Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID Event at the University of California, Irvine

Gil Dodgen
April 8, 2006
Intelligent Design
1
Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Arthur Asuncion at UCI sends this notice about an ID event at UCI. I posted the following comment:

Dear Arthur,

I just spent some time at the iDesign UCI site. Thanks so much for sending the link. It’s a terrific resource.

It is going to be very interesting to watch the Intelligent Design versus Blind-Watchmaker-Evolution debate in coming years, because technically competent people who have a reasonably well-integrated knowledge of modern hard science (mathematics — especially combinatorics — chemistry, physics, and software engineering), know way too much for very many of them to buy BWE for much longer.

The first of the two main reasons that those with the above-mentioned technical knowledge and experience are holdouts, and continue to accept BWE, is that they have been so thoroughly and consistently indoctrinated that they can no longer reasonably evaluate the evidence. The second reason is that if they do question the evidence for, and logic behind, BWE, their academic careers will be mercilessly destroyed.

Gil

Comments
Maledil, Do you still have connections with people/clubs at school? If so, send me an email at idesignclub 'at' gmail 'dot' com. Feel free to invite friends -- there are plenty of seats available.Art
April 11, 2006
April
04
Apr
11
11
2006
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Dave, you wrote: You don’t get to disclaim ID by picking a starting point for evolution where the hardest part is already done Thank you. Now that's quotable. this should be on a bumper sticker for the X % of folks that doubt RM&NS.es58
April 11, 2006
April
04
Apr
11
11
2006
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT

Pardon my failing to realize that you (ds, at least) have no problem with common descent with modification. As far as RM+NS, I presume that we can at least agree that random mutation (to the extent that anything is "random") can and does happen and that natural selection can and does happen. (e.g. human disease alleles (negative selection), positive selection on serotonin receptors, assundry microevolution examples, etc.) The issue is evidently the ability of this RM+NS combo to be a creative force that can generate the complex components of the living systems surrounding us.

Now, if I provided an example of a few mutations that, say, allowed a specific lineage of monkeys to acquire the ability to digest leaves, this would not suffice b/c A) you might argue its not a complex enough system to count as evidence or B) that the essential "randomness" (i.e. lack of design) of these particular mutations can not be sufficiently proven. And yes, it would be a tall order indeed to rule out the intervention of a possible omniscient and omnipotent interloper. There are dozens of other such examples which would prove equally unconvincing, particularly with regards to the latter objection.

Admittedly, the whole notion of the creative potential inherrent to the basic natural selection "algorithm" is a tough one. On the one hand, we must concede--we should concede, at least--that it boggles the mind how observed biological complexity can emerge from such a inherrently blind trial and error approach (BWM). Then again, given the timescale involved, the sequence/mutational space involved, the geographic scale involved--I do not even rule out interplanetary scale--well, those factors are also difficult to fathom as well. Whether you think you were designed or evolved, I think we can agree that our minds are not suited for figuring out things on such massive scales. And that's even if we knew all the relevant facts that would need to be considered in the deliberation. So you get two essentially unfathomable things going head to head, biological complexity vs. the ability for organismal populations to "probe" sequence/fitness space via random mutations over immense timescales. Can it be simulated to prove it's possible or impossible to arrive at the observed biological complexity? I seriously doubt this will happen (accurately and convincingly, at least) any time in the near or even not-so-near future. The system to simulate is too vast, and too many assumptions will need to be made at the outset such that the parameters chosen (distribution of fitness, etc.) will ultimately dictate the answers that you find.

So we appear to be at an impass. Why am I a Darwinist? 1) I think that, given the arguments concerning viral insertions, etc, that I mentioned previously, common descent has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. 2) I have yet to see a compelling argument--beyond "gee wiz, that's sure a lot of complexity to generate"--that has convinced me the RM+NS process is *not* capable of generating observed complexity. Thus, I default to uniformitarianism, which holds that the forces in the past are effectively the same as those we see occurring today (i.e. RM+NS) 3) As a theist, I believe that if God wished to design/create a planet complete with complex and diverse lifeforms, etc, he would have *far* more sublime means available at his disposal than one of common descent with modification (intervened/engineered or otherwise). Not to mention a process wherein the vast majority of creatures that ever lived have gone extinct and are buried under eons of dirt. No, for whatever reason, what actually transpired was something different entirely. Something that left plentiful evidence for common descent and extinctions. So what's more plausible...1) that the hyperintelligent, superior designer could not(or sadistically chose not to) generate lifeforms at will according to his conceived design and instead "tweaked" them by directed mutation to produce desired results via common descent with associated extinctions or 2) for whatever reason, things were allowed to progress unassisted--a cosmic garden, if you will--that had the *inherrent* potential to generate "endless forms, most beautiful." That is what the evidence would suggest if we take the uniformitarian perspective that similar processes occurred in the past as are observable today. And what we see today is random mutation and natural selection.

As for the other issue:

DS: "How do you reconcile a belief in the Christian God with RM+NS? It seems to me that such reconciliation means portions of the bible have to be taken as allegory and random mutation thrown out the window because God guides it from behind the scenes either by grand design in the beginning (front-loaded universe) or intervention along the way. Either way it seems to me a professed belief in the Christian God strictly rules out RM+NS."

Yes, 1) portions of the bible can and should be taken as allegory (in my opinion, obviously) particularly Genesis 2) God may intervene if he wishes in the evolutionary process; there is simply no scientific evidence to date that supports and/or necessitates such intervention, and I rather find the cosmos more elegant if He doesn't find it necessary or desirable to intervene (at that level). 3) though tempting to embark upon, the metaphysics of eternity, omniscience, creation, etc. are complex and, ultimately, in my opinion, intricate cobwebs of intellectual futility. Suffice it to say, I am ultimately concerned with truth, and I believe it is imperative that we honestly construct, to the best of our ability, a model of objective reality *as we perceive it*. If we find it to be presenting us with a strong case for darwinian evolution, then we can not shrug it off because it doesn't jive with our theology or other cosmological tastes, whatever they may be. If we are theists, we must ever-so-slightly widen our woefully inadequate conceptions of God to accomodate that revealed truth.

Okay, so it's not a philosophically airtight reconciliation by any stretch of the imagination, but it goes something like this. I believe--though can not prove by argument, evidence, or otherwise--in the existence of a higher power that is behind the universe we perceive. My fact-finding and rational capacities lead me to "infer" (or "put my money on," so to speak) a BWM process as the engine creating biological complexity. [[I am, of course, fallible and could be wrong because BWM does not guarantee my capacities are all that trustworthy to begin with; nevertheless, said capacities are what I have available]] Finally, I simply believe that the existence of God and the existence of darwinian evolution are _somehow_ compatible--even if the metaphysics, upon scrutiny, might be a bit stretched at times. The inconceivable magnitude of all that we simply can not conceive leaves the door open for many possibilities.

Are you sure enough of NeoDarwinian evolution to teach it in such a dogmatic manner that even putting a sticker in a biology textbook saying it's a theory, not a fact, and should be carefully studied and critically considered should be forbidden by law? I really don't have a problem with teaching NDE. Heck, it may turn out to be demonstrable that DNA and a ribosome can somehow create itself through RM+NS from an unknown chemical environment via unknown biochemical reactions. I know you don't claim that's part of evolution and RM+NS but it really is and I think we both know that. You don't get to disclaim ID by picking a starting point for evolution where the hardest part is already done. I don't think it's unreasonable at this point in time to teach criticisms and other explanations such as ID. If ID is so vacuous it won't take any time to teach it and no one will believe it. Right? -ds great_ape
April 10, 2006
April
04
Apr
10
10
2006
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
great_ape: ID is not an argument against evolution. Go read some of the books Scott listed above.j
April 10, 2006
April
04
Apr
10
10
2006
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
I know ID isn't about god or religion, but god certainly is in the running as a possible designer. For the theists in the ID camp, I thought Stephen Jones's blog had an interesting comment as it relates to design detection and god. What better way to reveal the heart of a man than to make the evidence look like whatever he wants it to look like. "It occurred to me.... that God has deliberately designed the universe to be like an ambiguous Rorschach inkblot test in which the pattern we see, is what we want to see, which in turn reflects what is really in our heart. There is plenty of evidence for far-sighted design, but the evolutionist does not want to see that, because they know intuitively that the Designer would be God (even though that cannot be proved)."Lurker
April 10, 2006
April
04
Apr
10
10
2006
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Gil, I said "amen!" outloud after reading that. Thanks.Scott
April 10, 2006
April
04
Apr
10
10
2006
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
CJClinton: "And yet the overwhelming majority of those schooled in the so-called 'hard sciences' find intelligent design utterly uncompelling. Curious, no?" Scott is exactly correct that most of these people don't have the faintest idea what ID is all about, or worse, have been misinformed by people with an anti-ID philosophical or political agenda. In addition, those with a thoroughgoing commitment to a purely materialistic worldview (many in academia) will conclude that Neo-Darwinism, or at least something very much akin to it, simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence. CJClinton: "Oh wait, the physicists have all been brainwashed by the Darwinist establishment. Riiight. Thanks Gil and Dave. You’re both idiots." Yes, they have been brainwashed by the Darwinist establishment. There is a constant drumbeat from all corners -- from public education, television (in general, but from nature shows and PBS in particular), mainstream publications (like National Geographic), etc. -- telling us that Darwinian mechanisms are proven to explain all of life's diversity and complexity. Interestingly, one finds much talk of design among astrophysicists, because the implications of cosmological fine-tuning are inescapable. great_ape: "...members of the public with any semblance of analytical ability will concede common descent. From there, darwinism, neodarwinism, whatever, is just a step away." No, it is not just a step away. Note that in my original post I referred to Blind-Watchmaker Evolution, which is the Neo-Darwinian mechanism, at the heart of the theory (random mutation and natural selection, with any role for design explicitly excluded). There is no solid evidence that RM+NS has anywhere near the creative power ascribed to it (i.e., the ability to form new cell types, organs, body plans, etc.). great_ape: "If life did not evolve in a more or less Darwinian fashion, God certainly went to great pains to plant evidence (fossil and genetic) such that we would ultimately come to believe firmly that it did.” He didn’t plant any evidence that the blind-watchmaker mechanism has the creative power ascribed to it. Even in such trivial cases as bacteria acquiring antibiotic resistance, there is increasing evidence that the “mutations” are not entirely random, but perhaps engineered in some fashion. great_ape: "The truth of the matter will slowly seep out, even to the unwashed masses.” Despite half a century of the immense and pervasive indoctrination that I outlined above (pretty significant seepage, I’d say), 85% of Americans still don’t buy the blind-watchmaker story, and for good reason. The unwashed masses are not as easily conned as some people think. great_ape: "Truth is, I’ll kind of miss you guys.” Don’t worry. We’ll still be around, and in increasing numbers, because the truth is seeping out. In the not-too-far-distant future a tipping point will be reached, design will be accepted as empirically evident, Neo-Darwinism will be declared dead, and the blind watchmaker will take his place as a footnote in the history books.GilDodgen
April 10, 2006
April
04
Apr
10
10
2006
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Not so sure we should put too much trust in some surveys. when this friend of mine from california asks his professor how this stuff evolved, he, the prof, whispers that it's miraculous, but to be careful not to say it too loudly on campus. that whisper was already a career risk for him. [of course, what I'm saying here is all hearsay (or heresy?) so you don't have to believe me]es58
April 10, 2006
April
04
Apr
10
10
2006
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
you write a little program, an "object" or a task. It spends most of its time doing something independently. but it then needs to interact with another object or task. and the 2 tasks go through a fairly elaborate process to make sure they properly exchange this information so that each understands "who" the other is, and that what was received was appropriate. and this took a substantial amount of "forethought" from the designer of the code. Now my friend shows me a page in his molecular cell biology text where the same thing goes on, but at a much greater level of detail. Then tells me this happens on *every single page*. Hmm, what's this person who was trained in statistics and applied math and spent 20 years writing little code machines supposed to do? listen to some biologist assure him that he has no credentials to even consider what's going on??? Oh, ok, then I guess I should believe whatever he tells me. after all, he's the big biology guy.es58
April 10, 2006
April
04
Apr
10
10
2006
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT

And yet the overwhelming majority of those schooled in the so-called “hard sciences” find intelligent design utterly uncompelling. Curious, no?

Clinton, could it be that the "overwhelming majority" don't know jack squat about Intelligent Design because they've never given it adequate examination? Could it be that they outright reject ID, a priori, simply based on what their academic (and political) peers have told them, and not based on personal investigation? It's taboo you know. Could it be that their careers would be in immediate jeopardy if they voiced any support for ID? Yes yes, we ID proponents are frightful conspiracy theorists aren't we (insert eye-rolling emoticon here).

Tell you what, lets get the "overwhelming majority" to read the following books and then have them candidly share with us their position after they have a proper understanding of what ID is...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521678676/sr=1-1/qid=1144674779/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8451666-8200125?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0742512975/sr=8-1/qid=1144674741/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8451666-8200125?%5Fencoding=UTF8

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684834936/sr=1-1/qid=1144674812/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8451666-8200125?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/091756152X/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/102-8451666-8200125?%5Fencoding=UTF8>

Scott
April 10, 2006
April
04
Apr
10
10
2006
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
I don't know just how clear that is. I know there can be found a study, statistic, or website for any point of view a person wants to support, but Rodney Stark is an agnostic who has studied the issue and contends:
https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/b4f38e7a3a7c24bc8525641b0066c23a/74705879bf5884868525649f0063a2fd?OpenDocument Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington in Seattle, said that because the questions in the Leuba survey are so narrowly phrased, the results probably underestimate the extent of religious sentiment among scientists. Several recent surveys of American college professors, he said, show that professors are almost as likely to express a belief in God as are Americans as a whole. Moreover, he said, when the sample in a study he and his coworkers are now doing is broken down into specialties, teachers of the so-called hard sciences, like math and chemistry, are more likely to be devout than are professors of such softer sciences as anthropology and psychology or of the humanities.
I don't recall to which site that link will send you, but this was a New York Times story. I never did see his final report on the matter. Lest you concern that "college professors" doesn't equal "scientists" there is Lehman's study:
“Abstract In a previous study of a state-supported university in the Southeast, no statistically significant differences were found in the personal religiosity of faculty in scientific and nonscientific disciplines. “ Academic Discipline and Faculty Religiosity in Secular and Church-Related Colleges Edward C. Lehman, Jr. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , Vol. 13, No. 2 (Jun., 1974) , pp. 205-220 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8294(197406)13%3A2%3C205%3AADAFRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z
Does any of this prove anything? I doubt it. But there you have it.Charlie
April 10, 2006
April
04
Apr
10
10
2006
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
Yeah I was talking about that study, thanks for the sources! "Stark has repeated similar studies and states that scientists are probably just as likely to believe in God as the rest of the American populace." That's strange, the belief in God (no strings attached) number is over 90% in America. Even the more narrow religion question should be over 80% and clearly that's not the case for scientists although the rate of belief is still quite high considering the apparent pressure to become Darwinists.jasonng
April 9, 2006
April
04
Apr
9
09
2006
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT
Hi Jason, You are likely referring to Larson's repeat in 1997 of the famous Leuba poll. The question is narrowly framed and the emphasis on the results you read can depend upon the point of view advocated by whoever is publishing it.
“In a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 percent of U.S. scientists said they believe in God—not just a creator, but a God to whom one can pray in expectation of an answer. That is the same percentage of scientists who were believers when the survey was taken 80 years earlier. But the number may have been higher if the question had simply asked about God's existence. While many scientists seem to have no problem with deism—the belief that God set the universe in motion and then walked away—others are more troubled with the concept of an intervening God.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion_2.html Same study:
“ Larson closely followed Leuba's methodology, repeating the same questions and attempting to find a representative sample which met the original survey profile. "I had no idea how it would turn out," Larson said. 60% responded, a figure considered high for any surveys. Of those, 40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not. Larson's survey also discovered that physicists were less likely to have such faith, while mathematicians were significantly more likely to believe in a supreme being, as defined by Leuba. “” http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html
Stark has repeated similar studies and states that scientists are probably just as likely to believe in God as the rest of the American populace. But then, religion wasn't the question.Charlie
April 9, 2006
April
04
Apr
9
09
2006
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT

There are several disciplines of biology that are fundamentally involved with discerning how things work at a mechanistic level. Biochemistry, molecular genetics, cell biology, etc. Perhaps you've heard of these? We make excellent use of advances in other fields, including those of chemistry, physics, computer science, and the associated engineering disciplines that produce some of our more interesting toys. We frequently collaborate with folks from these disciplines. Such collaborations have been ongoing for decades. In fact, several of the pioneers in genetics/molecular biology came from outside biology. Strangely, despite intense involvement of people from these 'hard' sciences, we have heard very little in the way of complaints about our blindspots and/or skepticism concerning evolution. These days, biologists are increasingly cross-trained in multiple disciplines; the nature of the field demands it. The disecting/sketching era of biology is largely a thing of the past. Perhaps you fellows should update your conception of biology/biologists before uttering: "They don’t have the training or mindset. They’ve got a blind spot the size of the grand canyon." A funny trend I'm detecting. With increasing frequency, I read entries suggesting that people should pay little mind to what the biologists have to say about the evidence for evolution. Never mind the people that are knee-deep in biological data every day. Nope, consult computer scientists, engineers, physicists, and the like. Because if there's one surefire way to make inroads in the noble war against evolutionary theory, it's to ignore the opinions of those who have actual knowledge of biology. I have intelligent chemist friends who are skeptical about evolution. That's all well and good. But they spend their years studying rates of reactions, etc. Let them spend equivalent amounts of time examining phylogenetic trees--or better yet, ancient viral insertions that "just so happen" to be at precisely the same locations in those "putatively" related primate species. I suspect their tune would change. When immersed in actual data that can only be reasonably explained by evolutionary theory, you tend to accept evolutionary theory. Turns out there's more to evolution than its being fashionable and embedded in academia. Once someone comes out with a well written, popular account of the distribution of viruses and associated retroelements across genomes, members of the public with any semblance of analytical ability will concede common descent. From there, darwinism, neodarwinism, whatever, is just a step away. So to all you IDers out there, enjoy --for the moment--your ability to capitalize on the ignorance and uncertainties of a poorly informed public. The truth of the matter will slowly seep out, even to the unwashed masses. And at that time no amount of carefully crafted rhetoric will influence the ultimate outcome. Truth is, I'll kind of miss you guys. It's enjoyable to watch otherwise reasonable folks contort themselves in intellectual knots trying to rationalize away what they must by now realize (deep down) to be the truth.
Perhaps you could organize a little group, much like the flat earth society, and stubbornly persist in your theories... Oh wait... Carry on, then.

p.s. Please stop responding to questions concerning how many people doubt evolution with information concerning how many people believe in God. As a theist, I can comfortably say the two do not equate. If life did not evolve in a more or less Darwinian fashion, God certainly went to great pains to plant evidence (fossil and genetic) such that we would ultimately come to believe firmly that it did. If this was a grand deception, it must be for a good reason.

I have no problem with descent with modification from one or several common ancestors. It's RM+NS I have a problem with. I'm also using a more narrow definition of biologist that doesn't include biochemistry and molecular genetics i.e. concerned with the characteristics, classification, and behaviors of organisms, how species come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the environment. By way of example, Eric Pianka is a biologist while Michael Behe is not. How do you reconcile a belief in the Christian God with RM+NS? It seems to me that such reconciliation means portions of the bible have to be taken as allegory and random mutation thrown out the window because God guides it from behind the scenes either by grand design in the beginning (front-loaded universe) or intervention along the way. Either way it seems to me a professed belief in the Christian God strictly rules out RM+NS. -ds

great_ape
April 9, 2006
April
04
Apr
9
09
2006
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
"Say what? It’s only in academia and it’s not even a majority there. Check this out." Wasn't there a poll a while back that said only 40% of scientists believed in God? It seems strange that the number would be higher among university faculty.jasonng
April 9, 2006
April
04
Apr
9
09
2006
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT

This is awesome! I, myself, am an alumnus of UC Irvine (graduated last year with a B.S. in Information and Computer Science), and I will definitely be attending this event. Too bad I didn't know about this group when I attended (or maybe it's too new). I find it very telling that those of us with engineering backgrounds tend to be more ID friendly than those in other areas of study. I guess it's harder to fool people who see design every day of their lives into believing that something so incredibly efficient and just plain well engineered such as the human body is a product of accidental forces. Heck, if that's how it works, I should just sit around and wait for mother nature to design all my algorithms and data structures for me :^) (that was a joke, please don't presume that I think that's how Neo-Darwinian evolution is supposed to work).

DNA and ribosomes comprise a computer controlled robotic assembler. The spine of DNA contains a digital code that specifiies the ribosome itself and all the protein products used by living systems. This basic bit of cellular automata exists in every living thing ever observed from the simplest bacteria to all the cells in our bodies (except red blood cells). Where there's code there's a coder. Where there's a machine there's a machinist. Biologists don't see these things in terms of digital codes and molecular scale machinery. They don't have the training or mindset. They've got a blind spot the size of the grand canyon. -ds

Maleldil
April 9, 2006
April
04
Apr
9
09
2006
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT

And yet the overwhelming majority of those schooled in the so-called "hard sciences" find intelligent design utterly uncompelling. Curious, no?

Oh wait, the physicists have all been brainwashed by the Darwinist establishment. Riiight. Thanks Gil and Dave. You're both idiots.

Say what? It's only in academia and it's not even a majority there. Check this out.
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
Now once you get up to NAS scientists it's a different story where 71% are positive atheists. You almost have to be a positive atheist to get into that clique. So what's your excuse for being wrong? It's not like googling this stuff is a hard science or anything. Or is it? I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you'd stop making faces and spitting it out but be advised I have my own children to teach and my patience is limited in teaching other people's kids.-ds <CJClinton
April 9, 2006
April
04
Apr
9
09
2006
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Dang it! Why are these things always on the West Coast? That's just too far for me to travel. Oh well, I guess I'll get to go to an ID conference someday. :)crandaddy
April 9, 2006
April
04
Apr
9
09
2006
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT

"technically competent people who have a reasonably well-integrated knowledge of modern hard science"

P1: Darwinian evolution is proposed as an explanation of biological processes
P2: Biologists study, and are responsible for the description and characterization of, biological processes (among other things)
C: Biologists are well-qualified to judge the efficacy of Darwinian evolution

OR

It is raining DNA outside. On the bank of the Oxford canal at the bottom of my garden is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air. There is no consistent air movement, and the seeds are drifting outwards in all directions from the tree. Up and doen the canal, as far as my binoculars can reach, the water is white with floating cottony flecks... The whole performance, cotton wool, catkins, tree and all, is in aid of one thing and one thing only, the spreading of DNA around the countryside. Not just any DNA, but DNA whose coded characters spell out specific instructions for building willow trees that will shed a new generation of downy seeds. Those fluffy specks are, literally, spreading instructions for making themselves. They are there because their ancestors succeeded in doing the same. It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn't be any plainer if it were raining floppy disks. -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), p. 111

P1: Darwinian evolution is proposed as an algorithmic explanation of biological complexity
P2: Mathematicians and computer scientists study, and are responsible for the analysis and design of, algorithms (among other things)
C: Mathematicians and computer scientists are well-qualified to judge the efficacy of Darwinian evolution

Darwin explains a world of final causes and teleological laws with a principle that is, to be sure, mechanistic but--more fundamentally--utterly independent of "meaning" or "purpose." It assumes a world that is absurd in the existentialist's sense of the term: not ludicrous but pointless... -- Daniel C. Dennett, "Why the Law of Effect Will Not Go Away" (1975).

P1: Darwinian evolution is proposed as a mechanistic explanation of final causes and teleological laws
P2: Engineers study, and are responsible for the analysis and design of, mechanisms (among other things)
C: Engineers are well-qualified to judge the efficacy of Darwinian evolution

Credit: The above was partially inspired by DaveScot's March 16 post ( https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/928 )

Very good. Once upon a time biologists were the appropriate experts. Back when microscopy and dissection, study of fossils and living species was the only way we learned about how life functions and evolves, biologists were the go-to guys. In the last 50 years or so the trend has been increasingly towards organic chemistry, information science, and process control instead of biology. The goto guys are mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, and chemists. Biologists are of course upset at being relegated to a profession that's becoming more like a cross between stamp collecting and pipetting than it is a hard science or engineering. And evolutionary biology - forget it - that's become nothing more than making up stories of an unwitnessed, unrepeatable past. -ds j
April 9, 2006
April
04
Apr
9
09
2006
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply