ARTICLE: Evolution: Philosophy, Not Science

[C. D. Ward]

its utterly ridiculous to say that something can't be designed because it has elements of randomness in it.

Not only that, but if in fact there is a Creator, then everything is designed, even apparently random processes. How can we separate design from non-design if there is no non-design? How does an "explanatory filter" work if there's nothing to filter out?

[ajohnson]

As I said in my post, I'm no scientist, nor do I pretend to be.

You are distorting facts in order to knock down distorted facts.

I wasn't distorting fact, I read it out of my son's science text book several years ago.

For an examples of a primitive eye, look up paramecium. All they have is two opposing photosensitive dots. They can not sense anything except light and dark. They seem to do just fine. This would be the first stage of eye development, and it seems to funciton.

Why do you call this 'primitive'? Is it going to 'evolve' more? How do you know this? Why can't it be a complete and fully developed eye for this creature?

As to the woodpeckers, what if the ancestors to all birds (reptiles) already had an attached brain, etc. The only additions would have been chaning the jaw to a beak, and subsequent changes could have included reinforcing an already adequate skull and beak.

Are you stating that the reptiles have their brain attached to the skull in the way a woodpecker does? If not why make this statement? If they did, why/how break the connection for all other birds except the woodpecker?

Evolution is gradual. Even punctuated equilibrium takes eons longer than what you are describing. Evolution occurs at the population level, while mutation takes place at the individual level. The movement towards speciation is much more gradual than you have defined here.

I'm sorry, did I use a time frame?

And here we come to the crux of the issue. Judging by what you think evolutionary theory states, I could see why you would believe in special creation. However, abusing science by distorting it gets nobody anywhere.

I'm learning (on TWEB) that even 'evolutionist' don't agree on many things (read stuff in natural sciences)

Creationists tend to start with a presupposition that the Bible is innerrant, and then force all data and wolrdviews to fit that presupposition. I find the weakness of many creationist arguments is their ad hoc nature. This happens when somebody presupposes the mechanism, and then distorts the data to fit. The biggest problem with ad hoc hypotheses is the untestable nature. This is where methodological naturalism has a leg up. Within science, no theory is accepted unless it can be tested or potentially be falsified through observable data. I have yet to see the ID crowd describe the potential falsifications of their so called theory, or inference. Every possible scenario seems to have an ad hoc hypothesis cooked up for it. If genetic information is shown to increase by one metric, a new metric is found and the contention of "no new information" is once again trotted out. "Design is self-evident" and "common design, common designer" are great for bumper stickers, but say little about predictions or testable hypotheses.

If you say so, but I haven't seen any scientist (physical, mathmatical, biologist, nuclear, etc) not start without a presuposition. Isn't that what a theory could be? esp 5 & 6

from www.dictionary.com

the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries
1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2) The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3) A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4) Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5) A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The wall I have run into is this: methodological naturalism works. I have yet to see a supernatural methodology that can shed light on natural phenomena.

No presupposition in this statement.

We all have biases (me, you, everybody), the real issue is which bias is closer to the truth. By it's very nature and definition, there can be only one truth. The world as it is fits nicely into the Christian world view. I don't go around society with blinders on, nor rose colored glasses.

But then again, what do I know. I'm no scientist, I'm just average joe citizen trying to make a difference in my little world.

Regards,

Alan

[Peptide]

ajohnson,

We can argue the merits of specific evidences and misunderstandings of evolution in another thread, perhaps in the Biology 301 forum. We have both deviated from the original topic, which is the status of evolution as a philosophy or a science. Feel free to take a look at the posts in the Biology 301 forum, I check in over their on a regular basis.

We all have biases (me, you, everybody), the real issue is which bias is closer to the truth.

Indeed. So how do we test which bias is closer to the truth, and by which methodology do we test that bias. Simply stating "mine is better" is a point of preference, no different than an empty assertion. Methodological naturalism has been science's key to eliminating many biases. However, this methodology can not exclude the presence of the supernatural, only rule out its effect as defined by the believers of a defined theology. For instance, a global flood a few thousand years ago has been refuted by modern geology, but this does not rule out the existence of the christian God.

What makes evolutionary theories science instead of philosophy is the testable nature of the theories. The correlation of cladistics with stratigraphy is a perfect example of this testable nature. In cladistics, evolutionary mechanisms are assumed to have acted upon the populations of species found in the fossil record so that shared characteristics and novel characteristics are sorted into a tree that reflects what we would expect to see if evolution were true. This is done independently of what age the fossil is given via dating methods. If evolutionary assumptions were false, then the trees constructed using morphological characteristics should not match up with the independently measured radiometric age. However, the opposite is true. The age and the cladistic tree match up. Also, genetic trees can also be constructed using the same assumptions, and those trees match up with the morphological trees and stratigraphy (age). Name one philosophy that can be measured and tested in such a way. I can't.

Also, can you show any bias in the above test?

By it's very nature and definition, there can be only one truth. The world as it is fits nicely into the Christian world view. I don't go around society with blinders on, nor rose colored glasses.

Everyone has a different "Christian world view". Some are more fundamentalist, in that they believe Genesis should be understood to be a literal history instead of allegory/metaphor. Other christians have no problem with the theory of evolution. They believe in the existence of God and believe that he set up physical laws that would create life on Earth.

And I am glad you don't walk around with blinders on. However, it seems you may have scientific blinders on. I am not saying that you will never understand science or evolution, but it takes more than a cursory glance in a science book to understand the full scope of the predictions and evidence that went into formulating the theory. You might want to check out www.talkorigins.org, it is a pro-evolutionary site but it does often link to creationist sites that contain arguments against what is presented on each page. The best part is, this site supplies evidences and theories that the scientific community has accepted, not the often distorted view that creationist sites trot out. Just a quicky: if you ever see the word "half-evolved" on a creationist site, understand that this word is a fabrication on their part, nothing is ever half-evolved, only fully evolved at that point in time.

But then again, what do I know. I'm no scientist, I'm just average joe citizen trying to make a difference in my little world.

And yet you feel qualified to claim that scientists who have spent years in school and years in the field don't know what they are talking about. You might want to take the position that you may not understand some of the theories or terminology instead of bull-rushing in. I am not saying you are stupid, only that science in general does require some background knowledge before one can discern between poor theories from well-supported theories. For evolution, this could include comparative anatomy, cladistics, ecology, a basic working definition of the theory of evolution, genetics, population genetics, and a general knowledge of actual examples of speciation. However, average joe can still make important observations, but only if he understands what he is arguing for or against. Just as a counter-example, someone who has only a cursory knowledge of christian theology would not be able to argue well against a theologian who had spent years in seminary. This is why I often only lurk in theology threads, it really isn't something that I am experienced in.

Anyway, I hope you don't feel insulted by anything that I posted, only hoping that you understand where I am coming from. Happy posting.

Peptide

[Gilgaron]

The question isn't could a creator use evolution as a way for created things to develop, but rather - Did our Creator use evolution in the way it is taught and written about?

I didn't notice I had a response! I don't read this board often. I'll give you a succinct response, if possible. I didn't read everyone else's response to your response to me, so forgive any repitition. In reality, I am procrastinating on getting back to my studies right now

It would seem to me that our Creator (as understood by orthadox Christians) wouldn't be worth worshiping if He did use evolution.

Socrates has made a similar argument in the past, as well.

Take the woodpecker, think of the unknown suffering for millions of generations before several mutations were in place. To name a few; thickness of the skull, hardness of the beak, attachment of the brain in the skull, attachment of the eyes to the eye socket. Without all of these, the bird would just slam a brittle beak into a tree and shatter the beak - then the bird would starve to death. Or if the beak wouldn't break, the brain would detach from the skull and bounce around. Or the eyes would pop out of the eye sockets. Without all the 'mutations' in place at the same time how or why would a bird continueously bang his head into a tree?

That's a pretty bad idea of how natural selection would work. There is some trial and error, sure, but the sort of process you describe is not plausible. Imagine the bird pecking at shallow bugs, now a selective pressure for deep boring bugs, and some co-evolution occuring as woodpeckers get stronger and bugs bore deeper.

If it was a preditor, surely the preditor would have destoryed all the pre-woodpeckers before every mutation was in place. And because they didn't have long distance communication or a way to record their actions, how did pre woodpeckers located far, far away know what happened in eariler generations to pre-woodpeckers in a dufferent place?

A predator would not influence pecking behavior, most likely. I suppose it could key off of the sound and get them that way, but it is more likely that a jittery fight or flight response and agile flying would be resultant.

That's just the woodpecker. Don't misunderstand me - I don't have any problems with adaptation within a species. It's evolution (from one species to another) I have a problem with.

There's little effective difference. It's only a matter of scale.

I have a problem for several reasons.

1) It goes directly against the revelation from God to man set forth in the canonical Bible. Specifically God claims He made the animals on the ground, in the air, and under the water [including man] (Genesis 1).

There are several responses to this I've seen from Christian evolutionists, such as the verses where God commands the earth to bring forth the animals. In any event, I always found the most apt argument to be that the Bible is not presented as a science text, but as a manual of salvation. This is analogous to Aesop's Fables being books of morality, not science texts.

2) It doesn't make sense for a logical God to created a primordial soup and every once in a while, add a lightning bolt or an additional ingediant to see what'll happen.

"God works in mysterious ways" It makes equal sense to creation ex nihilo on a planet mostly covered in water, and salt water at that. God would KNOW what wouldn't happen, he wouldn't have to experiment in the same sense as we do, being omniscient (or at least very intelligent).

3) I can't see the God we orthadox Christians worship cause His creation to suffer awaiting the 'right' mutations to come along. God already sees and understands the suffering we bring upon ourselves and can't see Him adding to that with evolution.

It's important to note that God never seems terribly concerned about suffering among anything that isn't human, and apparently all humans are sinful and thusly deserve suffering. There's the OT stuff where he says he likes animal sacrifice, some misc stuff Socrates has mentioned against environmentalism about how animals are ours to use as we please (it was in a thread about driving some pest species to extinction, if you want to go looking). Other life forms suffer at least briefly when we eat them, even plants react to damage in as analogous a response to pain as something without nerves can get.

So, since suffering is already an inherent part of the nonhuman world, and by doctrine humans deserve the suffering they get, I don't think this is a good argument.

In the form Socrates uses of this argument, he puts emphasis on the description of creation as "good" before the fall, in order to preclude the sort of suffering prevalent in nature now, as he believes that scriptural interpretation leads to the conclusion that before the fall all animals were vegetarian. If you agree with his scriptural interpretations, it would be a far stronger position than the one you've presented here. The main problem with his position becomes predator and parasitic mechanisms arising post-flood.

Again, I'm not talking adaptation.

reguards

AJ

I hope I've been helpful.

[Hoosier]

I don't expect you to, that there is genetic information is effectively universally accepted, however the type of information that genes are accepted to communicate is not of any form that cannot be easily produced purely by evolutionary processes.

I'm afraid you're waving your hands, G. Evolutionary processes have never easily explained the origin of information. Information was never even specifically raised until the concept of a gentic code surfaced, when it became unavoidable.

ID'ers use a different definition of "information" when they make their claims that the "information" in the genome couldn't have been produced naturally but they never actually provide any real rigorous explanations of what that definition IS.

Sorry, but you are trying to pretend that a new definition of information is not forthcoming when you have failed to give the 'initial' one. You're trying to concede information while avoiding its implications. Please define the kind of information that can originate and transfer by purely natural processes, which is exactly the issue at hand.

Not exactly. I still don't know what kind of information you're talking about when you say there's no way it could have gotten into the genome without a "programmer"... and I'm beginning to suspect you don't either.

Don't misquote me, please. When I say 'no way' I will gladly defend my position. When I don't, don't claim I did. I also strongly suspect that you are running from the very concept of information, afraid of its implications. Defining information is actually the entire issue of ID, and is a legitimately scientific question (though metaphysical in the long run). Shannon's theory reduced all information to this/that binary code for computational transmission purposes, but it would be absurd for you to admit that the above paragraph you typed had nothing else in it. The transmission of information is a different issue than the origin and outworking of it.

Information as abstract concept is fine and dandy for philosophical discussions but we're dealing with a concrete quantitative claim when we address ID arguments.

Well, really, we just need to define information. Have at it, G! That will give us all the base from which to operate, if you can define it clearly enough.

They say that there is an amount/type of information in the genome that cannot be produced by evolution. In order to make such claims they have to have some way of quantifying/measuring that information so that they can establish what there is of it and then they need to show what barrier there is to it being produced naturally.

You have already admitted that information exists and is recognized (so recognizable). The ID people have in fact been busy defining information (while you've been busy trying to keep it undefined beyond a basic this/that Shannon type transmission law), even if it ultimately undercuts anything you say --- all you posted was ONLY byts after, all according to your constraints; with no other, intellectual, content. It is incumbent on YOU to offer a scientifically (or at least philosophically) valid defense of some other form of information if you expect us to take anything you say as having content. If you can't do that, we should ignore ID, but we should also ignore you!

never see them do it. Ever. All I see is a bunch of handwaving and exclamations that "there's all that information in there... no way did it get there naturally".

Maybe you've been focusing too close. It's hard to see beyond your own hads at times.

And this claim is based on what? I've never gotten past the incredulity stage of the argument.

-Grant

Incredulity is an interesting perspective. It can usually be eliminated with concrete causitive chains and valid explanations coupled with observations. Feel free to bring the NDT into the information age. Everyone else seems to be avoiding the challenge.

[HRG_new]

Hi Grant,

I was doing some painting today, which allowed my mind to wander, and thought about your question. This might not be an exhaustive description, but here goes:

Information is the non-material content of code (language). It originates from a source and is transmitted to a receiver (or possibly stored, and destined not to reach a receiver) through an established system of semantics and syntax to convey a meaning involving abstraction.

I’m not sure what you mean by “objectively” quantified, but it can be statistically quantified by the number of either/or choices in the sense of computer storage capacity. Information, by its nature, entails subjective responses depending on the receiver (their function, capacity, etc.). The amount of information transmitted might not all be received. You are, I assume, asking about genetic information. I don’t have to defend the idea that there is genetic information. That is a common conclusion which no one seems to dispute. Genetic information seems to direct functions in recipients who receive it (cells).

Genetic information directs functions in recipients only in the sense that celestial information (the form of the gravitational potential) directs functions, to wit the orbits of planets, asteroids, comets (the recipients) etc.

It is a metaphor for us to help us understanding what's going on, not a real "substance". Thus naive questions like "where does it come from" are meaningless.

The big difference to the kind of information that is contained in a book is that for the latter there is an encoding mechanism (sentence -> sequence of letters and other characters on paper). However, there is no encoding mechanism for genetic "information". Such a mechanism would have to scan an existing organism and generate a DNA sequence which would generate it. This would be a Lamarckian mechanism, but they have been consistently disproven.

[Hoosier]

Genetic information directs functions in recipients only in the sense that celestial information (the form of the gravitational potential) directs functions, to wit the orbits of planets, asteroids, comets (the recipients) etc.

It is a metaphor for us to help us understanding what's going on, not a real "substance". Thus naive questions like "where does it come from" are meaningless.

Well my friend, I supose the first rejoinder would be that 'naivety is as naivety does'. Gravitational and other constants are 'law'-like regularities, which are at the very least a brute fact from a naturalistic perspective. To describe them as 'laws' would of course be metaphoric without a Law Giver, but the fact that they are recognized as something very 'law-like' is a tacit recognition that there is, in fact, information involved. To claim they demonstrate the power of natural forces to do anything is about as circular as one can get, and the fact that information is involved can't be so easily eluded. But that isn't even where your argument really falls into trouble.

If we recognize celestial information of the type you refer to, as we should, this information is a part and parcel boundary condition of what we call nature. It came with the territory, so to speak, even if we ignore the obvious question about the origin of the territory itself. Genetic information is generally not seen as something that sprung into being along with time, space and matter. It can't just be dismissed as a brute fact like gravity or the speed of light, which are some of the 'natural' parameters which supposedly support any theory of causation. Something in the 'celestial information' has to be connected through a chain of cause and effect to explain the genetic information, which is of a complexity and variety many magnitudes beyond that of the 'laws of nature'. That's exactly why those laws seem inadequate to explain its origin, and why you pointing to the laws as an explanation is naive to the Nth degree.

The big difference to the kind of information that is contained in a book is that for the latter there is an encoding mechanism (sentence -> sequence of letters and other characters on paper). However, there is no encoding mechanism for genetic "information".

You may be demonstrating an even greater naivety, if I correctly understood your point. The information in a book, this post, a musical score or a computer program is carried through language and syntax, but not language and syntax themselves. I could for instance tell you how to play a piano concerto using the English language --- strike the third key left of center, then the second black key to the right of it, etc.. Standard musical notations would tell you the same thing in another language and syntax, demonstrating that the information exists independent of the language and is only transmitted through it. The language is the 'encoding mechanism', and more than one can transmit the same information. Regarding genetic information, the entire reason it is called a 'code' is because it is itself carried in a language. The four bases of a DNA helix are combined in various way to spell out different functions, and these functions can be reverse engineered and transmitted (informationally, if not functionally) into English for a much more cumbersome expression of them --- just as one could theoretically be instructed to play a concerto through the cumbersome transmission media English.

Such a mechanism would have to scan an existing organism and generate a DNA sequence which would generate it. This would be a Lamarckian mechanism, but they have been consistently disproven.

I may or may not have understood that 'scanning' stuff. It seems that you are saying information can only exist if we are able to 'scan' it in its entirety and generate the same result. If I correctly understood you, this would mean that Shakespeare (for instance) only transmitted information when he used words that YOU understand. My postion would be that he transmitted information that was not received, due to communication failure, but not to information paucity. Language and syntax are both the carriers and sometimes barriers through which information moves, as the transmitter and receiver are rarely perfect in their role.

If anything, you are the one who comes across Lamarckian, proposing that genetic information and natural bounday conditions are alike.

Regards.