How Some Materialists are Blinded by Their Faith Commitments

_{Barry Arrington
March 24, 2018

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Every once in a while we get one of those “aha moments” when everything comes together. Phillip Johnson helped me to one of those moments over 20 years ago when I read this passage from an article in First Things (when that journal still permitted dissenting voices to be heard):

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Aha! If Darwinism or something like it must be true as a matter of deduction from materialism, then evidence takes a back seat. Dawkins once said he would prefer Darwinism even if there were no evidence to support it. That is hard to understand until one understands Johnson’s point.

I thought about this today when a friend reminded me of this quote from Nobel laureate Jacques Monod:

“We call these [mutations] accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organisms’ hereditary structure, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis.”

Seriously? No other explanation is even “conceivable”? I can understand how someone could consider the evidence and reject ID. I would believe they are mistaken, but not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion as I do. I get that. But to say that ID is not even “conceivable”? Well, that’s just plain stupid. Why would Monod, obviously not a stupid man, say something so dumb? His faith commitments blinded him and stunted his imagination. A dogmatic commitment to materialist metaphysics makes even very smart people literally blind to alternatives. And it makes them say stupid things.

Another example: Paraphrasing Hawking: Because there is something, the universe can create itself from nothing.

Comments

@jdk Extremely right. Exactly what Solomonoff proved with Solomonoff induction, and is the basis of all machine learning and statistical methods. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein (attributed)EricMH_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

JDK, what he said speaks for itself, as I highlighted. I did not make it up: the gross blunder of scientism where a phil view is asserted that undermines phil views. The telling metaphor that literally demonises theism. The open contempt to theists (notice the example of a woman who does not understand how a video signal could get here from the Moon -- the man who got us to the Moon had become a Christian). The a priori materialism. The insinuation of irrationality as the hallmark of theism. Utter failure to know that as miracles are signs, a world in which miracles happen and are recognisable has to be one that is an orderly cosmos not an utterly unintelligible chaos. The link between this and the origin of modern science, and more. Where, there is serious evidence that this sort of contempt is far more common than any responsible person would be comfortable with. The enthusiasm greeting Dawkins et al on so-called new atheism in some quarters speaks, tellingly. KFkairosfocus_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Eric writes, "The simpler a model, the better, per Occam’s razor." Extremely wrong! And not what Occam's razor says!jdk_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

For those who disregard mathematical models of physical phenomena as not telling us anything useful, what is your opinion of f=ma? On the other side, because I am quite skeptical of global warming, a model is only as good as its assumptions. Plus, their models are super complex. The simpler a model, the better, per Occam's razor.EricMH_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

@Bob O'H, after a bit of thought it's easy to incorporate beneficial mutations into the model. We just add a new probability that a mutation is beneficial. So, with the original model, where survival is modeled by probability of no mutations, where p is mutation probability per bit and L is length of organism's genome: s = (1-p)^L we add q to be the probability a mutation is harmful: s = (1-pq)^L Now, we want to know how q changes as L grows and s remains constant, so we solve for q: q = (1-s^(1/L))/p As L approaches infinity (oo) q becomes 0: q = (1-s^(1/oo))/p = (1-s^0)/p = (1-1)/p = 0/p = 0 The upshot of this equation is that as the organism's genome grows, the probability a mutation is beneficial approaches 1. So, with our enormous genome, we should be able to walk through a nuclear reactor and come out the other end with super powers. I guess this is the rationale behind Ninja Turtles and X-Men.EricMH_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

kf writes, "The fuller cite indeed the whole article is linked from my annotated clip." True, but I was glad to read the whole context, as your chopped up, editorialized version is not very useful. kf writes, "It further underscores my point." That is a matter of opinion. Lewontin seems to be quite a bit more nuanced than your summary seems to show. And let me make it clear: I am not a committed materialist, as Lewontin and Sagan are, and I certainly don't believe science is the only "begetter of truth." I'm not posting here to defend every word of Lewontin's: I just thought it was useful to get the non-kf'ed version.jdk_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Let us also observe that the information contained in DNA did not arise due to our models and simulations. It was discovered. Then we build models and simulations and tools of analysis to help us better understand it. Any models or simulations or analyses of genetic information are based on what is actually in DNA, not the other way around. Any contrary suggestion is completely backwards.Eric Anderson_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

PPS: I trust the legitimacy, relevance and utility of a markup stands illustrated.kairosfocus_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Seversky @31:
I don’t accept the notion that information, as commonly understood, is a property of the genome or an organism or a piece of rock. In my view, it is a property of the modeling languages and simulations we use to describe and explain what we observe but to attribute it to what is being observed is to confuse the map with the territory, the model with what is being modeled. It is misleading.
Almost, but not quite. Surely you aren't arguing that there is no substantive difference between DNA and a rock in regards to information? Surely you aren't suggesting that if only we were to turn our "modeling languages and simluations" to examining a piece of rock that we would discover something similar to what has been found in DNA? You are almost on the right track. We should not confuse the physical characteristics of a piece of rock with the information we produce as intelligent beings when we examine the piece of rock. That is a very important point I have been harping on for years. But to reject the idea that a physical object can be a medium for real information is absurd. We have many examples of such, including the very screen you are looking at. So you are almost on the right track. The problem is that you seem intent on denying the obvious information contained in DNA, and so you mistakenly throw it under the bus along with the piece of rock. There is a world of difference between DNA and a piece of rock, as everyone from Crick to a school child knows. Let's have the courage to address head on the question of where the information in DNA came from, instead of patently absurd attempts to deflect the issue by sloppy definitions and embarrassing attempts to deny the existence of the information that everyone knows is there.Eric Anderson_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

JDK, the fuller cite indeed the whole article is linked from my annotated clip. It further underscores my point. KF PS: Let me clip: >>Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.>> Notice, the strawmannish opposition and equivalence of science as a materialistic ideology >> We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.>> Ideology >> It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.>> Ditto >> The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything.>> Nonsense >> To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen>> Theism stands on the God of order who may act beyond that order relatively rarely for good cause. and were the cosmos a chaos, no sign could stand out. Miracles require an intelligibly orderly world, amenable to science.kairosfocus_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith:
Has this been proven?
Yes, as much as anything in science. No one has ever observed blind and mindless processes producing information and every observation and experience demonstrates information only comes from intelligence.
Billions of organisms, over billions of years, with billions of random mutations, and billions of environmental impacts, and billions of
Where did you get those organisms from? Amazon? And how do you know there was billions of years? The age of the earth depends on how it was formed. And seeing that no one knows then the age is just a guess based on untestable assumptions.ET_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

AK: There are some pretty critical nuances that will be helpful if you are sincerely interested in understanding information (many ID proponents could also take a lesson here): 1. There is a difference between information and communication. Don't conflate the two. This is an incredibly common mistake. 2. Information can exist even if there is no receiver to receive it and do something with it. Indeed, the information must exist before it is received, otherwise there is nothing to receive (or send in the first place, for that matter). 3. There is a difference between the mere existence of a physical object and information being contained in, or if we prefer, represented by a physical object. 4. It is possible to have a system that reacts to a certain physical object (or electrochemical differential, such as your chemical gradient example). That does not mean that the physical object contains information in and of itself. 5. Your use of the word "read" is a conflation and muddies the water. There is a difference between truly reading information represented by an object and identifying physical characteristics of an object. 6. Information represents something outside of itself. A rock hurtling through space or a chemical gradient doesn't represent anything outside of itself. ----- All of this is very fundamental to any proper understanding of information. If you think a chemical gradient is in the same category as the contingent, specific arrangement of nucleotides in DNA, that is a serious category error. I hope you aren't under that mis-impression. That is why I requested that you describe the difference in information content between DNA and, say, a rock hurtling through space. I repeat the request. If you can accurately articulate the difference then I'll know there is an understanding of the basics and that there may be value in continuing the discussion.Eric Anderson_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

ET,
Everything, apparently. Information only comes from intelligence, ie a mind.
Has this been proven? I would love to see the papers.
The specific arrangements of information that is required to produce living organisms only comes from intelligence.
Has this been proven? I would love to see the papers.
The specific arrangements of information to produce the laws of physics and chemistry only comes from intelligence.
Has this been proven? I would love to see the papers. LocalMinimum,
Information denial is not really an option for an A/Mat who isn’t operating on blind faith.
I am not denying the existence of information. It is found everywhere, as you indicated. What is in question is whether it can only be the result of an intelligence. EricMH,
Anyways, the point is that evolution is easy to simulate on a computer, at much greater timescales than in the history of our world. Even then, it just doesn’t do that much. If species did evolve, it is not thanks to evolution, but thanks to incredible amounts of built in pathways in the search landscape.
I think that you are greatly oversimplifying the complexities involved. Billions of organisms, over billions of years, with billions of random mutations, and billions of environmental impacts, and billions of.... I think that you get the idea. But what I find ironic is that the same people who claim that AGM is most likely false because the system is too complex to properly model, claim that the models prove that evolution is false, even though the variables involved are every bit as complex, if not more complex, than weather patters and climate. Groovamos,
NO – I’ve said it many times on here, information requires the context of mind.
A qualified agreement. Stable isotope ratios carry information, tree rings in temperate zones carry information, a water molecule carries information, DNA carries information, RNA carries information. But only if there is something around to interpret/read the information. Humans do that quite nicely. As, I would argue, do most other organisms, although probably a different way. Eric,
Hint: Physical objects do not contain information by their mere existence.
I agree. They need something to interpret/read it. To an amoeba, a chemical gradient carries information that the amoeba can 'read'. To us, the same chemical gradient would also carry information, but nobody is suggesting that the way we 'read' this information, or what information we glean from it, are the same as the way an amoeba 'reads' the information.Allan Keith_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson, methinks that AK is being, #1, purposely obtuse about information, and #2, he doesn't really know the first thing about information.
Information is physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant) - video https://youtu.be/H35I83y5Uro Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency - Lisa Zyga - January 19, 2018 Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,, https://phys.org/news/2018-01-efficiency.html What is information? - animated video (May 2016) Quote: “If information is not (physically) real then neither are we” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AvIOzVJMCM
Although the preceding is certainly very strong evidence for the physical reality of immaterial information, the coup de grace for demonstrating that immaterial information is its own distinct physical entity, separate from matter and energy, is Quantum Teleportation:
Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world. Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,, This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,, ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR
bornagain77_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Given kf's constant posting of his highly editorialized quote from Lewontin, I decided to look at the original. which comes from a long article about Carl Sagan in the New York Review of Books in 1997. For those of you interested, here are the three key paragraphs.
With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn’t even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one’s prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity “in deep trouble.” Two’s company, but three’s a crowd. Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. The mutual exclusion of the material and the demonic has not been true of all cultures and all times. In the great Chinese epic Journey to the West, demons are an alternative form of life, responsible to certain deities, devoted to making trouble for ordinary people, but severely limited. They can be captured, imprisoned, and even killed by someone with superior magic.6 In our own intellectual history, the definitive displacement of divine powers by purely material causes has been a relatively recent changeover, and that icon of modern science, Newton, was at the cusp. It is a cliché of intellectual history that Newton attempted to accommodate God by postulating Him as the Prime Mover Who, having established the mechanical laws and set the whole universe in motion, withdrew from further intervention, leaving it to people like Newton to reveal His plan. But what we might call “Newton’s Ploy” did not really get him off the hook. He understood that a defect of his system of mechanics was the lack of any equilibrating force that would return the solar system to its regular set of orbits if there were any slight perturbation. He was therefore forced, although reluctantly, to assume that God intervened from time to time to set things right again. It remained for Laplace, a century later, to produce a mechanics that predicted the stability of the planetary orbits, allowing him the hauteur of his famous reply to Napoleon. When the Emperor observed that there was, in the whole of the Mécanique Céleste, no mention of the author of the universe, he replied, “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.” One can almost hear a stress on the “I.
jdk_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

AK:
By that definition, there is little doubt that information is found in living organisms. But, using the same definition, it is also found in inanimate matter.
Are you really arguing that there is no difference in information content between DNA and something like, say, a flurry of sand scattered by the wind or an asteroid hurtling through space? Is that really your argument? If not, then please take a moment to describe the difference. ----- (Hint: Physical objects do not contain information by their mere existence.)Eric Anderson_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

JDK, The issue is not Lewontin as such but the views, agendas and tactics of the secularist elites he so vividly (and largely inadvertently) exposed. And indeed, the pattern of behaviours we see again and again underscores the point. KF PS: Note the pattern as highlighted:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Allan Keth: By that definition, there is little doubt that information is found in living organisms. But, using the same definition, it is also found in inanimate matter. NO - I've said it many times on here, information requires the context of mind. Suppose we were to measure the distance between the nucleii of two atoms on a rock at absolute zero temperature. How much self-information is in a single measurement (estimator)? It is dependent on the measurement method and actual scalar value of the distance. The method is characterised with a Gaussian error distribution. How would we determine the actual scalar value? We would have to take a huge number of measurements using an unbiased method, approaching infinity, to determine an expected value. As the number of measurements increases, so does the self-information of the expected value, and we would determine the estimator standard deviation. So with the standard deviation and the expected value we can calculate the self-information of a single measurement. In this way you can see that the distance between two atoms has no self-information; only our activities to determine that distance comprise self-information. The self information of our determination has no upper bound, it is limited only by the number of measurements we are willing to make.groovamos_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Seversky "Naturalistic/materialist/physicalist accounts of the observable world have been found to work very well, in the case of quantum theory, to a very high degree of precision. All the modern technology we take for granted bears witness to that." Intelligibility of this world bears witness to this entire world having been created by an intelligence. All the modern technology we take for granted bears witness to that. The success of the application of the scientific method that produced modern technology has nothing to do with materialism. In the same way, evolution as an idea does not have any bearing on the actual success of biotechnology. Biotechnology does not invoke evolution at all, as the late Prof P. Skell pointed out. Evolution is put in white papers post-factum for ideological purposes. Intelligent guidance, which is used in technology, is the opposite of evolution, conceptually.Eugene S_{March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

I'd say we need to pull out all the stops and fully simulate creatures on a full physical basis, and have their features emergent from component aggregates whose members are coded by a code that has a complex semiotic relationship with the expressed components. The whole nine yards, no expense spared. But, if we were right, and Darwin were wrong, and it didn't do anything...Who would pay for our "broken" simulation?LocalMinimum_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

@JDK, I understand these discussions are very tiring and circular, and I respect your desire to step out. For anyone else, I'd be interested to know how the model fails to capture evolution. Simple does not mean simplistic. E.g. f=ma is simple, but extremely deep. Phenotype comes from genotype. Genotype is composed of 4 bases, and we can represent that in binary. Different bits in the genome have different effects on fitness relative to the surrounding population and environment, and we can represent fitness as a probability the organism will survive. While the above is simple, I do not see what is missing, it is not simplistic. There is plenty of complex interaction that happens outside this formulation: environment, niches, worldwide catastrophes, etc. But that can all be represented as a function of the history of DNA 'bitstrings'. And, while we cannot easily represent the specific values the function will take at different time stamps (the complexity you speak of), we can still see what sort of mathematical characteristics must obtain for evolution to reproduce what we see, for the bitstring to increase in length over time, and whether these characteristics seem plausible.EricMH_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Well, well, well,, looky see what Pross himself had to say about Turner's new book:
What Evolution “Controversy”? Scott Turner Gets High Praise from Quarterly Review of Biology - March 26, 2018 Excerpt: Here, for example, is a review in the current volume of The Quarterly Review of Biology praising Scott Turner’s book, Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. The,, review is striking. "For those who still believe that the fundamentals of modern biology were firmly established by Darwin’s monumental theory of evolution a century and a half ago, and fine-tuned by neo-Darwinism some seven decades later, J. Scott Turner’s provocatively titled book Purpose & Desire is a further reminder that [biology’s] very nature remains mired in controversy and uncertainty.",,, "The author…proceeds to build on this theme to argue three main points, all controversial in varying degrees. First, that the central thesis of neo-Darwinism, namely, that evolution is the result of what Turner labels a “soulless lottery” (p. 292) of the gene pool, rests on the shakiest of grounds and is long due for revision.",,, "What makes the book so worthwhile and thought-provoking is, however, that Turner is a deeply knowledgeable biologist, well versed in the intimate details of evolutionary theory and the convoluted path the evolutionary debate has taken over the past 150 years." https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/what-evolution-controversy-scott-turner-gets-high-praise-from-quarterly-review-of-biology/
(The Darwinian Gestapo better quickly send their henchmen to put this 'loose cannon' Turner guy in his place.)bornagain77_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Eric, it sounds to me that you are building your preconceived conclusion into your simplistic model, but i'm ready to let further discussion go.jdk_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

EricMH @
EricMH: If species did evolve, it is not thanks to evolution, but thanks to incredible amounts of built in pathways in the search landscape.
In sync with Dembski when he writes about Dawkins’ ‘methinks it is like a weasel’:
Dawkins asks his readers to suppose an evolutionary algorithm that evolves the target phrase. But such an evolutionary algorithm privileges the target phrase by adapting the fitness landscape so that it assigns greater fitness to phrases that have more corresponding letters in common with the target. And where did that fitness landscape come from? Such a landscape potentially exists for any phrase whatsoever, and not just for METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Dawkins’s evolutionary algorithm could therefore have evolved in any direction, and the only reason it evolved to METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL is that he carefully selected the fitness landscape to give the desired result. Dawkins therefore got rid of Shakespeare as the author of METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, only to reintroduce him as the (co)author of the fitness landscape that facilitates the evolution of METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
Later in the article Dembski quotes Kauffman:
As Kauffman writes in Investigations:
If mutation, recombination, and selection only work well on certain kinds of fitness landscapes, yet most organisms are sexual, and hence use recombination, and all organisms use mutation as a search mechanism, where did these well-wrought fitness landscapes come from, such that evolution manages to produce the fancy stuff around us?
According to Kauffman, “No one knows.”
Origenes_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

@JDK, if the landscape changes, we can simulate that by changing the set of building blocks. Of course, we are not directly simulating our biological world. But it will tell us mathematically what our biological world must look like if our hypothesized form of evolution is going to work. And what it looks like is an extraordinarily integrated set of building blocks, the likes of which could not themselves be assembled randomly, i.e. Dembski's Vertical No Free Lunch Theorem. Merely saying, "but it is not real living organisms" is a cop out.EricMH_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Eric, your simulation says nothing about how the mutations will affect the overall organism, or how this goes on over huge numbers of organisms and generations (with therefore there being different genomes in succeeding generations) or the huge complexity of an actual genome and the way genes interact with each other, and so on. I'm by no means very knowledgable about all theses details: i just know your model is a huge simplification that can not truly be said to simulate evolution.jdk_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

@Bob O'H, here is a simple way to simulate the building blocks. As usual we represent DNA with a bitstring: 101010101010. A building block looks like this: 10*0***10 The *s designate 'don't care' bits in the building block. A building block of length L with N *s covers 2^(N-L) of the search space. From this we can calculate how likely an organism will randomly mutate into another building block under a variety of scenarios.EricMH_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

@JDK, you are no longer talking about evolution, you are talking about the biosphere. ID agrees there is a huge amount of information in the biosphere, none of it comes from evolution. Evolution itself, the part that matters for this debate, is random mutation + natural selection. That is trivial to simulate on a computer.EricMH_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Eric writes,
the point is that evolution is easy to simulate on a computer
I think this statement is a good example of my point in 61, because it is so wrong. The complexity of millions of organisms, continually interacting with a complex environment, over thousands of generations, with genomes transforming into phenomes, is not easy to simulate. Simulations on a computer are vast, vast simplifications of reality, emphasizing a few points that we think we understand and not accounting for many that we do not.jdk_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

@Bob O'H the simulation just shows how mutation is destructive to complexity. The building blocks is a different topic, but also easy to simulate. Perhaps when I have more time I'll write you a sim. Anyways, the point is that evolution is easy to simulate on a computer, at much greater timescales than in the history of our world. Even then, it just doesn't do that much. If species did evolve, it is not thanks to evolution, but thanks to incredible amounts of built in pathways in the search landscape.EricMH_{March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply