THE QUANDARY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN II
I have received comments by e-mail from correspondents who had not posted on the comments page, but which were worthwhile critiques to the essay I had written, The Quandary of Intelligent Design. I believe an article, as a response to these critiques might be the most convenient way for readers of this blog to follow the debate. Now, readers may have the impression that I am a lot harder on evolutionists than I am on ID theorists. I can answer that by saying that this impression is well justified, but that is not only because many are taking evolution so much more seriously in a way that they are not taking ID seriously, but also because I am open to the idea that life may be the achievement of advanced technologies. I can understand scientists not wanting ID taught in science classes for the same reasons they would not want Flat Earth Theory taught there, also. The task facing IDists is to convince people that ID theory is theoretically plausible in the way that the Flat Earth Theory is not. But still, there is a preposterous inconsistency within the established scientific community when they seemingly rule out any possibility that advanced beings and their technology may actually have been responsible for the existence of living things, yet spend millions of taxpayers’ money looking for them with projects like SETI.
Critique:
My Reply:
One thing I’ve often wondered about is what do scientist think they mean when they use the word evolution, and when they say that it has been proven. I’m aware of the use of the fossil record to demonstrate the “proof” of evolution. However, that “proof” is heavily laden by interpretation. There is a fairly good fossil record of cetaceans, for instance, and it shows many of the stages of development through the ages. So one could point to an early ancestor and say that the varieties we see today have been derived from it. But, I pose the question: if similar cetacean species past and present were alive today, could anyone say that any one species might have evolved from any of the others? Is it not simply the factor of time that leads to the perception and interpretation of evolution? Remove them from the context of time and the primitive cetaceans would be perceived to be not much less evolved than their modern counterpart. Would the interpretation called for by evolutionary theory still be warranted? This is meant to say that cetacean species today do pretty much what their ancestors were doing so long ago, so how significant is it to label this "evolution" unless one knows what is meant by that term? What is it, exactly, that has taken place? Another example would be the coelacanth, which was thought extinct and deemed the evolutionary precursor to the modern day fish…until a fresh specimen was discovered from off the coast of South Africa in 1938. Other specimens have turned up since, in the West Indian Ocean and the waters of Indonesia. The coelacanth, as a fossil, demonstrated the “fact of evolution”; as a still living specimen, it demonstrates nothing. If the modern day chimpanzee had become extinct long ago and its fossilized remains found today, it would likely be hailed as an evolutionary ascendant of man, though there would be no more objective biological evidence that would compel a conclusion for evolution in that case than there is at present. It is time coupled with perception, then, that conditions the interpretation.
From Simple to Complex
Darwin quite modestly titled his work The Origin of Species. I say “modestly” because species are a limited classification of life forms, and are mostly defined by the criterion of their ability to interbreed. It is noteworthy that Darwin did not title his work “The Origin of Everything”, as current evolutionary theory pretends to explain. That cetaceans have branched into different species such that these have lost the ability to interbreed among their kind certainly represents an evolution, if this is how one cares to define it, but this is far from the perception conjured up by evolutionist literature, which is more suggestive of revolution.
And here I will use an analogy: we are aware of the early automobile, and we have seen that contraption evolve into what it is today. But might we validly conclude that the airplane and the rocket ship evolved as a consequence of the automobile based on a time line? I believe not. Yet the impression that is fostered by evolutionary theories with respect to biological organisms seems to affirm this very thing. The accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes through time are presumed to account for revolutionary ones — termed macroevolution —through a process of random mutations and the conservation of those mutations that have advantaged the survivability of those specimens possessing these mutations, such that they enter into the species population. To consider species differentiation, or the lost ability for a population group of organisms to interbreed with their predecessors as the sole criterion for what would be termed a macro-evolutionary change is more an issue of semantics than of science. Again, much of the debate over evolution is over meanings and definitions. Has evolutionary theory adequately demonstrated the process not just of systems transforming into other similar systems, but more importantly, of simple systems progressing into complex ones? Or is this process utterly dependent on the resort to logic? This is the sense the detractors of evolution give to the word.
So, going back to the fossil record: where do we observe those intermediate forms for organisms in the same way that we might observe intermediate forms evolving from the automobile to the airplane? Well, we don’t….at least not for anyone who has an ordinary imagination. Much of evolutionary theory is supported by the theoretical evolutionary interpretation of observations, the conclusions of which are based on extrapolations, such that one is led to accept the “fact” of macroevolution by means of a reasoning process more than an empirical process. So, one would find a fossilized car, then observe an airplane and see that they both have some things in common, and then induce that the airplane evolved from the car because of a timeline and some misguided commitment to doctrinal correctness. I admit the analogy is naïve and crude, but I hope the point is made.
Critique:
My Reply:
This is burdening the critics of evolutionary theory with nothing less than having to formulate a new theory of origins before anyone admits that the current one has flaws. That’s like saying, “Come up with a better idea; otherwise, better a bad idea than none at all.” Nevertheless, no reasonable person who has a fundamental grasp of evolution contests the validity of microevolution, of which the study of genetics is a part, or the fact of this process where it has been demonstrated, but rather that of macroevolution, which supposes a lot of untested and untestable claims.
But let us ask the question: could one have come to an understanding of the genetic code without the theory of evolution, as it is popularly understood, that is, macroevolution? My belief is, yes. First, the study of genetics belongs properly to microevolution; and secondly, scientists have discovered the functions and purposes of biological systems before there even was a theory of evolution, and there is no reason to think that they would not have continued to do so. The discovery of the functions and purposes of the genetic code have been accomplished with no help really from the macroevolutionary hypothesis for this reason: this particular study of evolution is more like archeology and history than it is like science. It is more historical than technical. It explains things — mainly itself — more than it is able to predict them. Strikingly, the important predictions expected from the theory have failed to materialize. Again, I will use an analogy. Suppose someone and a friend are wandering in the middle of nowhere and they stumble across a contraption. One starts tinkering with it, coming up with theories about its functioning and, as a result, eventually discovers that it does things — useful things. The friend, meanwhile, has spent his time wondering how it got there. That’s the difference between real science and evolution.
Critique:
My Reply:
Because we see that all English literature contains the same alphabet with the same words, can we validly conclude that all English literature has the same author? This is to say that the universality of the code could very well have explanations other than evolution. Now, I find it ironic that supporters of evolution make the kinds of errors of reasoning of which ID apologists are accused; in this case, arguing that because all other alternatives are unacceptable, then only evolution can account for this universality. ID apologist, making the same argument, substitute “intelligent design” in place of “evolution”. The result is the same: we know no more than we started with.
Much of evolutionary theory, as are many things, is conditioned by perceptions and expectations. This is an elaborate way of saying that people see what they want to see, and interpret events according to their expectations. So far, for ID supporters, their only method to support their view is to destroy the opposing one. One wins by default, then. I agree that it’s not strictly science. I also think that neither is the theory of evolution. So long as scientist “think inside the box”, however, and bend to doctrinal correctness and peer pressure, a more workable theory of origins will be delayed in coming. But then again, is there any real urgency, or is this simply to satisfy our curiosity? As I point out in the original essay, the importance of origins bears on worldviews, and would have important social and political consequences. The value of evolutionary theory, or for that matter ID theory, is sociological much more than scientific. The importance of this cannot be over estimated.
The situation the evolutionists find themselves in reminds me of those geocentrists, the Ptolemaists, the dominant, eminently respected scholars and finest minds of their day, who actually got their model of the solar system — geo system in those days — to work. This required monstrous mathematical calculations, however, but it did work. Copernicus with his solar system, was able to explain the same thing, but much more elegantly and simply than the Ptolemaists. Acceptance came slowly in deference, perhaps, to the principle known as Occam’s razor, but also, because of the evidence interpreted by the new view and valid criticisms of the old view. The evolutionists today are reminiscent of the Ptolemaists when one sees the hoops they have to jump through to make their theory work.
The Difficulty with Evolution
The difficulty with arguing about evolution is that the meaning of the word is, itself, so adaptable to the intellectual environment where it is used. It can mean small, localized changes; it can mean large scale physiognomic ones; it can mean simple adaptations to a particular environment; it can mean a revolutionary change in fundamental things; it can mean a random, purposeless universe, or just a simple description of what biological organism do. Because it can mean all these things, it is misleading to point to what has been proven, while tacitly suggesting that all the other meanings of the word have been proven also. This is not true. It has not been proven that simple systems progress over time into complex ones or that the universe is without meaning or purpose. It is the fundamental assumption of randomness and lack of purpose and meaning for the things that exist that is mostly contested by evolutions’ opponents.
Karl Popper’s essay Science: Conjectures and Refutations treats the subject of perception and expectations. It’s worth reading.
I have received comments by e-mail from correspondents who had not posted on the comments page, but which were worthwhile critiques to the essay I had written, The Quandary of Intelligent Design. I believe an article, as a response to these critiques might be the most convenient way for readers of this blog to follow the debate. Now, readers may have the impression that I am a lot harder on evolutionists than I am on ID theorists. I can answer that by saying that this impression is well justified, but that is not only because many are taking evolution so much more seriously in a way that they are not taking ID seriously, but also because I am open to the idea that life may be the achievement of advanced technologies. I can understand scientists not wanting ID taught in science classes for the same reasons they would not want Flat Earth Theory taught there, also. The task facing IDists is to convince people that ID theory is theoretically plausible in the way that the Flat Earth Theory is not. But still, there is a preposterous inconsistency within the established scientific community when they seemingly rule out any possibility that advanced beings and their technology may actually have been responsible for the existence of living things, yet spend millions of taxpayers’ money looking for them with projects like SETI.
Critique:
"Macro evolutionary events are observed in the fossil record, to me that is very clear. Recorded, I would say in a certified format that cannot be falsified. The ages of the different species is known, and the genetic relationships can be traced. Admittedly many pieces missing, but enough is known to be certain, scientifically speaking, that living organisms have developed, one from another, through genetic alterations. Normally over long times compared to human civilization, at least [according to] the written records we have, but very, very short compared to the geological record."
My Reply:
One thing I’ve often wondered about is what do scientist think they mean when they use the word evolution, and when they say that it has been proven. I’m aware of the use of the fossil record to demonstrate the “proof” of evolution. However, that “proof” is heavily laden by interpretation. There is a fairly good fossil record of cetaceans, for instance, and it shows many of the stages of development through the ages. So one could point to an early ancestor and say that the varieties we see today have been derived from it. But, I pose the question: if similar cetacean species past and present were alive today, could anyone say that any one species might have evolved from any of the others? Is it not simply the factor of time that leads to the perception and interpretation of evolution? Remove them from the context of time and the primitive cetaceans would be perceived to be not much less evolved than their modern counterpart. Would the interpretation called for by evolutionary theory still be warranted? This is meant to say that cetacean species today do pretty much what their ancestors were doing so long ago, so how significant is it to label this "evolution" unless one knows what is meant by that term? What is it, exactly, that has taken place? Another example would be the coelacanth, which was thought extinct and deemed the evolutionary precursor to the modern day fish…until a fresh specimen was discovered from off the coast of South Africa in 1938. Other specimens have turned up since, in the West Indian Ocean and the waters of Indonesia. The coelacanth, as a fossil, demonstrated the “fact of evolution”; as a still living specimen, it demonstrates nothing. If the modern day chimpanzee had become extinct long ago and its fossilized remains found today, it would likely be hailed as an evolutionary ascendant of man, though there would be no more objective biological evidence that would compel a conclusion for evolution in that case than there is at present. It is time coupled with perception, then, that conditions the interpretation.
From Simple to Complex
Darwin quite modestly titled his work The Origin of Species. I say “modestly” because species are a limited classification of life forms, and are mostly defined by the criterion of their ability to interbreed. It is noteworthy that Darwin did not title his work “The Origin of Everything”, as current evolutionary theory pretends to explain. That cetaceans have branched into different species such that these have lost the ability to interbreed among their kind certainly represents an evolution, if this is how one cares to define it, but this is far from the perception conjured up by evolutionist literature, which is more suggestive of revolution.
And here I will use an analogy: we are aware of the early automobile, and we have seen that contraption evolve into what it is today. But might we validly conclude that the airplane and the rocket ship evolved as a consequence of the automobile based on a time line? I believe not. Yet the impression that is fostered by evolutionary theories with respect to biological organisms seems to affirm this very thing. The accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes through time are presumed to account for revolutionary ones — termed macroevolution —through a process of random mutations and the conservation of those mutations that have advantaged the survivability of those specimens possessing these mutations, such that they enter into the species population. To consider species differentiation, or the lost ability for a population group of organisms to interbreed with their predecessors as the sole criterion for what would be termed a macro-evolutionary change is more an issue of semantics than of science. Again, much of the debate over evolution is over meanings and definitions. Has evolutionary theory adequately demonstrated the process not just of systems transforming into other similar systems, but more importantly, of simple systems progressing into complex ones? Or is this process utterly dependent on the resort to logic? This is the sense the detractors of evolution give to the word.
So, going back to the fossil record: where do we observe those intermediate forms for organisms in the same way that we might observe intermediate forms evolving from the automobile to the airplane? Well, we don’t….at least not for anyone who has an ordinary imagination. Much of evolutionary theory is supported by the theoretical evolutionary interpretation of observations, the conclusions of which are based on extrapolations, such that one is led to accept the “fact” of macroevolution by means of a reasoning process more than an empirical process. So, one would find a fossilized car, then observe an airplane and see that they both have some things in common, and then induce that the airplane evolved from the car because of a timeline and some misguided commitment to doctrinal correctness. I admit the analogy is naïve and crude, but I hope the point is made.
Critique:
“I also disagree [with] your [assertion that] ‘Macro evolutionary hypothesis’ has no scientific value. How else would one interpret the genetic code, so universal in all higher forms of life, and so similar as we are all built on the same fundamental blocks”.
My Reply:
This is burdening the critics of evolutionary theory with nothing less than having to formulate a new theory of origins before anyone admits that the current one has flaws. That’s like saying, “Come up with a better idea; otherwise, better a bad idea than none at all.” Nevertheless, no reasonable person who has a fundamental grasp of evolution contests the validity of microevolution, of which the study of genetics is a part, or the fact of this process where it has been demonstrated, but rather that of macroevolution, which supposes a lot of untested and untestable claims.
But let us ask the question: could one have come to an understanding of the genetic code without the theory of evolution, as it is popularly understood, that is, macroevolution? My belief is, yes. First, the study of genetics belongs properly to microevolution; and secondly, scientists have discovered the functions and purposes of biological systems before there even was a theory of evolution, and there is no reason to think that they would not have continued to do so. The discovery of the functions and purposes of the genetic code have been accomplished with no help really from the macroevolutionary hypothesis for this reason: this particular study of evolution is more like archeology and history than it is like science. It is more historical than technical. It explains things — mainly itself — more than it is able to predict them. Strikingly, the important predictions expected from the theory have failed to materialize. Again, I will use an analogy. Suppose someone and a friend are wandering in the middle of nowhere and they stumble across a contraption. One starts tinkering with it, coming up with theories about its functioning and, as a result, eventually discovers that it does things — useful things. The friend, meanwhile, has spent his time wondering how it got there. That’s the difference between real science and evolution.
Critique:
“If one did not accept that these life forms developed over time from each other, how does one account for the universality of the genetic code? Has it been created by magic?”
My Reply:
Because we see that all English literature contains the same alphabet with the same words, can we validly conclude that all English literature has the same author? This is to say that the universality of the code could very well have explanations other than evolution. Now, I find it ironic that supporters of evolution make the kinds of errors of reasoning of which ID apologists are accused; in this case, arguing that because all other alternatives are unacceptable, then only evolution can account for this universality. ID apologist, making the same argument, substitute “intelligent design” in place of “evolution”. The result is the same: we know no more than we started with.
Much of evolutionary theory, as are many things, is conditioned by perceptions and expectations. This is an elaborate way of saying that people see what they want to see, and interpret events according to their expectations. So far, for ID supporters, their only method to support their view is to destroy the opposing one. One wins by default, then. I agree that it’s not strictly science. I also think that neither is the theory of evolution. So long as scientist “think inside the box”, however, and bend to doctrinal correctness and peer pressure, a more workable theory of origins will be delayed in coming. But then again, is there any real urgency, or is this simply to satisfy our curiosity? As I point out in the original essay, the importance of origins bears on worldviews, and would have important social and political consequences. The value of evolutionary theory, or for that matter ID theory, is sociological much more than scientific. The importance of this cannot be over estimated.
The situation the evolutionists find themselves in reminds me of those geocentrists, the Ptolemaists, the dominant, eminently respected scholars and finest minds of their day, who actually got their model of the solar system — geo system in those days — to work. This required monstrous mathematical calculations, however, but it did work. Copernicus with his solar system, was able to explain the same thing, but much more elegantly and simply than the Ptolemaists. Acceptance came slowly in deference, perhaps, to the principle known as Occam’s razor, but also, because of the evidence interpreted by the new view and valid criticisms of the old view. The evolutionists today are reminiscent of the Ptolemaists when one sees the hoops they have to jump through to make their theory work.
The Difficulty with Evolution
The difficulty with arguing about evolution is that the meaning of the word is, itself, so adaptable to the intellectual environment where it is used. It can mean small, localized changes; it can mean large scale physiognomic ones; it can mean simple adaptations to a particular environment; it can mean a revolutionary change in fundamental things; it can mean a random, purposeless universe, or just a simple description of what biological organism do. Because it can mean all these things, it is misleading to point to what has been proven, while tacitly suggesting that all the other meanings of the word have been proven also. This is not true. It has not been proven that simple systems progress over time into complex ones or that the universe is without meaning or purpose. It is the fundamental assumption of randomness and lack of purpose and meaning for the things that exist that is mostly contested by evolutions’ opponents.
Karl Popper’s essay Science: Conjectures and Refutations treats the subject of perception and expectations. It’s worth reading.
posted by A Voice in the Wilderness at 5:51 PM
0 comments
