Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Reader asks: How does the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis differ from design?

arroba Email

Further to: New call for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (The main problem the extended evolutionary synthesis creates for Darwinism is that evolution happens in many different ways, not just their way):

From the paper:

By contrast, the EES regards the genome as a sub-system of the cell designed by evolution to sense and respond to the signals that impinge on it. Organisms are not built from genetic ‘instructions’ alone, but rather self-assemble using a broad variety of
inter-dependent resources.

A reader writes to ask,

1. “designed by evolution”?

That means that design is so obvious that you can not get rid of it. But you can not represent “evolution” as an agent because “evolution” is not an agent, a force, a cause… Evolution is just “nothing”, the way we name the passing of time, but not the cause of the change.

2. “Designed by evolution to sense and respond to the signals that impinge on it” That is purely teleological, thank you.

3. “Self -assembly??”Ontogeny is not a process of assembly of parts. Aristotle called this process “epigenesis” 2.500 years ago. Kant explained that parts and the whole form being cause and effect to each other.

4. “…using a broad variety of inter-dependent resources”This interdependence sounds a little bit like “irreducible complexity””resources” has big teleological implications. The cell (or the organism that is being formed) “uses the resources” in order to…(Form is the final cause of the process)

Thanks to Jablonka, Müler et al. for reminding us how evident teleology and design are in biology.

Doubtless, the extended evolutionary synthesizers will be asked by others to explain.

Should be an interesting discussion.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

semi related:
Msgr. John F. Wippel - Aquinas and the Unity of Substantial Form in Humans - video - lecture starts at 17:00 minute mark 30:20 - Aquinas illuminated by Avicenna - one form and one substance per person. 33:00 - Aquinas vs Plato - soul and body are one substance, personhood. 36:00 - How the intellectual soul stands between soul and body 38:19 - the unity of the human person in one substantial form. 53:13 - What the opponents of Thomistic unicity believed. 104:00 - the rational soul is the substantial form of the human being. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsdHq8u639M
When one says the proposed new teleological process of evolution was designed by evolution, one is proposing a separate, earlier type of evolution that didn't have all those necessary teleological features. The principle of uniformity has been breached in a big way. About that "proto-evolution" either (a)one knows nothing because it no longer operates or (b)it is just the process of MN & NS which was thought to be the universal process, but which one has just debunked as a complete theory. It follows that all the fieldwork of Darwin and his successors has to be reinterpreted in the light of the extended synthesis. What was thought to be evidence for natural selection is actually evidence for the bells-and-whistles version. So what evidence remains that there ever was such a primitive form of evolution, other than the bare assertion that the present system must have evolved? Jon Garvey
Insisting that evolution designed life on earth is an insult to the real designers. I hope they don't take offense. Mapou
Macello Truzzi was a founder of CSICOP who left because he felt the organization was not assessing claims objectively. When he was confronted with his own successful remote viewing attempt he said: http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2014/09/the-in-betweeners.html
There was a moment of silence as we both sat there remembering this experience. Then Marcello said, "I am much more effective and influential as a reasonable skeptic than as a convert." We never discussed it again.
I think it is likely that some of the "Third Way" folks don't want to ruin their careers, lose their jobs, lose funding, lose access to scientific meetings, etc. by saying what they really believe. Jim Smith
Appearance of Design. Unguided, purposeless, impossibly lucky appearance of Design. But might Brother Occam take offense? What is simpler - real or appearance of real. Impossibly lucky appearance? Oops was not in Occams vocabulary, let alone impossibly lucky oops. ppolish

Leave a Reply