From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>At 10:37 AM 8/24/00 +0100, Richard wrote:
>>From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>
>[...]
>
>
>>I think we need to distinguish between design of the system and design of
>>events occurring within the system. (I'll set aside the question of
>>"meaning" which is rather different, and, for convenience, I'll lump
>>together "purpose, plan and design" as simply "design".)
>
>It is not clear to me why you set aside meaning but not purpose or plan.
>It seems to me that all these are closely related.
The issue I was really concerned with was the presence or absence of an
intelligent agency. I felt that purpose, plan and design all imply
intelligent agency, but I wasn't sure that "meaning" necessarily does. But
this concern is probably unfounded or irrelevant to the current issue, so
let's include "meaning" along with purpose, plan and design.
>Some time ago I wrote
>something about why I feel meaning purpose and plan are not useful ideas
>in science. Rather than repeat that let me give a link to the archives:
>
>http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199906/0180.html
>
>What seems continually lacking in these discussions is a definition of what
>it means to be designed. I know Howard is continually asking for a
definition
>of intelligent design (as used by those advocating ID). Let me give a few
>possibilities, hopefully this will encourage presentation of other possible
>definitions.
>
>When I think of the word design I think of "mindful intention" (I think
these
>are Howard's words). This is, I believe, the way the word would most
typically
>be used by engineers. It separates the concept from the fabrication
process.
>
>What are some other ideas? For Cuvier, design was identified as an optimal
>fitting of form to function. I suppose it would be fair to characterize
>Paley the
>same way.
>
>What is lurking below the surface (at least for Cuvier, it was explicit for
>Paley) is that form and function are optimal because a specific form
>that would perform a specific function was in the mind of the Creator.
>IOW, the form has a Purpose.
>
>Richard Owen's view was quite different and also more realistic from an
>engineering perspective. Owen emphasized that any real situation would
>be plagued by constraints or trade-offs. Thus, he did not expect optimality
>and actually employed the argument from imperfection before Darwin (and
>long before Gould or Dawkins :).
>
>Owen expected to find design in terms of some generic type. Specific forms
>can be seen as variations on a theme. BTW, Owen coined the term homology.
>[as a side light, I found the argument from irreducible complexity in
Owen's
>writings. For an argument from irreducible simplicity, see James Clerk
>Maxwell :)]
>
>Now, how about Dawkins? First an aside. One often hears something like
>this: "Design in nature is obvious. Why, even Richard Dawkins believes in
>design." Well, Dawkins is an adaptationist and design in the above sense
>(optimality of form to function (given constraints)) is a fundamental part
of
>adaptationism. I read somewhere that some famous adaptationist required
>his students to read Paley in order to help them recognize design. Anyway,
>to say "even Richard Dawkins believes in design" is like saying "even
>Phillip Johnson believes in God." :)
>
>Interestingly, if you look at the adaptationist literature one finds common
>usage
>of the word "design" without Dawkins' additional "apparent". What is meant
by
>design is what I've indicated above. But Dawkins wants to add what is
lurking
>below the surface for Cuvier. Apparent design is something that appears to
>have been designed for a purpose. Perhaps this is a good point to
illustrate
>the difference between myself and people like Dawkins. Many people would
>take apparent to mean "it appears to be but it is not". I would say "It
appears
>to be but we can't say since we have no way of dealing with purpose in
science.
>Thus, we analyze things irrespective of purpose just as we measure the
amount
>of information irrespective of its meaning. We cannot conclude from the
>latter that
>there is no meaning. Nor can we conclude from the former that there is no
>purpose."
>Yes, I know, my version is somewhat longer.
>
>Well, I think I'm writing too much. Better move on. :)
I think we're pretty much in agreement about what "design" means. The
issue I was addressing was really the issue of whether intelligent agency
can be reconciled with randomness.
>RW:==
>>I would say that "random" in this context *does* mean without design. If
>>some designer is guiding the events of evolution, whether detectable or
not,
>>then I say they are not random.
>>
>>To take your example of an engineer building a Darwinian system, I would
say
>>that the system as a whole is designed, but the random events occurring
>>within it are not. To take a specific example of human design, a roulette
>>wheel is designed, but the outcome of individual spins is not.
>
>More interesting (to me) is to look at the final result of the process. The
>machine
>or whatever that was made using this Darwinian imitation approach. Is this
>thing
>designed? It seems not to be the case if one uses the criteria present in
>Cuvier
>and Dawkins wherein the specific form must be in the mind of the designer
at
>the beginning. I would add that this criteria, though seldom stated, is
>probably
>a part of most people's conception of design.
>
>RW:==
>>One further complication is that we need to distinguish between design and
>>determinism. We may consider an event to be random even if it's outcome is
>>predetermined, providing we have insufficient knowledge to conduct the
>>determination. For example, it may be that a sufficiently detailed
analysis
>>of the roulette wheel would enable us to predetermine the outcome of the
>>next spin. (Actually, a roulette wheel may be such a chaotic system that
>>this is not the case, but bear with me.) We would still consider the spin
to
>>be random, because we know that such a predetermination is not a practical
>>possibility. On the other hand, suppose the wheel were rigged so the
>>croupier can fix exactly what the next outcome will be, and does so. In
this
>>case, we would *not* say that the spin is random, even though, from the
>>punters' point of view, each outcome is still equally likely.
>>
>>So, if a designer has been manipulating the events of evolution to produce
a
>>desired result, then evolution is not a random process. On the other hand,
>>if a designer set up the evolutionary mechanism and then let it run
without
>>interference, then the process of evolution is random, and is without
>>purpose, plan or design.
>
>Here I have a real problem following you since, as far as I'm concerned,
the
>evidence for evolution *not* being random seems overwhelming. Provided,
>of course, that a technical meaning of the word random is being used.
According to the theory of evolution, evolution is a random process, because
it involves random events: mutations are one type of random event; another
is the natural vicissitudes of life which determine which individuals
succeed in reproducing.
Sure, this random process produces certain patterns, such as the trend
towards greater adaptation of a species to its environment. But it's still a
random process.
Similarly, an application of the Monte Carlo method is a random process,
even though it converges on a predictable result.
>Let's get back to my engineer. Here the "designer" sets up the simulation
>and lets it run without interference. Whether the result is "designed"
depends
>upon the definition of design, as I've shown above. But one can hardly
argue
>that it is without purpose or plan.
I agree that there may be a purpose and plan behind the *result*. But I was
referring to the events making up the process. Each individual event is
unplanned and purposeless.
Perhaps the difference between us is whether we're talking about proximate
purpose or ultimate purpose. I suppose the random events, while individually
purposeless, are collectively contributing to the engineer's ultimate
purpose. So, in that sense, I suppose they could be said to have a purpose.
But I think that's a weak sense.
It might help if you would clarify what your position is on intelligent
agency. Do you think there has been intelligent direction in the
process of evolution, or only in setting up the initial conditions? If you
think there has been intelligent direction in the process of evolution,
then I don't think you fully accept the theory of evolution.
>Hey, thanks for your challenging comments. Its a lot of fun trying to think
>about this stuff. :)
Yes--much more interesting than trading insults with IDers. ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 26 2000 - 05:46:28 EDT