Do Darwinists Believe In Miracles? Are They Engineering Deniers?

_{Gil Dodgen

December 22, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It seems to me that they do, and that they are. I made the following comment in vjtorley’s thread here:

Something that must be kept in mind is that, if proponents of the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism are correct, every aspect of every biological system in every living thing that has ever existed — from functional proteins, to the flagellum, to the human mind — must be approachable in a step-by-tiny-step fashion through the accumulation of random errors. This should strike reasonable people as belief in something that can only be described as a miracle.

One can easily get lost in the obfuscation and misdirection of Darwinists, with endless claims that one must read endless “peer-reviewed scientific papers” about protein homologies in order to understand the “overwhelming evidence for evolution” — which means that if one uses common sense and recognizes that screwing up complex, functionally integrated, information processing systems will do the opposite of what Darwinists claim such a process will do, he is an IDiot who wants to destroy science and establish a theocracy.

The more we learn the more it becomes obvious that living systems are the product of design and engineering, and I claim that Darwinists believe in miracles and are engineering deniers.

Comments

Anyone that can argue that highly complex, interdependent, functionally specified machines (along with corresponding blueprint, building and regulatory codes and interfaces) can be generated by blind and random forces is well beyond reasonable argument.William J Murray_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

@Brent, Science is agnostic on the matter. It is certainly capable and willing to address the issue of a "god" on terms it understands -- if some "Zeus-like" god came down from some mountain throwing thunderbolts and performing other wonders in a way we could observe, test, and model, then science would be building "Zeus theories" or similar theories of god or gods in scientific terms. That's just science doing what it does: natural explanations for natural phenomena. But as to God-as-supernatural being, science sees that as a divide-by-zero. Conceptually, that is an incoherent statement, per science. Unintelligible. Meaningless. Which is NOT to say it therefore holds that "God doesn't exist". It just has nothing to say on the topic, because "supernatural" is a term science is completely unable to address. In order for its epistemology to cohere, it has to stick to concepts it can integrate into its models, and means "God" as a supernatural concept, just can't manage more than a shrug from science. "Supernatural" is really the problematic element there, as you can see, not "God". If some god had some natural interaction with the world, or natural manifestation of itself in the natural world, then science could and should investigate the natural parts.eigenstate_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

@UltimatelyReal, Science doesn't deal in certainty (and that's a feature, not a bug), so strictly speaking, all theories are "guesses". But that's a kind of equivocation, to equate that with Gil's intuition of what is just "obvious" to him. Not all guesses are created equal, and while Gil's "I-just-know" is also a non-certain (or maybe not in his case) position of belief, science demands something more rigorous, testable, and intersubjective as the basis for what it promotes as the best current model. Intuition isn't sufficient, in other words. We don't throw out intuition, but we don't unilaterally surrender to our intuitions, either, per science. We test. We don't suppose a question like this has "obvious" answers. That's just an unserious stance on the subject. Your point about the child and Mount Rushmore is a good one, and applied strongly, is simply devastating to Dodgen's position, here. You're right to point out that the kid, even as you as he or she may be, has some familiarity with human manufacturing and craft, if not large-scale stone sculpture. The child has empirical evidence and knowledge of putative designers -- there is a match to be made between the phenomena (Mt. Rushmore) and it's artisans (the humans who made the faces). This is profoundly different than the ID intuition. We don't have any empirical basis for or knowledge of any putative designer. We can't place a capable agent in the right time and place as an explanatory resource for the origin of DNA like the child can place other humans with tools on the side of Mt. Rushmore, chipping and grinding away on their project. If IDers had the "common sense" of the kid marveling at Mt. Rushmore, they wouldn't have warrant for their ID conclusions. They lack completely that which the kid has readily available -- an available, capable, observable and testable agent that can be MATCHED to the phenomena. IDers don't have that, at ALL. They only have one side of the equation (DNA, evidence for evolution, etc.) and their intuitions/superstitions. If ID were to take the issue as seriously as that child does in matching extant agents and capabilities with the observed phenomena, ID would be in better, much more credible position than it is, currently. As for which "guess" is more sceintific, performative or not (that's in dispute, I guess), the evolutionary model IS a model, and fulfills the criteria for scientific "guessing" (explanatory, testable, faisifiable, coherent with other available scientific knowledge, etc.). I don't think ID can say that, not nearly. Setting aside for the moment which idea is more or less correct, what should not be controversial is that as guesses go, ID may be "right", but even if so, it's not a guess in the scientific model sense of that word (granting your equivocation on the word "guess" here, to make things move along).eigenstate_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

@eigenstate I'm not familiar with you, so I apologize for not knowing where you're coming from while many others here might. I'd like to ask you, however, whether you think that Darwinian evolution speaks to the existence of God, or not? Does the "utterly natural, law-based, stochastically driven" nature of the theory rule God out? It would seem you must say no, but it's safer to ask, I think.Brent_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

@InVivoVeritas, I've not said, nor do I suppose that intuition is the enemy of science. Rather, I've got it the other way around: science is the enemy of the monopoly of one's intuition. Science can't function without the intuition, and is driven on the front side of the discovery and analytical process without it. But intuition is not the arbiter, the means of judging and final authority, in the scientific mindset. And indeed, in a great many cases, our intuitions are confirmed by science, science as a "validator" or supporter in those cases of our intuitions. The key principle, and what you've clearly misunderstood here is that intuition isn't discarded by science (and can't be), but is rather dethroned as supreme and final. It isn't the last word if you incorporate a scientific epistemology; the evidence and models that integrate the evidence get a chance to weigh in too, and if merited by the evidence, overturn our intuition. Your examples of randomly rewiring the circuitry in your house or damaging the gear box of your car with a hammer just illustrate the "engineer's conceit" regarding biological systems (and as a software engineer I'm familiar with that temptation myself): biology doesn't work that way, and to pretend those analogies are apt is to display a barely superficial understanding of biology. It's tautologically true to say that adaptive systems in an environment prone to random changes and punishing costs for adverse effects of those changes will necessarily be systems that are robust and durable in ways human-made circuits are manifestly not, and don't need to be. That's why I raised the issue of EA and related processes with Gil. It is in those areas, where the information processing takes cues from biological systems that we can see in digital form how UNLIKE your rewiring example biological and similar systems that evolve through cumulative adaptives driven by stochastic variations are. If you are stuck in thinking about human-made wiring, it's just an analogy fail. On the "evolution as religion" trope, that's just trite and tired. Here's what dictionary.com offers for "miracle":
an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
The next definition is:
such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
This is precisely what science argues against, or suggests as a completely unwarranted form of explanation in biology. It's just physics. It's not miraculous. It's mechanical, mundane. Complex, but utterly natural, law-based, stochastically driven. That's the problem, really. Evolution is abhorrent to IDers and the religious because it's... banal in some anti-miraculous, no-God-needed sense. As a long time Christian, I understand the impulse to implicate everyone else with the same kind of superstitious mindset that faith demands and cultivates, but some concepts and epistemologies are fundamentally different, and do not favor intuition as a plenopotentiary, or superstition as a virtue in its own right. Subscribing to the theory of evolution requires non of the commitments you claim: 1. Intuition is not to be abandoned, and can't be. It's just not the invincible authority on all matters for the scientific mind. 2. Common sense is no different. It can't be abandoned, but it's not a god, but rather a kind of belief or intuition that is liable to being overturned and discredited when the facts and models merit. 3. The salient characteristic of evolution is that it IS so limited, so anti-miraculous, so mechanical and natural (non-supernatural). There's nothing "unlimited" about it. That's God-talk, to say it's unlimited. It's just a theory. A remarkably performative and durable one, but still just a theory, a model. Until one decides to apply some small amount of discipline over one's own intuitions, and credulous faith in one's invincibility in "just knowing" (or "obvious", as Gil might put it), one cannot appreciate the utility and nature of scientific thinking. It's valuable precise because it's the OPPOSITE of what you suppose it is. It's a discipline that seeks anti-miracles, and non-God explanations, explicitly, as it must if it is to maintain a coherent epistemology.eigenstate_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

FarncisS, There isn't any evidence in any of dawkins' books that demonstrates natural selection is non-random. Ya see natural selection is a result of three processes, each with a random component. If the inputs are random then the output will also be random.
Natural selection is the only inherently non-random mechanism capable of explaining design.
Yet no one has produced any evidence to that effect. Strange that the alleged "scientific community" cannot even produce positive evidence for their claims. So perhaps instead of spoewing propaganda you could actually produce some scientific evidence for your claims.Joe_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Natural selection doesn't explain design - it explains the illusion of design. Design, by definition, implies intention or purpose. Neither random mutation nor selection (aka "not dying") exhibits purpose. By your reasoning, if 99% of every generation of organisms were destroyed entirely randomly by meteors, then the form the 100th generation happened to take would be "designed" by natural selection. Selection after all is nothing but differential survival. Equally, the same process (meteorite strikes) applied to inanimate objects like lava formations thrown up by volcanoes would mean that those not flattened were "designed" by natural selection. Which stretches the meaning of "design" somewhat. Clearly there's a need to distinguish between differential survival caused by random events (meteors, floods, whole broods eaten by carnivores, weather extremes, accidents etc) and those caused by genuine lack of fitness to the environment. So we need a simple definition of "fitness". Over to you.Jon Garvey_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

"Natural selection doesn’t 'do' anything. Natural selection has never designed anything." This objection is mere pedantry. The language of evolution science is replete in metaphor. "And just how is natural selection non-random? I hear/ read that nonsense yet no one supports it. Strange, that." No one supports it? Every evolutionary biologist has supported this view. Richard Dawkins, in his book "Climbing Mount Improbable", emphasises the fact most strongly. I don't know what you mean by my claiming the efficacy of natural selection to be "propaganda"? It is the scientific consensus. Natural selection is the only inherently non-random mechanism capable of explaining design. Organisms are evolved to increase reproductive fitness. If an organism fails in the struggle for life its genes simply don't make it through to the next generation. Wings are designed for flying, eyes are designed for seeing, flagella (note the plural here--there is not one flagellum, there are several, each evolved independently, exemplifying evolutionary convergence) are designed for sensation and locomotion. Design is a reality and natural selection is responsible. "It looks like a bunch of new evotards were just graduated from the Darwin school of propaganda and headed over here." This childish name-calling is the last resort of one whose arguments are insufficient. Besides, "the Darwin school of propaganda" happens to be the scientific community. Evolution science has been blessed with some of the greatest ever scientists--Darwin, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Hamilton, Maynard Smith, to name just a very few. The vast majority of professional scientists consider Intelligent Design not only useless, but unscientific. Evolution is the best explanation available and has offered a fruitful research programme for well over a century. Intelligent Design has offered nothing.FrancisS_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Exhibit "A" at post number 5, confirming my point at post number 4. I rest my case. Thanks! For your benefit, however, Francis, could you tell me anything that evolution has actually explained?Brent_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Natural selection doesn't "do" anything. Natural selection has never designed anything. And just how is natural selection non-random? I hear/ read that nonsense yet no one supports it. Strange, that.
And Darwinian natural selection is the only mechanism capable of achieving complex design...
That is the propaganda but apparently it is nothing but a lie. It looks like a bunch of new evotards were just graduated from the Darwin school of propaganda and headed over here....Joe_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

If they can just meet out . . . Ugh!Brent_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Natural selection is the opposite of a miracle. Natural selection unweaves the miracle, showing how complex design can evolve. The story of evolution is one of chance and necessity. (Random) mutations produce variation and then (non-random) natural selection gets to work, shaping and moulding the variation. The process is two-tier. Evolution has explained so much and continues to explain so much that it would be unreasonable to suppose that it cannot also explain that which we do not yet know and that which we are getting to know better. Darwinians do not deny design. Design is definitely real. And Darwinian natural selection is the only mechanism capable of achieving complex design--those "Organs of extreme perfection… which most justly excite[...] our admiration."FrancisS_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

"every aspect of every biological system . . . must be approachable in a step-by-tiny-step fashion through the accumulation of random errors. This should strike reasonable people as belief in something that can only be described as a miracle."
The "problem" here, Gil, is that only the choir can hear your preaching. Darwinists have defined "step-by-tiny-step" to mean a non-miraculous, natural process---one not in need of explanation at all. A question that C.S. Lewis made me think of is this: Just how many steps do we have to be able to trace back from any event before an ultimate cause is no longer necessary, nor attribution warranted? I'm sure some lawyers, for instance, would like to know this. If they can just meat out enough of the physics involved, for example, in how Joe wound up dead on the floor with a gunshot wound, their clients would be very happy.Brent_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

I think William Lane Craig sums it up perfectly: an atheistic outlook of the universe demands nothing less than a form of believing in magic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXVwsvnsRoStu7_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

Eigenstate, Your high priestly sermon on science sounds pompous and at places ridiculous. For example, it appears that you strongly advocate in one paragraph the usage of random number generators for their creative power in writing program code. So, it might be no surprise that you are a fervent advocate of evolution and its mysterious creative resources. To summarize your lengthy peroration, I would enumerate only the following three salient points I found worth discussing: • The intuition is an enemy for the practice of science. • The usage of common sense for acquiring knowledge and manifesting discernment is a bad and dangerous habit • You will never hire programmers that do not know how to harness the creative power of random number generators to write code (enough on this topic by now) You should not be too concerned with the first two points above. It appears our public schools and many of our higher learning institutions comply more or less with your thesis and, I don’t know how much the generations of graduates are marked by these academic practices but definitely a lot of professors were seriously damaged by them. In contrast with your style, GilDodgen’s text is short, persuasive and ‘on the money’. Let’s read and simplify one of his main statements: “… screwing up complex, functionally integrated, information processing systems…” with random changes will always (except in very rare cases) will make such systems less functional or significantly damaged. Let’s try an exercise and see, if I intentionally ignore your stated “science practice guidelines” enumerated above, we can make some common sense and intuitive inferences about the topic at hand: believing in the miracles and the evolution. Let’s proceed also by using analogies – which I believe represent a reasonable method of inquiry. The engineered artifacts are among the few things (if not the only ones) that have certain resemblance with living organisms. It is well known (here the common sense snake rises his head) that random changes in such engineered systems are in most of the cases reasons for partial or total failure. Change randomly a line in the source code of a program or a sequence of bytes in the binary code of that program and you will get a “bug” (a program malfunction) with a degree of severity dependent only on your luck. Make a physical change in a gear of a car transmission system: hit it with a hammer, or drop in a nail or washer, and you will get most probable a gripped transmission and a damaged car. Add randomly a wire connection between two randomly selected wires in the electrical system of a car or of your house, or just cut randomly a wire in such a system and you have a good chance to get a short circuit, a fire, but never a better car or a more secure house. All the above are logical, defensible analogies of what someone can expect from a random change (mutation) in a living thing. There might be a difference: the living things may have more sophisticated sub-systems than our engineering artifacts to protect themselves against such random changes and to continue to work somewhat unaffected – by correcting or avoiding the induced change. This is the logical equivalent of a random mutation or random change in a living organism. It will most likely be detrimental or even compromising for its continued function. Here is the essence of the myth of evolution and of its “creative power”. It is a religion that requires tremendous amounts of unfounded faith from its adepts or defenders. Such defenders must come with sophisticated thesis like the intuition is anti-scientific and common sense is an enemy of knowledge and understanding to maintain the flame of faith in evolution among the trusting believers. The simplest single cell organism is machinery with an exceptional degree of autonomy and internal complexity- all at a miniature, nano scale. The “technology” inside the simplest living cell is well beyond the most advanced human engineering artifacts from many points of view: number of interconnected systems, complexity of controls, energy efficiency, scale, speed of manufacturing and autonomy. To BELIEVE that such a complex system was “created” ONLY by a long chain of random changes is TO BELIEVE IN MIRACLES. And this was Gil Dodgen’s thesis. To believe that macro evolution can create a more sophisticated organism from a simpler one (or from NOTHING) requires the following: - to abandon your intuition - to throw away your common sense - to incessantly praise the unlimited creative powers of random changes In short, only a miserable religion can ask his believers to obey such dubious commandments.InVivoVeritas_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

Except eigenstate offered no argument, just somewhat arogant and condescending lecture. I like what he said about basis of science: "Know that the basis of science is the eschewing of that disposition, the putting away of that whole mindset, though, and the subjecting of one’s intuitions and superstitions — even and especially the most deeply held one — to a method that in many cases will shred them and discredit them. That is the nature of science, the ethos of the scientific mind." Sadly he is entirely blind to his own prejudice.inunison_{December 23, 2011
December
12
Dec
23
23
2011
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

So when a firstgrader observes Mt. Rushmore, is it intution that convinces him it was designed? Does he correctly infer the structures and shapes in the rock had an intelligent source? From Webster: Intuition- the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference. Eigenstate, your attempt to paint ID proponents as only intuition driven is a just an outright lie or shows a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of the word. You see, the correct definition of intuition would not fit the rational, evidence based arguments of ID proponents. Because, as stated above, intuition is just based on a feeling "without evident rational thought or inference". What kind of facts can you come up with about the distant past? Do you have a time machine? No, you do not. You study the present and make inferences about the past based on the evidence you can measure and observe in the present. The joke about your so called science is that, like ID, it is just a guess about what happened in the distant past. Yet you espouse it as science and call it "fact". Now back to our first grader. Let's assume he is an innocent observer, that his parents have not given him any history or background information on Mt. Rushmore. He correctly guesses that the faces were carved into the mountain by a human, not formed by wind and erosion. Did he accomplish this by mere intuition alone? Was he actually there when the rock was chiseled? No on both counts. This first grader in his short life has already observed other sculptures or artistic creations and has either witnessed their actual creation or has been given history on them. He is using rational thought, based on his previous observations, to make a determination about the source of the faces on Mt. Rushmore. Can he state with absolute certainty that it is 100% percent out of the question that wind and erosion caused the faces. No he cannot. What if the photo's at the visitor center were faked? What if the newspaper and historical accounts were wrong? My final question is... have your eyes witnessed any of the events you claim happened in the distant past? It seems that eyes aren't the only things lying in this post. I'd say calling your guesses more scientific than my guesses makes your argument look pretty silly at this point.Ultimately Real_{December 22, 2011
December
12
Dec
22
22
2011
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

I think it's peculiar to have the evidence waved off as "obfuscation" and "misdirection", but the more I think about it, that's actually a fairly straightforward response, I think. When one is deferring to one's intuition, evidence can indeed be problematic. And more evidence, even overwhelming evidence, isn't helpful or persuasive, if one is committed in some fundamental sense to the verdict of one's intuition. And that's the problem here. The "Fox News Speak" of "common sense" as a euphemism for intuition über alles, invincible in the face of even overwhelming evidence, never mind just a "strong consilience" of evidence, ultimately rejects scientific epistemology, and more -- the scientific disposition. Science is a kind of check, a "cross examiner" of one's intuition. In many cases, science confirms just what our intuition tells us. But in many other cases, science is a scourge on the intuition, a method for upending and ridiculing our common sense as foolish, mistaken, erroneous. Our intution is quite strong that the earth is "fixed" (as I believe is mentioned at points in the Bible, depending on how one interprets the text). But science provides a strong evidentially-supported model for a physics that has us careening around a solar orbit at extreme velocities, and that just a more local reference frame -- we are moving at astonishing speeds relative to more remote reference frames. Science is just a challenge: will you believe your intuition or your own lyin' eyes, when the suggest different explanations? A really good alarm that someone is "invincibly intuitionist", incorrigible as a result of their commits to their inner intuitions and superstitions, is language like you are using at the end there -- that the answer is "obvious", and increasingly not even a matter for scrutiny or adjudication. If we take natural knowledge and performative models seriously, that's not the kind of language that gets invoked. Very little is "obvious", and the more one learns about the natural world in terms of science, the more self-indicting that kind of attitude appears. Intuition over evidential critique and rigorous models is your prerogative, just as it is mine. No one can make you put your intuitions and superstitions on the stand and have the tested by objective and empirical models, to see if they hold up or are found wanting. There's little point in arguing in that direction, I've found, with one who is viscerally and fundamentally committed to their intuitions, over and against all else. Know that the basis of science is the eschewing of that disposition, the putting away of that whole mindset, though, and the subjecting of one's intuitions and superstitions -- even and especially the most deeply held one -- to a method that in many cases will shred them and discredit them. That is the nature of science, the ethos of the scientific mind. That's just not your mindset. Nor the mindset of the pro-ID folks here, generally. That's your choice, and you are welcome to it. But think about what you have trivialized here as "obvious" -- such hubris!: one of the most intractable, remote, inscrutable, forensically obscure questions we can identify anywhere. Right or wrong on the question of some Divine Designer, the one thing we should all be able to agree on, if we are at all serious about science, is that "it's obvious" is one position we can reasonably discredit as soon as we gain just an elementary grasp of the issues involved. On the subject of "screwing up" information processing systems, "screwing up" is to a good extent in the eye of the beholder, or more precisely, contingent on the kinds of outcomes sought. I 'screw up' virtual offspring in genetic algorithm contexts, and to profitable effect and outcome. I don't do anything more than inject the return value of rand() in some places; it's as perfectly random and scrambled as I can make it, and that is the point, the source of the system's creativity (where it is creative). You have told me you are well acquainted with all that, but every time you talk about information systems, it just works against the idea that you've dealt with stochastic processes as creative engines at all in software. I understand "lay persons" persistently getting this wrong, but for software developers, especially ones ostensibly conversant in GA and EA processing, it's really a cognitive dissonance. If I had a developer apply to work on my team and both claim experience with GA development, AND make claims like you regularly do, I'd have to decide this person was just posing, and trying to BS me in the long tradition of puffing up one's credentials and resumé-padding, etc.eigenstate_{December 22, 2011
December
12
Dec
22
22
2011
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply