Reflectorites
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 01:39:53 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>SJ>"The power of ID is precisely its minimalism," says Todd Moody, an agnostic
>>and professor at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "It travels light,
>>with no theological baggage."
CL>Fine, you can have as minimal a deity as you please.
ID does not even have "a deity" at all. Todd Moody is "an agnostic".
CL>Now, what about the *scientific* baggage?
As I have said, no longer expect committed materialist-naturalists (even
anti-Darwinists like Cliff) to be able to accept the scientific evidence for
design. It is *staring them in the face* (see the Dawkins and Crick
quotes), but their prior philosophy converts it automatically into
*apparent* design.
But as I have said, ID does not have to convince committed materialist-
naturalists. All ID has to do is convince a large number of the 90% of the
general public which already believes in some form of design, that ID
is worth funding with their taxpayers' money.
>SJ>I do not regard exposing the philosophical assumptions of evolution and its
>>problems, weaknesses and errors, as ID. Indeed, it is what evolution itself
>>should be doing!
>>
>>But I do not define ID as merely negatively exposing the assumptions and
>>errors of evolution. I see ID also as a *positive* argument for design. That
>>is not AFAIK happening in any major way yet (i.e. initiated by the ID
>>leadership), but I look forward to it eventually happening in the early decades of the
>>21st century.
CL>Okay, forget about major positive arguments for ID. How about some
>*minor* positive arguments for ID?
See above and below.
>>SJ><http://www.discovery.org/crsc/CRSCdbEngine.php3?id=48>.
>>Thanks to Wesley for posting this. But again it is mainly a critique of
>>evolution. I do not see it as a full-blown positive argument for ID.
CL>What *do* you see as positive arguments for ID?
This confirms my point. I have been posting "positive arguments for ID"
for the last 5 years, but Cliff cannot even *recognise* then, let alone accept
them. If I posted some "positive arguments for ID" Cliff would just reject
them out of hand as *apparent* design and then ask me for some more
evidence of *real* design.
Here is a test. I ask Cliff to state up front what he would accept as
"positive arguments for ID", such that if I provided it, he would accept it?
Or in other words, is there *any* "positive arguments for ID" that Cliff
would accept? The answer, at the end of the day, will be "no". For Cliff to
answer "yes" would mean he would have to cease being a materialist-
naturalist. So he *must* deny there even can be design, while at the same
time asking for evidence of it.
>SJ>And as I have pointed out here before, ID in its modern form is still in its
>>infancy, dating probably from 1984 with the publication of Thaxton,
>>Bradley and Olsen's book, "The Mystery of Life's Origin".
CL>But sciences don't begin with philosophy. They begin with people
>hitting upon interesting new discoveries.
Cliff ought to read some philosophy of science about "naive inductivism".
But to save him the trouble here are some quotes from my website by Gould
where he point out the "priority of the paradigm":
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts do not "speak for themselves", they are read in the light of theory
"During the period of nearly universal rejection, direct evidence for
continental drift-that is, the data gathered from rocks exposed on our
continents-was every bit as good as it is today. .... In the absence of a
plausible mechanism, the idea of continental drift was rejected as absurd.
The data that seemed to support it could always be explained away. ... The
old data from continental rocks, once soundly rejected, have been exhumed
and exalted as conclusive proof of drift. In short, we now accept
continental drift because it is the expectation of a new orthodoxy. I regard
this tale as typical of scientific progress. New facts, collected in old ways
under the guidance of old theories, rarely lead to any substantial revision of
thought. Facts do not `speak for themselves', they are read in the light of
theory." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard
University], "The Validation of Continental Drift," in "Ever Since Darwin:
Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint,
p161) [...]
Sometimes the theory has to crumble first, and a new framework be
adopted, before the crucial facts can be seen at all
"The solution to Cordelia's dilemma-the promotion of her nothing to a
meaningful something-requires the more extensive revision of conceptual
overhaul. Cordelia's dilemma cannot be resolved from within, for the
existing theory has defined her action as a denial or non-phenomenon. A
different theory must be imported from another context to change
conceptual categories and make her response meaningful. In this sense,
Cordelia's dilemma best illustrates the dynamic interaction of theory and
fact in science. Correction of error cannot always arise from new discovery
within an accepted conceptual system. Sometimes the theory has to
crumble first, and a new framework be adopted, before the crucial facts can
be seen at all." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology,
Harvard University, USA], "Cordelia's Dilemma," in "Dinosaur in a
Haystack: Reflections in Natural History," [1995], Crown: New York NY,
1997, reprint, p.127)
Worldviews: Exert a hold as conceptual locks
"The personal and intellectual drama of Darwin and Dana provides the
main subject for this essay, but I also write to illustrate a broader theme in
the lives of scholars and the nature of science: the integrative power of
worldviews (the positive side), and their hold as conceptual locks upon
major innovation (the negative side)." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of
Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], "Leonardo's Mountain of
Clams and the Diet of Worms: Essays on Natural History", [1998],
Vintage: London, 1999, reprint, p.103).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, Thaxton, et al's book does deal in detail with the scientific
evidence. Has Cliff ever read it?
>SJ>ID's first task is to establish its philosophical base. Much work has been
>>done on this by Johnson, Behe and Dembski.
>>...
>>Then a few hours later I happened to pick up and read the following by
>>Phil Johnson which had the answer:
>> "The flaw in that logic is that the purportedly scientific
>> statement was inferred from the philosophical conclusion rather
>> than the other way around.
CL>Contradiction.
It just *seems* like a "Contradiction" to Cliff, but in fact it is Johnson's
key insight, and the sober truth, which Cliff's own posts unwittingly
confirm constantly.
>SJ>Of course, those who are committed philosophical materialists will deny
>>that there *can* be any evidence for ID. As I responded to Wesley's post,
>>ID's task IMHO is not to convince this small, but influential minority (that
>>can't be done) but to work around them by focusing on the general public.
CL>A frank admission that this is an exercise in demagogy, not science.
So it must *seem* to Cliff.
>SJ>If materialists refuse to admit ID into science, then there probably will have
>>to be a split in science, with funding being taken off materialists and
>>granted to IDers.
CL>How much funding will be needed to cover the cost of mentioning a few
>hoary shreds of ID argumentation? Or will there be expensive apparatus?
See my response to Bill's post.
>>CL>But what would be taught, other than that evolution is wrong? And how would
>>>the new model affect biological science in general?
>SJ>I have just finished Paley's "Natural Theology" (1802). If Cliff hasn't read
>>it he ought to, for the *fantastic* layers of design in living things, that
>>materialistic-naturalistic science has largely forgone about but has always
>>been there.
CL>Since 1802 science has added greatly to our knowledge of the fantastic layers
>of biological complexity, no thanks to theology or ID theory.
The issue is not that the scientific method works. Of course it does-it was
after all discovered by 16th century scientists who were all *Christians*
and believed in design.
The issue is the *interpretation* of the results. The fact is that modern
materialistic-naturalistic science, while it is discovering all "the fantastic
layers of biological complexity" is also furiously trying to *explain* it
away - see Crick's quote about "Biologists must constantly keep in
mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (Crick
F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138).
Why should biologists have to keep reminding themselves "that what
they see was not designed", if it wasn't?
>SJ>I can now understand why Darwin and Dawkins who have both read Paley
>>and realised that mutations and natural selection must be gradual and tiny-
>>step-by-tiny-step.
CL>So you assert that macroevolution--evolutionary leaps in one generation--
>could not occur?
First, "macroevolution" is not necessarily "evolutionary leaps in one
generation". It sounds like Cliff is confusing "macroevolution" with
macromutation?
Second. I don't rule anything out. If they can produce the *evidence*: a) for
how "evolutionary leaps in one generation" *could* occur at all-
naturalistically; b) that they *could* occur regularly, in the right time, at
the right time, when needed-naturalistically; and c) that they *did* occur
regularly, in the right time, at the right time, when needed-naturalistically,
then I would accept it.
But my point was that it is "Darwin and Dawkins" who claim that
"mutations and natural selection must be gradual and tiny-step-by-tiny-
step" to account for the evidence for design that "Paley" documents.
CL>Integration of symbionts to form a cell, for example--quite
>impossible?
See above re "impossibe". It sounds like Cliff is trying Chris' trick of
trying to shift the burden of proof.
And I don't know why Cliff keeps going on about "symbionts". As I
have pointed out several times, even if Margulis' serial endosymbiotic
theory(SET)is true (and there are a number of problems with it that I
have summarised):
1. it is only the merger of already *existing* cells. It does not explain the
*origin* of those existing cells. And it does not explain: a) how in fulfilling
its own immediate bacterial needs, it just so happened to get everything
right, sufficient to build all the complex plants and animals for the next 3.8
billion years; b) why it only happened: i) *twice* (mitochondria and
chloroplasts); and ii) in the *same* line, because all eukaryotes are
thought under SET to have descended from a common ancestor
having mitochondria, and plant cells have both mitochondria and
chloroplasts;
2. it would only explain the origin of eukaryotic *cells*. It would not explain
the design *above* the cellular level that Paley was discussing.
>SJ>They realised there is no other way those fantastic layers of design
>>could have happened naturalistically.
CL>How can you make logical arguments *for* microevolution while maintaining
>that it is false?
I don't understand Cliff's point. I am able to follow the "logical arguments"
that evolutionists make and yet believe that they are "false".
>>CL>Criticism of evolutionary theory is itself part of evolutionary theory.
>SJ>Agreed. But it is limited and suppressed. Much creationist/ID critiques of
>>evolution come from evolutionists themselves who have been marginalised
>>within evolutionary ranks. Even as powerful a figure as Gould is under
>>attack by the Darwinists (e.g. Maynard Smith, Dawkins, Dennett, etc) and
>>I predict that when Gould retires and eventually dies the Darwinists will
>>villify him and write him out of their history like they did to Goldschmidt.
CL>Goldschmidt has a place in scientific history, Gould does not. Science
>is about framing questions, recognizing problems, and proposing
>solutions. Goldschmidt did these things.
So did Gould. He is an authority on *snails*! :-)
But nevertheless, Goldschmidt has been consigned to the scrap heap of
"cientific history" by the Darwinists, because there is no known way that
macromutations could create life's complex designs *naturalistically*:
"One particularly eminent scientist of the mid-twentieth century who
concluded that it [Darwin's theory] had absolutely broken down was the
German-American geneticist, Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the
University of California at Berkeley. Goldschmidt issued a famous
challenge to the neo-Darwinists, listing series of complex structures from
mammalian hair to haemoglobin that he thought could not have been
produced by the accumulation and selection of small mutations. Like Pierre
Grasse, Goldschmidt concluded that Darwinian evolution could account for
no more than variations within the species boundary; unlike Grasse, he
thought that evolution beyond that point must have occurred in single
jumps through macromutations. He conceded that large-scale mutations
would in almost all cases produce hopelessly maladapted monsters, but he
thought that on rare occasions a lucky accident might produce a "hopeful
monster," a member of a new species with the capacity to survive and
propagate (but with what mate?). The Darwinists met this fantastic
suggestion with savage ridicule As Goldschmidt put it, "This time I was not
only crazy but almost a criminal." Gould has even compared the treatment
accorded to Goldschmidt in Darwinist circles with the daily "Two Minute
Hate" directed at "Emmanuel Goldstein, enemy of the people" in George
Orwell's novel 1984. The venom is explained by the emotional attachment
Darwinists have to their theory, but the ridicule had a sound scientific basis.
If Goldschmidt really meant that all the complex interrelated parts of an
animal could be reformed together in a single generation by a systemic
macromutation, he was postulating a virtual miracle that had no basis either
in genetic theory or in experimental evidence. Mutations are thought to
stem from random errors in copying the commands of the DNA's genetic
code. To suppose that such a random event could reconstruct even a single
complex organ like a liver or kidney is about as reasonable as to suppose
that an improved watch can be designed by throwing an old one against a
wall. Adaptive macromutations are impossible, say the Darwinists,
especially if required in any quantity, and so all those complex organs must
have evolved-many times independently-by the selective accumulation of
micromutations over a long period of time. (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial," 1993, p.37)
>>SJ>The difference is that the methods ID wants to do it by are reasoned
>>>arguments and an *open* discussion of real vs apparent design, not by
>>>the use of power and the marginalisation of rivals that Darwinism uses.
>>CL>Please, discuss real design vs apparent design, in your own words,
>>>without the conspiracy theory.
>SJ>There is no "conspiracy theory". People who have the same general
>>philosophical assumptions think and act the same way without having to
>>coordinate it.
>>
>>The fact that Cliff just assumes there *has* to be a "conspiracy theory" just
>>shows that he cannot conceive of there being any such thing as "real
>>design".
>>
>>Whatever evidence I put forward for "real design" (and I have been putting
>>that evidence on almost a daily basis for over 5 years) philosophical
>>materialists like Cliff will just interpret it as "apparent design".
CL>You are willing to devote pages to trivial personal squabbles; won't
>you take a moment to spell out a few of these positive arguments
>for "real design"?
It is *not* "trivial personal squabbles". It is the very *heart* of the issue.
There is plenty of evidence for design, but those with a prior materialistic-
naturalistic *philosophy* cannot even recognise it, let alone accept it.
All "positive arguments for `real design'" are therefpore automatically filed
away by materialist-naturalists in the mental tray marked "apparent design".
That is why this is such an intractable debate. It is not so much over the
facts, but over the *interpretation* of the facts.
>>CL>And please specify whether 'Darwinism' precludes macroevolution.
>SJ>Of course it doesn't. Darwinism doesn't preclude *anything*! Dawkins
>>called stasis (which is no evolution) "just an extreme case of ultra-slow
>>evolution (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, pp.245-246)".
>>Presumably he would call instantaneous creation "ultra-fast evolution"! :-)
CL>But you say above:
>SJ>I can now understand why Darwin and Dawkins who have both read Paley
>>and realised that mutations and natural selection must be gradual and tiny-
>>step-by-tiny-step.
CL>How can you have it both ways?
I don't. Darwinism precludes *macromutation* (at least in the Goldschmidt
sense) but not "macroevolution"(although they tend to define the latter
differently as just "transpecific evolution").
>SJ>But Darwinists are uncomfortable with the distinction between macro-
>>and micro-evolution and try to explain it away. For example, Mayr
>>tried to rename "macroevolution" as "transpecific evolution" and then
>>make out that it was "nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of
>>the events that take place within populations and species." (Mayr E.,
>>"Populations, Species and Evolution," 1974, p.351).
CL>Mayr exemplifies the 'modern synthesis' in his abhorrence of real
>macroevolution. But in the 21st Century, the Cambrian explosion and
>its incompatibility with gradualism will come into sharp focus, and
>macroevolutionary theories will abound, to the dismay of ID theorists
>who find microevolution an easy target.
Disagree. Things are headed ID's way.
And ID has no problem with "microevolution".
Also, Cliff is again evidently confusing "macroevolutionary theories" with
*macromutational* theories?
If so, the problem with macromutational theories is that: 1) they are
unique events which are not repeatable in a laboratory; and 2) they
are indistinguishable from miracles of creation.
Why does Cliff think the majority of biologists since Darwin have always
been dead against macromutational theories, despite the better fit to the
fossil evidence they would give? It is because they realise that
macromutations might be able to explain the odd single character, but
they have no hope of explaining the origin of *whole complexes* of
mutually *interacting characters*.
Julian Huxley, a co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synethesis,
understood all about macromutational theories (his grandfather T.H.
Huxley was one of their first advocates), and he pointed out their
fundamental problem over 50 years ago:
"In any case, if we repudiate creationism, divine or vitalistic guidance, and
the extremer forms of orthogenesis, as originators of adaptation, we must
(unless we confess total ignorance and abandon for the time any attempts
at explanation) invoke natural selection-or at any rate must do so whenever
an adaptive structure obviously involves a number of separate characters,
and therefore demands a number of separate steps for its origin. A one-
character, single-step adaptation might clearly be the result of mutation;
once the mutation had taken place, it would be preserved by natural
selection, but selection would have played no part in its origin. But when
two or more steps are necessary, it becomes inconceivable that they shall
have originated simultaneously. The first mutation must have been spread
through the population-by selection before the second could be combined
with it, the combination of the first two in turn selected before the third
could be added, and so on with each successive step. The improbability of
an origin in which selection has not played a part becomes larger with each
new step." (Huxley J., "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," 1945, pp.473-
474).
Cliff can `handwave' about macromutations, but let him try to explain
*naturalistic* `blind watchmaker' macromutations in a detailed, testable way,
that could explain the origin of even *one* complex biological system, which
must at all times, fit in with all the other existing systems, without missing a
beat.
I believe there were in fact `macromutations' but they were *supernatually*
planned, prepared, implemented and preseved by an Intelligent Designer.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and
the media. But why? 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, Mark [Zoologist,
Oxford University], "Who doubts evolution?," New Scientist, Vol. 90, 25
June 1981, pp.830-832, p.830)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 10 2000 - 19:58:09 EDT