Reflectorites
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:54:06 -0500, Paul Nelson wrote:
[...]
PN>When I spoke at the University of Colorado a couple
>of weeks ago, a bright undergraduate came up after
>the talk and said, "Dr. Nelson, you've just GOT to
>go on the net and play Conway's 'Game of Life' --
>that will answer all the questions you have about
>natural selection!" I listened as this young man
>described the remarkable, organismal-appearing
>patterns that arise from what he called "a few
>simple rules."
>
>Interesting, I replied. But then there's Conway.
>Right?
>
>The undergraduate was silent for a moment, and looked
>down at his feet. So I went on:
>
>All evolutionary algorithms that we know have at least
>one author, or intelligent designer. In the case of
>the Game of Life, for instance, that would be Conway.
>In many (all?) cases, the authors work hard writing
>code, and debugging that code, to ensure that their
>programs run and actually produce results.
[...]
Which reminds me of what George Wald pointed out about Wohler's
alleged abiotoc synthesis of the first organic compound, urea:
"This brings the argument back to its first stage: the origin of
organic compounds. Until a century and a quarter ago the only
known source of these substances was the stuff of living organisms
Students of chemistry are usually told that when, in 1828, Friedrich
Wohler synthesized the first organic compound, urea, he proved
that organic compounds do not require living organisms to make
them. Of course it showed nothing of the kind. Organic chemists
are alive; Wohler merely showed that they can make organic
compounds externally as well as internally. It is still true that with
almost negligible exceptions all the organic matter we know is the
product of living organisms." (Wald W., "The origin of life,"
Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.45-53, p.48)
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:41:45 -0400, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
HVT>Paul, you have radically changed your position. Great! What I see below is
>consistent with my concept of a universe fully gifted by its Creator with a
>robust formational economy so that it has all of the requisite capabilities
>to actualize the whole array of life forms that have appeared in the course
>of earth history--without occasional episodes of form-imposing intervention.
>Welcome to my RFEP club!! I'll have your membership card sent ASAP.
[...]
No one in ID AFAIK has ever denied that Howard's "concept of a universe
fully gifted by its Creator with a robust formational economy" is a
possibility within ID. What Howard wants is for it to be the *only*
possibility. There was a long debate on this between Howard and Dembski
on the ASA Reflector where Dembski accepted that on more than one
occasion that Howard's "fully-gifted creation" model could be accepted
as one of the possible models of ID, but not the *only* possible ID model:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design as Concept, Sign, and Production
William A. Dembski (bill@desiderius.com)
Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:37:54 -0600
What I'm saying is that intelligent design seems to me compatible with a
fully-gifted creation so long as this fully-gifted creation does not reduce
nature to nature as conceived by the scientific naturalist. Intelligent
design's contribution to this richer conception of nature is then to
discover that nature is chocked-full of complex information-rich structures
that are not reducible natural processes as conceived by the scientific
naturalist.
In saying that intelligent design is compatible with a fully-gifted
creation, I'm not saying that intelligent design requires a fully-gifted
creation. A watch that never needs to be wound is a fully-gifted watch and
better than one that needs to be wound. But a musical instrument, like a
piano, does not become fully-gifted by being transformed into a
player-piano. Gregory of Nazianzus, a church father of the 4th century,
made a design argument in which God was compared to a lutemaker and the
world to a lute. Lutes by their constitution and structure show clear
evidence of design. But their design is not less perfect because they
require a luteplayer, who in Gregory's analogy is God. The question of
intervention vs. fully-gifted creation thus remains an open question within
the intelligent design movement.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Howard Van Till and Allan Harvey
William A. Dembski (bill@desiderius.com)
Sat, 10 Apr 1999 19:11:09 -0600
[...]
HVT>4. For example, the presence of evidence for 'intelligent design,' as
>defined above, would *not* by itself be sufficient to establish whether the
>mode of assembly (or production) either, a) necessarily *included* episodes
>of assembly by the form-imposing action of an extranatural agent, or b)
>necessarily *excluded* historical actualization by 'natural means,' that
>is, by the exercise of the creaturely capabilities characteristic of a
>'fully gifted Creation' that was from the outset equipped by its Creator
>with a 'robust formational economy.'
We're back to the "nature of nature" problem. If your fully gifted nature
is richer than the chance and necessity of the scientific naturalists and
is compatible with the possibility that there are features in nature which
in principle cannot be explained scientifically within the limits of
naturalistic science, then I would say fine. But if your fully gifted
nature is empirically equivalent to the nature of the scientific
naturalist, then I would say your view cannot properly be assimilated to
intelligent design.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard's claim that his "fully gifted" model is the *only* possibility is
evident in his continued use of pejorative language like "form-*imposing*
intervention" (my emphasis) to carry his argument. This begs the question
by making design up front look good and design incorporating subsequent
intervention look bad. This has been pointed out to Howard many times,
but he just keeps right on doing it! This indicates that Howard *has* to use
pejorative language to carry his argument, which then doesn't say much for
it as an argument.
Besides, it has been pointed out to Howard by a Professor of Mechanical
Engineering that Howard's "creation on `autopilot'" model would be *bad*
design, while planned interventions later on when needed would be *good* design:
"But what about Van Till's claim that creation is somehow more
gifted if all events are done with creation on "autopilot," all
developments somehow being incorporated into the initial design
scheme? I believe such a design would substantially compromise the
universe that we have in one of several ways. First if the provision
of information is to come through the assignment of properties to
matter, then the outcomes that are possible will be significantly
limited by the initial property assignments given. If, for example,
the sequencing of amino acids in proteins were due to the chemical
bonding preferences, then only one or a few sequences would be
permissible, severely limiting the varieties of proteins that could be
produced. On the other hand, when this information is provided by
other means the number of ways that biopolymers (such as
proteins) or systems (such as living cells) can be organized is indeed
unlimited.
Second, the constraint of trying to put all of the information into
the initial properties may have some very significant performance
penalties that are not apparent at first glance. Suppose that I
wanted to design an automobile that could self-assemble. It would
certainly be possible in principle to make such an automobile.
However, the degree of complexity associated with these additional
requirements would greatly increase the cost and would almost
certainly compromise the performance, since these additional
capabilities come at a high cost of additional complexity that is
useful only in the assembly but not thereafter. In the same way,
there may be some significant design compromises in a universe
that is able to unfold with all the necessary information
incorporated into the properties of matter.
In summary, there is no rational basis for Van Till's claim that a
universe that unfolds entirely on autopilot represents a better design
or a more fully gifted creation by God than one in which not all of
the necessary information is imparted in the properties of matter
alone but is incorporated at certain critical points in the
developmental history of the universe.
(Bradley W.L. in Moreland J.P. & Reynolds J.M., eds., "Three
Views on Creation and Evolution," 1999, pp.135-136)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ironically it is this apparent strength of the theory-that it can explain so
much-which may be its Achilles' heel. Neo-Darwinism is incredibly
ambitious; it attempts to explain a vast part of reality, all the subtlety and
complexity of nature, in one breath. But do all the individual pieces of this
cosmic jigsaw puzzle actually fit together? It is all very well to half close
your eyes and imagine you see a coherent picture, but what is it like in
close-up?" (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts
about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.20)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 17:20:59 EDT