plants,
etc.). Or environment would not kill off unfit organisms (i.e., there would
be no such thing as unfitness). Or, genes would be nice and orderly, instead
of obvious hodgepodges. Or *cells* would be nice and orderly, instead of
hodgepodges. Or *all* organisms *would* be "exquisitely" adapted to their
environments (but they aren't). Or, there would *not* be significant
morphological and genetic similarities among species (but there *are*). Or,
animal breeding would not work (because there would be no variations for
humans to select). Or, obviously more complex organisms would appear
hundreds of millions, or even *billions* of years before *any* simpler
organisms that they could *conceivably* be evolved from. Etc., etc., etc.
Oh, and: Etc., etc., etc. And so on and on and on.
Designer theory does not *imply* any of these deviations from evolutionary
theory, but it *suggests* that at least *one* such major deviation might be
found, and they would certainly disprove any current naturalistic evolution
theory. But, as far as I know, we don't find such deviations. We *don't*
find Behe's irreducible complexity (i.e., we only find things we don't know
how to reduce at the moment). We *don't* find new species appearing as if by
magic (apparently this *only* happened in the past. Did the designer get
*tired*?). We *don't* find more-complex organisms giving birth *only* to
exact duplicates of themselves. We *don't* find unquestionable evidence of
design genomes, or in morphology, or in history, or in biochemistry, etc.,
etc., etc.
Why *NOT*? Obviously, the designer theory answer (aside from "Yes we do!")
has to be, "Because the designer chose to create things in such a way that
it *looks* like naturalistic evolution, or he actually chose to *use*
naturalistic evolution." Fine. Either way, the designer is superfluous until
some significant *fact* (not mere lack of current scientific data or
understanding) is found that cannot *logically* be handled by a naturalistic
evolutionary theory. If we make the Behe-mistake of thinking that something
is *impossible* merely because we don't currently understand it, most of us
would have to deny the existence of most of modern technology. All people
like Behe actually prove is that they (or, in some cases, we) are ignorant
of the explanation for something. But such ignorance does not justify talk
of designers; we can't *rationally* say, "I don't understand how biochemical
complexity can arise naturalistically, so a designer must exist."
But this is one of the main patterns of ID thought and argument: "I don't
understand how X can be the case naturalistically. Therefore a designer
exists." This is Bertvan, Stephen Jones, Dean Kenyon, Philip Johnson, and so
on. *Facts* are not offered as direct proof of design, but as arguments
*against* evolution. This type of argument is okay as long as the facts
*are* in fact incompatible with evolution. But, in ID theory, these
arguments amount to "I don't understand how to explain this fact
evolutionarily" *or* the arbitrary *assertion* that "This fact cannot be
explained evolutionarily." *Sometimes* there is an attempt to *argue* that a
fact is incompatible with evolutionary theory, but *these* arguments
typically rest on one or more of the following:
1. A misunderstanding of some major aspect of evolutionary theory (often
even after that misunderstanding has been corrected *many* times by others).
Example: Assuming that evolutionary theory as such requires smooth
gradualism.
2. A misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the fact in question.
3. Simple assumption that there is a designer.
4. Confusing order with design.
5. The use of a non-fact: "It's a fact that Man appeared 500 million years
ago, long before the other primates. How do you explain *this* fact on the
basis of evolutionary theory?"
6. Misunderstanding the context or implications of the fact.
I have yet to see an argument of this type that is sound, though I can
easily imagine some that *could* be sound if the requisite facts were found
(such as pi to ten million decimal digits baldly implanted into the human
genome, etc.).
I bring up this whole issue of burden's of proof, because it was one I
brought up when I first joined this list months ago. The answers were the
usual silliness. I've made the point more elaborately above in hopes of
forestalling some of that silliness this time around. If Bertvan, et al, can
do no better than point out that such an ad hoc theory as positing a
designer will *necessarily* "fit" the facts (totally without regard to what
the facts *are*) because the facts are *irrelevant* to such a theory, then
she has *not* carried the burden of proof of showing that a designer theory
is or can be better than evolutionary theory. She needs to get a grasp of
one absolutely *crucial* aspect of scientific theories: If they are false,
empirical facts can *refute* them. Since, designer theory makes no
implications about the facts, no conceivable empirical fact can refute it,
even if it *is* false (because, by its very nature, such a theory could be
true *regardless* of the empirical facts).
The two theories are *NOT* on an equal initial epistemological or
metaphysical footing, though it appears that Bertvan and others would like
to keep from finding that out. Naturalism requires *only* the natural world.
Non-naturalism requires *both* the natural world *and* a metaphysically
transcendental realm, so, right from the start, the non-naturalist approach
has a massive burden of proof that the naturalistic hypothesis does *not*
have. I have seen this point evaded perhaps a few *dozen* times on this
list, but it is still valid.
Relative to naturalism, non-naturalism has the burden of proof.
Non-naturalists should accept it and get used to it, and stop trying to
pretend (as professional propagandists like Philip Johnson does) that they
are somehow merely *different* rather than at different *levels* of
epistemological reach. All of us agree that the natural world exists in some
form, so there is no burden of proof in that respect between naturalism and
non-naturalism. But non-naturalism *also* posits something *other* than the
natural world, something that somehow "transcends" it, etc. This would be
fine if they also accepted that this additional *major* claim has its own
burden of proof. But, mostly, they don't accept it. They want to *assume*
non-naturalism until it's proved false, when they should be assuming
*naturalism* until non-naturalism is proved *true*, because that's where the
burden of proof is.
Note
[1] I include this remark for the benefit of those who claim that "survival
of the fittest" is a tautological notion. If it were, we would not be able
to use it *at all* to make such predictions reliably. Exactly *what* kind of
thinking allows people to hold such ideas for more than five minutes anyway?
Can't they understand that organisms are *clearly* not fit for some
environments and that they are at least *apparently* fit for other
environments even without actually *putting* them in those environments? Why
was it possible for a person like Popper (for one) to *ever* hold such an
idea, when he himself was the main promulgator of the "survival of the
fittest" idea for scientific theories? Weird, weird, weird.