Reflectorites
This will be my last post for a while (what's that cheering? :-)).
I have exams in a week!
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:51:32 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
>SJ>ID does not even have "a deity" at all. Todd Moody is "an agnostic".
CL>An intelligent entity capable of creating life, manipulating it etc,
>seems pretty deistic to me.
The point is that one can be "agnostic" about the Designer. One could
believe the Designer to be "deistic", theistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, or
just leave the identity of the Designer unresolved "agnostic". Fred Hoyle's
"intelligent universe" (and maybe Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis) would
probably be acceptable under ID.
At its most basic, ID claims that there is empirically detectable evidence of
design in nature. There is no need for it to speculate on the Designer.
>SJ>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?
CL>I would possibly be convinced by some incredibly magical revelation,
>some big genie in the sky doing fantastic things with a wave of the hand;
Since we are talking about the kind of evidence that *I* could provide, on
this List, this just again goes to show that evolutionists request for
"evidence for ID" is meaningless. It is like a creationist saying he would
believe in evolution if an evolutionist would bring Charles Darwin back
from the dead, or build a time machine and take the creationist back to
witness the origin of life or a major macroevolutionary transition.
It amounts to saying-"I would not believe in ID no matter what evidence
IDers provide"!
CL>but I'd probably think I was dreaming.
And that is another point. If a human being has made up his/her mind that
something is impossible, then *no* amount of evidence would suffice.
Even if God should appear to them and say He did it, they would assume
they were "dreaming"! The only way that a human being can believe
something, is if he/she first believes that it is at least possible.
CL>I guess I just have a built-in prejudice
>in favor of naturalistic explanation.
I admire Cliff's honesty and self-awareness here. He at least acknowledges
his prior "built-in prejudice in favor of naturalistic explanation". But then
he should also acknowledge that his repeated requests that I provide
evidence for ID is therefore meaningless.
Even if design had in fact taken place, my marshalling of evidence for it
would make no difference to Cliff. His "built-in prejudice in favor of
naturalistic explanation" would always convert my real design into his
*apparent* design!
The question Cliff might ask himself is, how could his position ever be
falsified? That is, if design was real, how would Cliff ever know it?
CL>ID explanation is more parsimonious
>and much easier, but it doesn't do anything for me.
I find this absolutely fascinating! Cliff even acknowledges that the "ID
explanation is more parsimonious and much easier" but he rejects it
anyway, because "it doesn't do anything for me"!
This might be a useful criteria in the Arts, but the question in *science* is
not whether something "does anything for me" but whether it is *true*, i.e.
it really happened.
CL>I like to puzzle out
>particulars; the one big all-inclusive answer is boring to me.
There is no reason why accepting "one big all-inclusive answer" should be
"boring". If God created the raw materials of the universe and then
progressively modified them over 15 billion years (which is what I believe)
the task of trying to find out how He did it anything but "boring"!
And the point is that Cliff already *has* "one big all-inclusive answer", i.e.
everything just evolved by impersonal natural processes.
CL>Who will be interested in doing science when it's downgraded to
>humdrum little problems, when all the big ideas are recognized as
>the designer's province?
The simple answer is that modern science got started when "all the big
ideas are recognized as the designer's province."
>SJ>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.
CL>How about 'idealist-naturalist?' You do realize that idealism is not the
>exclusive property of theism or 'designerism'? A philosophical idealist
>may simply be a person who thinks ideas and values and words are more
>interesting and important than physics and chemistry. There's no necessary
>connection to ID or theism.
I deliberately add "materialist" for *precisely* that very reason - that there
is an "idealist-naturalist" position which I might have no problem with.
Arthur Koestler, for example his essay "An Intimate Dialogue" in Koestler
A., "Kaleidoscope," 1981, was probably an idealist-naturalist and he was
antimaterialist/anti-Darwinist for that reason.
So is Cliff claiming to be an "Idealist-naturalist"? If so I would be
interested in Cliff stating briefly what he sees as the main tenets of the
"idealist-naturalist" position and the main difference between it and that of
materialist-naturalists.
CL>Of course you would lose the useful negative
>aspersion implicit in 'materialism'--greed, avarice, etc--but on the other hand
I have in the past made it clear (as does Johnson) that "materialism" in this
sense is the claim that "matter is all there is". It is *not* the same
"materialism'" as in "greed, avarice, etc":
"Naturalism and materialism mean essentially the same thing for present
purposes, and so I use the terms interchangeably. Naturalism means that
nature is all there is; materialism means that matter (i.e., the fundamental
particles that make up both matter and energy) is all there is. Because
evolutionary naturalists insist that nature is made up of those particles,
there is no difference between naturalism and materialism. In other
contexts, however, the terms may have different meanings. Materialism
sometimes used to mean greedy for material possessions, as in "he who
dies with the most toys wins." Naturalism also has quite different meanings
in other contexts, such art and literary criticism. These other meanings are
irrelevant for our purposes." (Johnson P.E., "Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds", 1997, pp.15-16)
CL>you would be more accurate, and more courteous, in referring to someone the
>way he refers to himself,
See above. I am not aware that Cliff claims to be an idealist-naturalist.
If he has referred to himself as that, I must have missed it.
CL>rather than with a self-serving term of your own invention.
Here I must disagree. I try to use mainstream terms that *accurately*
describe a position. For example I accurately distinguished between
"materialist-naturalist" and "idealist-naturalist". If Cliff claims
to be an "idealist-naturalist", and it fits the mainstream defintion
of same, then I will start calling his position by that term.
But that someone personally does not like a term, is not to my mind
sufficient reason for me to stop using it. The problem is that if everyone
invents his own personal description of his/her position when clearly it fits
a mainstream category that is accurate and has long been in use, then the
situation becomes even more confused than it is.
For example, some theistic evolutionists don't like that term, and invent
new names like "evolutionary creationist" even when there is no significant
difference between their position and that of theistic evolutionists. In such
cases, I will continue to use the more long-standing term, "theistic
evolution" to describe their position.
>SJ>Cliff ought to read some philosophy of science about "naive inductivism".
CL>Somehow I think I'd have trouble looking up that school. Maybe you could
>mention the high points?
I intended to, but I haven't got time at the moment. Exams are only 8 days
away! So I gave some of Gould's quotes instead.
CL>It's a philosophical question (i.e., unsolvable),
>whether one can do science without a guiding philosophy, or whether
>philosophy can spin out of a vacuum, without inspiration from the real
>world.
I don't think it is "unsolvable...whether one can do science without a
guiding philosophy". I think that one *cannot* "do science without a
guiding philosophy" and I don't think there would be even *one*
philosopher of science on the planet would disagree with me.
>SJ>But to save him the trouble here are some quotes from my website by Gould
>>where he point out the "priority of the paradigm":
CL>Gould is a facile writer and a competent scientist, but I don't see the point
>of continually quoting him, when you're really in disagreement with him anyway.
I answered that point on my website too:
------------------------------------------------------------
Objections to creationists using evolutionists' quotes
[...]
Evolutionists quoted still believe in evolution
That is precisely the point!
"Evolutionists have often protested `unfair' to quoting an evolutionist as if
he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the
vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in
evolution. But that is precisely the point, and the value of The Revised
QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly
likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who
are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile
witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who
admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who
admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly
legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right,
regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all
the other aspects of evolution." (Snelling A.* [Australian creationist
geologist], "The Revised Quote Book," [1984], Creation Science
Foundation: Brisbane QLD, 1990, inside cover) [...]
------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>Sometimes the theory has to crumble first, and a new framework be
>>adopted, before the crucial facts can be seen at all
CL>Well, when evolutionary theory crumbles and the big genie reveals
>herself, I will see a lot of things in a new light.
Maybe. Maybe not.
>SJ>Besides, Thaxton, et al's book does deal in detail with the scientific
>>evidence. Has Cliff ever read it?
CL>No, but if you post excerpts I will read them.
I have in the past posted excerpts from Thaxton et al's "Mystery of Life's
Origin". But in this case it would be better for Cliff to read the whole book,
because its argument is technical and cumulative and some of it is in
mathematical symbols which don't reduce easily to text. On its back cover
it has a recommendation from the atheist origin of life researcher, Robert
Shapiro:
"The authors have made an important contribution to the origin of life field.
Many workers in this area believe that an adequate scientific explanation
for the beginning of life on Earth has already been made. Their point of
view has been widely disseminated in texts and the media, and to a large
extent, has been accepted by the public. This new work brings together the
major scientific arguments that demonstrate the inadequacy of current
theories. Although I do not share the final philosophical conclusion that the
authors reach, I welcome their contribution. It will help to clarify our
thinking.... I would recommend this book to everyone with a scientific
background and interest In the origin of life...." -Robert Shapiro, Professor
of Chemistry at New York University. Dr. Shapiro is coauthor of Life
Beyond Earth." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery
of Life's Origin," 1992, back cover).
>>CL>Since 1802 science has added greatly to our knowledge of the fantastic
>>layers of biological complexity, no thanks to theology or ID theory.
>SJ>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.
CL>My impression is that their Christian side was a political necessity,
>and that they really didn't find Christianity a good fit with science.
Maybe Cliff has been reading too much *materialist* rewriting of history!
:-) Most of the leading scientists of the 16-19th centuries were devout
Christians (even Gallileo still after his recantation), and they wrote books
on Christian topics also. One of these, Pascal's Pensees is a Christian
classic.
>>>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?
>SJ>First, "macroevolution" is not necessarily "evolutionary leaps in one
>>generation". It sounds like Cliff is confusing "macroevolution" with
>>macromutation?
CL>Everybody seems to have a different take on these terms. If macroevolution
>doesn't involve macromutation, then macroevolution is just the long perspective
>on a sequence of micromutations.
Agreed. That is what the Darwinists in fact believe. In my Biology class we
were I was taught that "microevolution" simply means "evolution at or
below the species level" and "microevolution" means everything above the
species level.
CL>Is this the ID view, based on the need for
>evolution to be essentially gradual, in order that evolution be false?
No. Design could be gradual, in fact design could be 100% Darwinian,
because Dawkins himself says that:
"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the
blind forces of physics, ALBEIT DEPLOYED IN A VERY SPECIAL WAY" (Dawkins
R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, p.5. My emphasis.)
But the reverse doesn't necessarily apply. While a Designer could work
either supernaturally and/or naturally, rapidly and/or slowly, the same
is not true of a `blind watchmaker'. *All* naturalistic theories need
the `blind watchmaker' to build complex designs, and the latter can only,
work slowly, step-by-tiny step.
BTW, note the "All appearances to the contrary..." If Christianity is true
and Dawkins eventually stands before God to give an account of his life,
he can hardly complain that God didn't give him enough evidence. God would
have to do is to simply quote the above!
>SJ>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;
CL>Genomic integration of symbionts was a leap. I'm not sure that events that are
>rare and fortuitous in the world at large can be expected to pop up in a test
>tube. But it seems a perfectly good theory.
I have answered this before. It is IMHO just `handwaving' by Cliff. There
are several major problems with the serial endosymbiotic theory (SET) that
I have outlined, and even if it were true, it would not explain the design
features of the "symbionts". And it would not explain the design features
*above* the level of the eukaryotic cell. Besides, no SET advocate AFAIK
claims it happened in "a leap".
SJ>b) that they *could* occur regularly, in the right time, at the right time,
>>when needed-naturalistically;
CL>In the natural world things happen when they happen. If it looks to you like
>something unlikely is going on, since things happen precisely when they do,
>and not at some other times, you can give your reasons for that. Regularity
>is not an issue; a lot of crucial evolutionary developments could have been
>one-time events.
If this type of explanation were true, it would completely *gut* Cliff's own
"symbionts" theory. Why bother with "symbionts"? Just answer every hard
question with "In the natural world things happen when they happen"!
Is this Cliff's idea of *exciting* naturalistic evolutionary theory, which
does not have "one big all-inclusive answer", compared with "boring" design
theory?
>SJ>and c) that they *did* occur regularly, in the right time, at the right time,
>>when needed-naturalistically, then I would accept it.
CL>I would think exceptional evolutionary events occurred irregularly, and often
>at the wrong times.
The fact is that "evolutionary events" *had* to happen in the right order,
at the right time, to the right organisms, or they would be worse than
useless. My own Biology textbook, when discussing natural selection (to
which it devoted *5* pages - including a 2 page diatribe by Dawkins - in a
*1175* page book = 0.34%!), made this point:
"The entity subjected to natural selection is the whole organism, which is
an integrated composite of its many phenotypic features, not a collage of
individual parts. Thus, the relative fitness of an allele depends on the entire
genetic context in which it works. For example, alleles that enhance the
growth of the trunk and limbs of a tree may be useless or even detrimental
in the absence of alleles at other loci that enhance the growth of roots
required to support the tree." (Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G.,
"Biology," 1999, p.440)
>SJ>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>Since you know I think they are wrong about this, I don't know what weight
>you expect your argument to have.
My point is that "Darwin and Dawkins" are *right* - if intelligent design is
ruled out. IOW, if I was a naturalistic evolutionist, I would be a fairly strict
Neo-Darwinist, like Dawkins. It is the *only* viable overall position,
assuming there is no God.
Cliff might think they are "wrong" but he has no real consistent
designbuilding alternative to put in its place. SET theory might explain the
origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts in the eukaryotic cell as relics of
freeliving prokaryotes, but even then it is only half an explanation.
It does not explain the origin of the prokaryotic symbionts themselves,
which also have *fantastic* design features like DNA-mRNA transcription,
mRNA-protein translation via ribosomes, and the Golgi apparatus, which is
just *mind-blowing*:
"The Golgi apparatus finishes, sorts, and ships cell products. After leaving
the ER, many transport vesicles travel to the Golgi apparatus. We can think
of the Golgi as a center of manufacturing, warehousing, sorting, and
shipping. Here, products of the ER are modified and stored, and then sent
to other destinations. ... Golgi stack are referred to as the cis face and the
trans face; these act, respectively, as the receiving and shipping
departments of the Golgi apparatus. The cis face is usually located near
ER. Transport vesicles move material from the ER to the Golgi. A vesicle
that buds from the ER will add its membrane and the contents of its lumen
(cavity) to the cis face by fusing with a Golgi membrane. The trans face
gives rise to vesicles, which pinch off and travel to other sites. Products of
the ER are usually modified during their transit from the cis pole to the
trans pole of the Golgi. .... In addition to its finishing work, the Golgi
apparatus manufactures certain macromolecules by itself. ... The Golgi
manufactures and refines its products in stages, with different cisternae
between the cis and trans ends containing unique teams of enzymes.
Products in various stages of processing appear to be transferred from one
cisterna to the next by vesicles. Before the Golgi apparatus dispatches its
products by budding vesicles from the trans face, it sorts these products
and targets them for various parts of the cell. Molecular identification tags,
such as phosphate groups that have been added to the Golgi products, aid
in sorting. And transport vesicles budded from the Golgi may have external
molecules on their membranes that recognize "docking sites" on the surface
or specific organelles."(Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G.,
"Biology," 1999, pp.113-114)
Cliff can keep endlessly claiming these were in turn symbionts on the
principle that:
Big symbionts invited little symbionts
into their cytoplasm to bite 'em,
and little symbionts invited littler symbionts,
and so ad infinitum! :-)
but it just gets worse. The idea that the mindless accidental actions of
bacteria eating each other over 1 billion years, just happened to assemble
the right components, to build all multicellular plants, fungi and animals for
the next 2 billion years, with cellular machinery that is so ingeniously
complex, that it makes Captain Kirk's Starship Enterprise look like a balsa
wood glider, is simply, in Denton's words, "an affront to reason"!
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic
soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic,
constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating organism. While
some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to
reconstruct the evolutionary process are extremely tentative."
(Orgel L.E., "Darwinism at the very beginning of life," New Scientist, Vol.
94, 15 April 1982, p.150)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 18:08:58 EDT