Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Carl Woese, discoverer of a whole domain of life, regretted not overthrowing Darwin

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Origin of Life Circus From Suzan Mazur’s The Origin of Life Circus, which I (O’Leary for News) started to read the other day, is already beginning to seem like a must-have on origin of life:

Biophysicist Carl Woese [1928–2012] many consider the most important evolution scientist of the last century, and Woese was, indeed, honored with the major prizes in his lifetime—except for the Nobel, perhaps because he was truly a revolutionary. In our conversation (Chapter 15), for example, which may be the last feature interview he gave, Woese lamented not having “overthrown the hegemony of the culture of Darwin.”

Carl Woese is perhaps best remembered for his identification of a “Third Kingdom of Life,” the archaea—a methane-producing microbe that lives in a range of habitats, including the gut of modern animals. Like other microbes, the most prevalent form of life on the planet, archaea rely on the lateral transfer of information.

University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro and Oxford’s Denis Noble, who now have a web site called “The Third Way of Evolution”, pick up where Woese left off on paradigm shift in my separate interviews with them (Chapter 15).

From Third Way,

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Actually, overthrowing Darwin will take care of itself, once the real story gets out there. Lots of change, maybe, but not much Darwin?

See also: Suzan Mazur, author of evolution industry expose, has new book on the origin of life industry

and Some basic reasons why the field is stalled

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
rhampton7
ID theory never claims that the intelligence it detects ...
ID detects design, not intelligence.Silver Asiatic
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Timaeus, I don't know if intelligence and free will are simply the products of "meat computers" or that they must appeal to a supernatural component. Thomism requires free will is supernatural. Then again, if we are fated from the outset as some Protestants argue, then the "meat computer" would provide a explanation for why that must be materially so. I'm willing to let Science challenge Philosophy/Theology for the best descriptions of nature. In any event, it does not matter. Science and Intelligent Design as discussed, having nothing to do with my opinions. I'm trying my best to understand ID theory on its (via Dembski, Meyer, Behe et al.) terms. As I understand it, ID theory equates naturalism with materialism as evidenced by Stephen Meyer's methodological naturalism (MN). Do you disagree? Further, ID theory proponents often make the charge that "Science", because of its basis in material explanations, discounts the notion the supernatural and thus intelligence.
MN tells you that you simply must posit a material or physical cause, whatever the evidence. One cannot discover evidence of the activity of a designing mind or intelligence at work in the history of life because the design hypothesis has been excluded from consideration, before considering the evidence, by the doctrine of methodological naturalism (and the definition of science that follows from it). cite
Here Stephen Meyer clearly posits that Intelligent Design, by necessity, is excluded from MN and thus Science, because only material causes are considered. In other words, Meyer claims that Intelligent Design is a non-material cause undetectable to Science because of the materialism baked in. Do you think this is a misunderstanding on my part? So, for the sake of argument, if we grant that Weaver birds nests are examples of IC/SC, then we can safely conclude that they are intelligently designed, yes? Now if we posit that Weaver bird intelligent is solely a function of MN, then we must accept that "nature" can be creative, yes? Therefore, the only way to deny that nature has any creative abilities (can generate IC/SC) is to claim that Weaver bird intelligence must be in some part supernatural. So to with any non-human intelligence be it mammal, fish or insect. Human intelligence is a higher hurdle to clear. However, ID theory never claims that the intelligence it detects is equal to or surpasses that of human intelligence because it makes no claims about the designer. Do you disagree?rhampton7
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
rhampton7: It is always puzzling to have a conversation with you, because you claim to be both Catholic and Thomist but tend to put forward both premises and conclusions that are more reminiscent of Lucretius or Hobbes. But be that as it may, I shall respond. I see no reason to grant that the intelligence of any animal is derived completely from material processes. But even if that were the case, I would not have to grant that human intelligence, which in some respects marks a quantum leap above animal intelligence, is derived completely from material processes. And if there is even *one* intelligence in the universe that is not derived from material processes -- man's -- then there could be others -- the intelligence of angels, or of God. Frankly, I don't always agree with the choice of words of some ID proponents. I would see ID more in terms of "formal causality" in something like (not perhaps exactly like, but something like) Aristotle's sense, than in terms of "non-material causes," which, though correct in the sense that "formal cause" differs from "material cause," sounds to a typical modern ear like invisible ghosts or spirits running around monkeying with things. As for materialism being "baked into science," I might ask you whether for you "materialism" means nothing more than "naturalism" (which can allow the existence of God, as long as God is understood to work exclusively through natural causes), or whether "materialism" has the further implication that there is no God (because God is by definition not material, and nothing non-material exists). If the latter, then you are saying that modern science assumes from the start that there is no God. Is that your position, that modern science is not just naturalistic, but materialistic, in the sense of denying non-material reality and therefore denying God? We might also want to discuss the ambiguity of the word "science." Do you mean "modern science" -- science based on thinkers such as Descartes and Bacon? If so, I would agree that there has been a tendency of modern science to be "materialistic." It's not a uniform tendency; Newton's views were not materialistic, and I don't think Kepler's views were either (though I know less about the latter). But even granted that the main thrust of modern science has been materialistic, must *any* science of nature necessarily be materialistic? I don't think so. I don't think the science of either Plato or Aristotle was materialistic, and I don't think the science of some of the schools of Indian or Chinese thought was materialistic. So it might help if you would clarify what you mean by terms such as "naturalism" and "materialism," and state whether you think that *modern* natural science (as opposed to Thomistic natural science, Aristotelian natural science, etc.) is necessarily incompatible with the existence of God. And you might also tell us whether by "God" you mean nothing more than the abstract deity of "classical theism" as put forward by certain modern "Thomists" (dubiously named), or whether you mean the full-blooded Biblical conception of a God who is very much involved in personal and wholly contingent ways in both history *and* nature.Timaeus
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Timaeus, You are correct that design need not rely on miracles or the supernatural - but there is one enormous caveat that can not be dismissed. For example, Weaver birds build very intricate nests. IF their intelligence can be said to derive completely from material processes, then we have documented examples that materialism alone can produce both an Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity. This means that the current scientific assumption about materialism, at least in the case of Weaver birds, is warranted. Thus, even though the nest was intelligently designed, that new information arose from strictly natural means. However, that's not the premise of ID theory:
whether we appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design
Only if intelligent design is a non-material cause - i.e. supernatural - can ID refute the materialism baked into science.rhampton7
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
rhampton: ID is not against "material explanations" but only against "material explanations which by deliberate intention allow no role for intelligence." Thus, Michael Denton, an ID proponent, offers an explanation of evolution that is, on one level, nothing but "material explanation" (no "life forces" or miraculous tweakings), but on the more important level incorporates intelligent design. The problem with the Darwinian explanation, and with most (not all) other explanations for evolution is not that they invoke material causes, but that they leave no room for intelligent planning or input of any kind; indeed, the whole *point* of the work of most evolutionary biologists is to try to expel any notion of intelligent planning. That was the motive of Darwin, and it's the motive of Dawkins. For Dawkins, the whole purpose of biology is to teach the human race that all those things that look designed really are not designed. That's quite a different position from that of Denton, whose explanations on one level are just as "material" as those of Dawkins, but on another level introduce design as a real, not illusory, cause. You have been in these debates long enough that there is no excuse for you to interpret "design" as "miracle" or "intervention." And those who claim to be familiar with the notion of "formal cause" might be able to see a way in which, without invoking miracles, one can interpret evolution in terms of intelligent planning. But modern biologists are satisfied with a truncated notion of "explanation" which involves only material and efficient causes. This is why, in the end, evolutionary biology, as practiced by most, is a sub-intellectual discipline, from an Aristotelian point of view. It is not "science" in the full Aristotelian sense, but only a maimed part of science. It gives only partial knowledge, as looking at an object with only one eye, rather than two, gives only a partial view of the object. To look at evolution with a right or "material" eye and also with a left or "formal" eye -- that is the task of a full, philosophically sophisticated evolutionary biology. But of course, that is not a project that the modern scientific academy, with its bias in favor of "nothing but" reductionist explanations, will support or reward, and any biologist foolish enough to attempt it had better have tenure, because otherwise he will soon cease to be an employed biologist.Timaeus
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
The problem ID theory specifically addresses is a strictly material explanation for life and evolution. Say Darwinism were to 'fall' and yet replaced by another theory equally materialistic. What will ID theory have gained? A stronger argument for materialism because of a better theory. So not only do you need to show why Darwinism fails, but why all material explanations fail. Thus the operation of symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, the action of mobile DNA and the epigenetic of information is just as much a problem for ID theory as are random mutations.rhampton7
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply