How Does Philip Johnson Challenge Darwinism in Evolution as Dogma?

[Les Sleeth]

In a paper entitled Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, Philip Johnson criticizes dogmatic practices of those in power, in this case the advocates of Darwinism. He does so not as a Biblical creationist, but as someone who thinks Darwinist theory has serious problems, and who is open to some sort of creationary force/consciousness being part of what brought about creation.

The article is interesting to me because it says so many things I myself think, and have argued here at PF over the years, except I think Johnson says it better than I ever have.

This link http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm has the article, responses from five critics, and Johnson’s answers to the critics. In total (article, critics, response) it’s about 10,000 words.

I was hoping some PF members would read all of it and critique his reasoning and facts, both in the original article and how he responded to the critics, as well as offer any new arguments or facts you see as relevant (either for or against Johnson’s position).

Below are few samples of what you’ll find. In this first quote Johnson criticizes “extravagant” extrapolation, a complaint I have made many times (e.g., extrapolating from the Urey-Miller experiment that chemistry can self-organize into a living system):

"Evolution" also designates some relatively modest modifications in biological populations that result from environmental pressures. Bacterial populations evolve resistance to antibiotics: evolution causes dark moths to preponderate over light moths when the background trees are darkened by smoke. These examples have nothing to do with whatever creative process formed bacteria and insects in the first place, but since the same word is used to designate both limited adaptive modification with fixed boundaries and the whole naturalistic metaphysical system, it is easy to give the impression that naturalistic evolution (all the way from microorganism to man) is a "fact."

Examples of this kind allow Darwinists to assert as beyond question that "evolution is a fact," and that natural selection is an important directing force in evolution. If they mean only that evolution of a sort has been known to occur, and that natural selection has observable effects upon the distribution of characteristics in a population, then there really is nothing to dispute. The important claim of "evolution," however, is not that limited changes occur in populations due to differences in survival rates. It is that we can extrapolate from the very modest amount of evolution that can actually be observed to a grand theory that explains how moths, trees, and scientific observers came to exist in the first place. (bold emphasis added)

In this next quote Johnson criticizes the failure to present a fair picture of what’s known and what isn’t:

Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science" most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies. This impression is seriously misleading. Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere. The fossil record, as we have seen, is so unhelpful that the important steps in evolution must be assumed to have occurred within its "gaps." Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature. According to Gareth Nelson, "evidence, or proof, of origins of the universe, of life, of all the major groups of life, of all the minor groups of life, indeed of all the species-is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale." Nelson, a senior zoologist at the American Museum of Natural History, wrote that statement in the preface to a recent book by Wendell Bird, the leading attorney for the creationist organizations. Nelson himself is no creationist, but he is sufficiently disgusted with Darwinist dogmatism that he looks benignly upon unorthodox challengers.

Here Johnson criticizes dogmatic methods:

The project requires that the scientific establishment commit itself to a strategy of indoctrination, in which the teachers first tell students what they are supposed to believe and then inform them about any difficulties only later, when it is deemed safe to do so. The weakness that requires such dogmatism is evident in Philip Kitcher's explanation of why it is "insidious" to propose that the creationists be allowed to present their negative case in the classroom . . . A few centuries ago, the defenders of orthodoxy used the same logic to explain why the common people needed to be protected from exposure to the spurious heresies of Galileo. In fairness, the creationists Kitcher had in mind are biblical fundamentalists who want to attack orthodox scientific doctrine on a broad front I do not myself think that such advocacy groups should be given a platform in the classroom. In my experience, however, Darwinists apply the same contemptuous dismissal to any suggestion, however well-informed and modestly stated, that in constructing their huge theoretical edifice upon a blind commitment to naturalism, they may have been building upon the sand. As long as the media and the courts are quiescent, they may retain the power to marginalize dissent and establish their philosophy as orthodoxy. What they do not have the power to do is to make it true.

Finally, Johnson asks for a fair appraisal of Darwinist theory:

The real danger to science is that it is being linked to a dogma that can't stand close examination in order to further an ideological agenda that goes way beyond the proper concerns of science. The worst kind of science education is the kind that tells students it is wrong to question the pronouncements of authority. The corrective doesn't require giving a place in science class to the biblical literalist. To borrow Irving Kristol's prescription, "Our goal should be to have biology and evolution taught in a way that points to what we don't know as well as what we do." I would only add that it would help if we could get the science educators to define that word "evolution" precisely and use it consistently.

 

[Rade]

In a paper entitled Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, Philip Johnson criticizes dogmatic practices of those in power, in this case the advocates of Darwinism. He does so not as a Biblical creationist, but as someone who thinks Darwinist theory has serious problems, and who is open to some sort of creationary force/consciousness being part of what brought about creation.

Here is a link to the works of Dr. Johnson:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/Johnson.htm
including numerous responses to his writings. Below is the first paragraph of the web page.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip E Johnson is the de facto leader of the intelligent design movement, other are include Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, Paul Nelson, Robert C. Koons, Dr. Walter L. Bradley.

Johnson is Professor of Law (School of Law) University of California, Berkeley. His 1991 book 'Darwin on Trial' and subsequent books have made him many friends and enemies. He argues that the theory of evolution is based not on fact, but on faith in philosophical naturalism, there is no vast body of empirical data supporting the theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make no mistake, Dr. Johnson rejects ALL science as a means of knowledge, it fact, by definition "intelligent design" must operate outside all known laws of biology, physics, chemistry, geology (e.g., science). So, whatever the "force" that Johnson holds started the universe, it is "outside science" by definition.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Make no mistake, Dr. Johnson rejects ALL science as a means of knowledge, it fact, by definition "intelligent design" must operate outside all known laws of biology, physics, chemistry, geology (e.g., science). So, whatever the "force" that Johnson holds started the universe, it is "outside science" by definition.

Nonesense. That isn't his position at all, and certainly not in "Darwin on Trial."

And being open to something being outside science doesn't equate to rejecting all science.

 

[Kerrie]

And being open to something being outside science doesn't equate to rejecting all science.

Many who "follow" science will only accept the avenue of knowledge it can currently provide. That avenue will run into a dead end if we choose not to remain open outside the scope of our modern version of science. It is the scientist with the ability to keep this scope open who will get the bigger opportunity of discovering something new and more profound for us to understand about our world and universe. As Einstein said, "The important thing is to not stop questioning".

 

[Les Sleeth]

Okay, let me make it clear what I am asking here so this thread (if anybody graces me with an answer) doesn't turn into a debate about intelligent design. I am not an advocate of ID, but I am critical of what science claims to know about evolution and how it is taught, and that is what interests me.

I am asking readers to evaluate Johnson's arguments made in the article I linked to ON FACE VALUE. It doesn't matter if he is a creationist, or nazi or necrophiliac . . . who cares. Leave Johnson out of it. I am only interested in an objective evalution of his analysis of the theoretical gaps in Darwinism, his accusations of bullying by those in power, dogmatic defences, the a priori commitment to naturalism, etc.

 

[roamer]

I have always had a difficult time understanding a few of the seemingly very large leaps in evolution. Johnson uses this example,
"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago."
However from a very young age I have been taught evolution and accepted it as fact. I have always assumed that it was merely a matter of missing fossil records or some physical mechanism yet to be revealed that would eventually clear up these descrepencies. I really have not put time or thought into the possibility of some explanation other than Darwins theory of evolution. What does surprise me a little bit about my view is how easily I have accepted it as a fact that was taught in High School Biology. If Johnson is advocating that the discrepancies in evolution be taught, along with the theory and emperical evidence, I would agree with him.

 

[loseyourname]

In a paper entitled Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, Philip Johnson criticizes dogmatic practices of those in power, in this case the advocates of Darwinism. He does so not as a Biblical creationist, but as someone who thinks Darwinist theory has serious problems, and who is open to some sort of creationary force/consciousness being part of what brought about creation.

It would take a while to do a point-by-point on all of this. I might do it, but I honestly don't see the point, as many people have already responded to Dr. Johnson. The man is a lawyer, for Christ's sake. He doesn't know the first thing about scientific principles or what constitutes a scientific theory. He does, however, know quite a bit about selectively presenting evidence to give the impression of reasonable doubt. In case there are any lingering doubts as to his motives, consider this letter he wrote for Dr. James Kennedy's "Truths that Transform:"

In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America.

http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp

Here is a start on a criticism of Dr. Johnson:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html

I'm sure you won't like it, but it's the same thing anyone here is going to tell you. In fact, you probably already know that.

 

[loseyourname]

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago."

The reason for the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record is that there is a huge rocky outcropping that popped up in coastal Wales (called Cambria) about 600 million years ago that captured all of these wonderful fossils. We don't have many fossils from directly before or after this period. Of course, Johnson ignores this and explains the explosion by saying that we have an abundance of fossils from this period because that is precisely the time when all of these creatures were created. Then again, he's very careful not to actually put forward such a blatantly untestable hypothesis with absolutely no evidential backing. After all, he is practically the architect of the ID strategy of not making any positive claims whatsoever, making his position virtually unassailable.

 

[Les Sleeth]

It would take a while to do a point-by-point on all of this. I might do it, but I honestly don't see the point, as many people have already responded to Dr. Johnson. The man is a lawyer, for Christ's sake. He doesn't know the first thing about scientific principles or what constitutes a scientific theory.

Well, that settles it. I suppose we all left to the high priests of science to explain how the universe works. Obviously no one is intelligent enough to recognize gaps in logic, glossing over missing evidence, pushing a theory as the truth in such a way that all but insists on an ontology, and then when confronted about the ontological propagandizing, speaking out of the other side of the mouth saying, "oh no, we aren't talking ontology, we are just doing science."

I don't agree with Johnson's desire to reconcile Biblical creationism with science, but I do agree he has astutely analyzed the dogmatic attitude of the scientific community. That is the title of his article, and that is what I am asking thinkers to evaluate. I doubt if I will get anybody to look past Johnson's beliefs and strictly critique the points he makes in his article.

He does, however, know quite a bit about selectively presenting evidence to give the impression of reasonable doubt. In case there are any lingering doubts as to his motives, consider this letter he wrote for Dr. James Kennedy's "Truths that Transform:"

But this is irrelevant. So what if he is a creationist? It makes absolutely no difference, just like it makes no difference if he is a scientist. Any good scientific thinker should be able to evaluate his points on face value without knowing a single thing about the author of the points.

 

[arildno]

There aren't gaps in evolutionist logic, nor is anyone glossing over missing evidence.

To demand that we should be able to explain step-by-step every single transition that has occurred in the history of species, is as silly as to demand that we should be able to track down and predict every single wave formation&propagation on the seven seas.

QM&Relativity and its approximation classical mechanics is not invalidated in any way by its failure to live up to this latter demand; equally, Darwinism is wholly unaffected by the silly demand of Johnson.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There aren't gaps in evolutionist logic, nor is anyone glossing over missing evidence.

To demand that we should be able to explain step-by-step every single transition that has occurred in the history of species, is as silly as to demand that we should be able to track down and predict every single wave formation&propagation on the seven seas.

QM&Relativity and its approximation classical mechanics is not invalidated in any way by its failure to live up to this latter demand; equally, Darwinism is wholly unaffected by the silly demand of Johnson.

Thanks for answering. I don't believe I've expressed what I'm after very well, so I am working on a post to clarify. Maybe you will address that.

 

[arildno]

Thanks for answering. I don't believe I've expressed what I'm after very well, so I am working on a post to clarify. Maybe you will address that.

Please note I was addressing Johnson's claim rather than your own.
I await your clarification with interest.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I’m glad not many have responded to this thread because it gives me a chance to narrow what I thought was relevant about Phillip Johnson’s article.

When I posted Dr. Johnson’s article I didn’t know of his religious beliefs, and I didn’t know that people associate him with intelligent design. I was careless not research him before posting, but I stumbled on the article searching for something else and got interested as I read. In that particular article he doesn’t reveal his Biblical creationist beliefs, and if you read his closing paragraph, his point instead seems to be wanting a more realistic assessment of what science really knows about evolution:

The corrective doesn't require giving a place in science class to the biblical literalist. To borrow Irving Kristol's prescription, "Our goal should be to have biology and evolution taught in a way that points to what we don't know as well as what we do." I would only add that it would help if we could get the science educators to define that word "evolution" precisely and use it consistently.

I stick by my original statement that I don’t think it matters if he is a creationist or a plumber or Darwin himself. His reasoning and the facts he relies on should be considered on their own merit. Since posting that, I’ve done some research and found out a bit more which would help explain parts of his article I didn’t see the point of.

For example, as I read Dr. Johnson’s article I was confused why he thought the lack of a complete fossil record of transitional stages between species was so significant (and why one of the dissenters cited the degree of shared genes as important). Now I think it’s because he seems to believe God created life in spurts instantaneously (and of course then the dissenter’s genetic point becomes clear). I also know he wants evolution to match up with the Genesis account.

I disagree with him on these points. I don’t think the author of Genesis knew anything about the origin of the universe; it seems inspired myth at best. I think the evidence is clear that all life gradually evolved, and that if we had a record of every species that ever existed we would see all the transitional stages between, for example, the first vestiges of light sensitivity and the eye. I also disagree that there is anything which hasn’t come about “naturally.” That’s because I believe that even if there has been some sort creationary consciousness influence in the development of the universe, it came about naturally itself (i.e., within the laws of existence), and that it cannot act “super” naturally. In other words, all is natural whether there is a conscious “creator” or not.

One thing I mostly agree with Dr. Johnson about is that the science community as a whole has a agenda they refuse to admit to (which I see as physicalist/mechanistic rather than naturalistic). When I say the “science community” I am not referring to how science is conducted, which I believe is basically beyond reproach. I am talking about the pubic presentation of what they claim “most likely” occurred when it comes to the origin of life, and how evolution works. The public presentation includes textbooks, classroom teachings, science specials on TV, books written by experts for the public, etc. where they assume a priori that all creation, every bit of it, came about mechanistically.

I think Dr. Johnson is right that when pressed about their a priori assumption (that existence is purely physical), they evade the issue by saying “all we do is science, and these are the facts” which is a way to hide they are pushing physicalist ontology. They do this by “dismissing” any consideration other than physical considerations in public presentations, by exaggerating what physicalness is actually capable of, by not honestly acknowledging how tenuous parts of their theory are, and by glossing over the gaps (and I don’t mean in the fossil record, I mean in the theory).

I particularly agree with Dr. Johnson’s accusation of “extravagant extrapolation.” I already cited the example of claiming abiogenesis is “most likely” because you can get a few chemicals to self organize into organic molecules, such as amino acids or the development of proteinoid microspheres, yet we can get chemicals to do little more than that if human consciousness doesn’t intervene. Chemistry does not show the degree of self organizing ability to reach the complexity and organizational quality of a cell, but that doesn’t stop the claim of “most likely” by those who’ve already decided existence is physical.

Since the entire basis of the origin of life is in question, how then can we assume mechanics alone are deciding evolution? To show how “extravagant extrapolation” has been used to bolster physicalist theory there, I’ll distinguish between two evolutive processes which relates to a point Dr. Johnson made.

One let’s call simple adaptation, and the other organ development. Both are aspects of the larger process of evolution, but only one can be shown to be subject to natural selection. It is obvious that genetic variation can produce a range of, say, finch beak sizes so that when the small seeds finches regularly eat are wiped out and only larger seeds are available, nature will “select” finches with larger beaks. This kind of simple adaptation is well documented.

What is not documented is that such simple adaptation can create an organ. One has to wonder why after billions of years of simple adaptation that Darwinists claim produced organs, why we aren’t seeing organs in progress right now? Aren’t there plenty of species without eyes, for example? Shouldn’t we see a lot more than a light sensitive nerve, like stages of adaptations in between the nerve and eye? But of course eyes aren’t the only organ that could be developed, so actually there billions of opportunities for simple adaptation to show us how it is leading to organ development. Where are those transitional stages?

So the only reason I can see for the theoretical jump from simple adaptation to organ development is because of the a priori commitment to a wholly mechanistic explanation. A more honest assessment would admit there is no known mechanism for that, and so the question is still open of if some sort of universal consciousness was/is involved in evolution (which is exactly what physicalists are afraid of).

Have you ever heard such an admission by any dedicated Darwinist? Heck no. They take a huge leap (IMO) from the mechanism of simple adaptation to organ development, not the least of which is supposed to account for a human brain and the consciousness present there. That is an amazing amount to take credit for with such slim evidence, and then insist (and demand the Supreme Court agree) that genetic variation and natural selection be taught to kids as what “most likely” evolved all life forms.

Don’t misunderstand, I do think we evolved via incremental changes. But what we don’t know is all the influences on the genes during organ development. So I think it is arrogant and premature for physicalists to be taking theoretical credit for how genes “mutate” when it comes to organ development. To me it is a blatant example of intellectual territory-grabbing simply because they are in the bully pulpit right now and can get away with it.

I don’t want to see creationism taught in science classes, or intelligent design either. What I want is for physicalists to stop exaggerating what’s “likely” which instead is still very much open to other explanations. That wouldn’t interfere one iota with teaching “pure” science because science devotees don’t have express, whether explicitly or implicitly, any ontology to do research. Yes, there is a very influential physical basis to our universe, and that is the realm of science. But no we do not know that’s all there is. So just say what we know there is, and stop cleverly finding ways to push the belief that physicalness is ALL there is.

 

[Bystander]

I’m glad not many have responded to this thread because it gives me a chance to narrow what I thought was relevant about Phillip Johnson’s article.

(snip)One thing I mostly agree with Dr. Johnson about is that the science community as a whole has a agenda they refuse to admit to (which I see as physicalist/mechanistic rather than naturalistic). (snip)

"They" have an agenda, peddling physics rather than a "naturalistic" approach. What is a "naturalistic" approach? You're using "nature" and its derivatives in a sense that is not equivalent to a statement such as "physics is a development of 'natural' philosophy," so it might be useful to elaborate on your intended meaning here.

 

[Rade]

You asked for a review of Johnson's "science". Well, here it is, just published last week by Jerry Coyne New Republic. It is well balanced, it presents the "scientific" case now before the citizens of the United States on the question of "origin of species".

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=75&num=19668

I HAVE read both Johnson and Coyne--each and every one of Johnson's claims that there are "facts" to show how "theory of evolution" and "naturalist philosophy" are incorrect, or biased by scientists, have been addressed by Coyne. In fact, there are NO such facts--non, not a single one. Not a single "factual" statement is made by Johnson against evolutionary theory. Now, Johnson is either the most simple minded person to write on evolutionary theory--or there is a deeper motive--a deeper reason for why he attacks present day "science" as "naturalism". And, as expected--that is exactly what Coyne has found, as you will find when you read Coyne.

I was impressed that Coyne was able to discover that some ID folks do believe that > 300 species of fruit fly have evolved from a single species on Hawaii, yet they refuse to allow such a mechanism to explain human evolution. How odd--or not. This process, where one or more species evolve from a common ancestor (e.g., macroevolution) is what Johnson claims in his book has never been documented--yet his own ID movement agrees that it has happened with fruit flies Johnson clearly has a lot of damage control -- perhaps his next book will be on his technical knowledge of fruit flies. And then we have the nasty facts of those beetles (not the rock group)--there are > 700,000 different species on the earth, and do we not all agree that Johnson shows clearly in his well researched book that not a single two are related by a common ancestor--in fact, such a "macroevolutionary" event has never occurred anywhere on the earth, in the billions of years that species have existed--this is the "science" of Johnson as relates to the question of origin of life on earth.

As I mentioned before, anyone that has studied intelligent design theory knows that it is by definition a "non-naturalist" philosophy, thus of course Johnson, as the recognized leader of the ID movement, would then write a book attacking "naturalism". The theory of intelligent design ONLY comes into play when observed objects and events that come to us from our senses can no longer be explained by "laws of nature" (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.)--e.g., "naturalism".

In the end, as documented by Coyne as an investigative reporter with no scientific ax to grind, Johnson has no "scientific" motives in his book (e.g., the last thing Johnson looks for is good science)--his motive is what he calls the "wedge" strategy--to wedge out of public schools in the United States ALL teaching of ALL naturalist philosophy and science--to be replaced by biblical truth (not my words--his). The first step of this wedge strategy is to attack the very definition of science (yes, in Kansas, there is a movement to legally change the definition of "science" as it is now found in Webster), then evolutionary theory as science. Of course, you will NEVER see Johnson write the book that us scientists wait for with baited breath for many years now -- On the Origin of Species by Intelligent Design, by Dr. Phillip Johnson--how stupid of Darwin not to know the correct title of his book. I will donate personally $1000.00 to Dr. Johnson's ID movement as soon as I see this book in print.

If the ID movement of Philip Johnson succeeds, the words "God bless America" will surely take on new philosophic meaning for all of us.

 

[Johann]

Regarding this design-random mutations debate, I think the issue can be settled with a simple question (whose answer is not that simple):

What kind of observation could we make of the world that would refute the materialistic explanation for the evolution of life?

I don't think the materialistic explanation can be refuted at all, not by evidence, not by logic. Any attempt to do so is futile. Essentially the problem is one of perception, because at the centre of the controversy is the issue of whether miracles happen or not. I say "miracles" because as far as I can tell anyone who refutes the materialistic explanation is essentially claiming that life is the result of a miracle.

Now we can look at this issue without getting into the controversy about believing in miracles. There is something about the notion of miracles that is often overlooked: by definition, a miracle is essentially an event that occurs only sporadically. Whatever it is you may think causes miracles, by definition nothing that happens everyday can be considered a miracle, even if it's caused by the thing you believe is capable of causing miracles.

With that in mind, the controversy around evolution becomes nonsense. New organisms don't pop up into existence everyday, so the appearance of new forms of life certainly has the potential to be miraculous. On the other hand, people who believe in the supernatural must concede that even supernatural forces appear perfectly natural if they manifest regularly. At this point, a person should understand that the materialistic and the supernatural perspectives are not contradictory, but in fact simply two different ways of talking about the same phenomenon.

That is not to say I don't take my side on the debate. I personally find the way materialists talk about life to be extremely demeaning. It's not their claims that I object, but their language. It seems to me they are not only interested in conveying what they know, but also crafting their language to directly confront tradition. If evolution theory is not as widely accept as it should be, I can only think it's due to the offensive language in which it is presented.

Of course creationism is even worse, but I don't think creationism has any place in any intellectual debate. In fact I think science suffers a lot from its obsession with fighting religion.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You asked for a review of Johnson's "science". Well, here it is, just published last week by Jerry Coyne New Republic. It is well balanced, it presents the "scientific" case now before the citizens of the United States on the question of "origin of species". . . . I HAVE read both Johnson and Coyne--each and every one of Johnson's claims that there are "facts" to show how "theory of evolution" and "naturalist philosophy" are incorrect, or biased by scientists, have been addressed by Coyne. . . . Now, Johnson is either the most simple minded person to write on evolutionary theory--or there is a deeper motive--a deeper reason for why he attacks present day "science" as "naturalism".

Well, it seems you didn't read, or accept as sincere, my follow up post where I restricted what it was that Johnson said I agreed with. I don't agree, for example, with intelligent design efforts because normally built into them are attempts to show how the Bible could be correct, which I don't think has anything to so with how the universe developed. I clarified too that I don't agree with anti-naturalism and therefore can't support Johnson's complaint about that. Finally, I limited my agreement to the aspect ofthe particular quoted article (i.e., not in anything else Johnson has wrote), so Coyne's broad critique of Johnson's flaws don't seem relevant to anything I've said.

I was impressed that Coyne was able to discover that some ID folks do believe that > 300 species of fruit fly have evolved from a single species on Hawaii, yet they refuse to allow such a mechanism to explain human evolution. How odd--or not.

Again, I wish you would review my follow up post. Speciation is as easy as pie. Around here even purple finches won't breed with house finches, which seems strange to me since you have to really know your finches to tell them apart. The problem is that speciation can't be shown to produce the truly creative stuff like organs. THAT is what is in question, not that genetic variation and natural selection aren't incessantly producing new species.

If the ID movement of Philip Johnson succeeds, the words "God bless America" will surely take on new philosophic meaning for all of us.

I asked for specific ideas to be evaluated, not the ID movement or the whole of Johnson's theories. So I don't know what to say about this.

 

[Les Sleeth]

"They" have an agenda, peddling physics rather than a "naturalistic" approach. What is a "naturalistic" approach? You're using "nature" and its derivatives in a sense that is not equivalent to a statement such as "physics is a development of 'natural' philosophy," so it might be useful to elaborate on your intended meaning here.

My interpretation of Johnson is that he's using the term "naturalistic" to mean, basically, mechanistic. To me "natural" means, merely not-supernatural but not necessarily only mechanistic. I'll try to explain this a little more, and why I object to the "agenda" of physicalists.

Let's say you are the rare person who doesn't believe anything, yet your mind is open to anything being true if it is supported by facts and makes sense. Because you aren't committed to some belief system, you evaluate every claim about the nature of the universe "clean" of mental influences that might otherwise subconsciously encourage you to have everything turn out according to your a priori belief system. I"d like to ask you to consider the following without any beliefs in the way.

I don't think a naturalistic theory of the origin and development of the universe excludes the possibility that consciousness might have developed before the physical universe. If a universe could "naturally" develop out of "nothing," then why couldn't consciousness develop naturally first? We know consciousness is possible (since we exist), but we assume the physical body has produced it.

Another possible theory is that the body is an emergent vehicle of some greater universal consciousness trying to individuate portions of itself. In this model, a bit of the greater general consciousness is pulled into the physical system via the nervous system and assumes an "individual" identity for awhile.

Now, why consider such a theory? Well, it would help explain certain things. For one, it would help explain the belief in God. It's not that believers have got it right that God is all powerful or all knowing or any of that, but they do sense something greater they are part of, and have made up the rest of it trying to fill in the gaps.

A practical reason to consider the idea of a universal consciousness is because it would help to account for the origin and evolution of life. Right now two physicalist theories are trying to fill logic/evidence holes which I say are wholly inadequate for the job.

One is that chemistry/physics has the ability to self organize into a cell (abiogenesis). The problem is, no such purely physical self-organizing ability can be shown to exist. You can't get chemistry to behave anything close, in fact, to the quality of self-organization need to bring about something as complex and operationally effective as a cell.

So how do those with a physicalistic agenda (as I put it before) answer this problem? They cite the tiny, itsy-bitsy, minute amount of self-organization that material processes are capable of (i.e., relative to the degree of self-organization needed to produce a cell) as powerful evidence that matter can self-organize into a cell; this is the "extravagant extrapolation" I mentioned and where I agreed with Phillip Johnson. For decades there has been little more than the Miller-Urey experiment to support the idea.

The second theoretical advantage to having a universal consciousness assist in the development of creation is how it would help explain the quality of evolution. As I pointed out, natural selection can only be shown to produce simple adaptive change, not something as complex and exquisitely effective as organs. Yet physicalist believers preach natural selection-genetic variation as the source of all evolution like they do have sufficient evidence it can produce the quality of change needed to produce organs. More extravagant extrapolation, but that's fine because physicalists KNOW they are right and that anyone who doubts the theory must be a screamin' supernaturalistic, creationistic, ID believin' fool (as one poster in this thread seems to imply). It couldn't simply be someone questioning theories that don't seem to hold water. No way.

Notice "quality" is the key issue with both self-organization and evolution. That's because the physicalist theory relies on mechanics alone to produce the kind of system building seen in life. But when we observe how mechanics operate, they are rather dull when it comes to creative change. Leave a bunch of chemicals alone and you might get amino acids, but wait for a billion years and guess what else you get . . . little more. Hmmmmm.

But take those same chemicals and let a human reseacher work with them, and then you just might see several more layers of organization appear. What have we added to the chemicals to get them to organize more? Conscious intervention.

Consciousness is the ONLY thing we know of which acts to organize more than disorganize (and disorganize is the overall nature of everything physical). So why isn't it plausible that somehow consciousness has been part of the origin and development of life? Is it so improbable that a universal consciousness might influnce genes, for instance? Right now scientists believe we are getting close to having mind-controlled technology, so why not mind-influenced genetics.

Should that be taught in science classes. Absolutely not. If you read what I said, I only ask that evolutionists stop pushing physicalist ontology. Science is fully qualified to say what physical things are going on in biology, but they are not qualified to insist that physicalness is all that's going on in biology, and that is exactly what the "agenda" is.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Regarding this design-random mutations debate, I think the issue can be settled with a simple question (whose answer is not that simple):

What kind of observation could we make of the world that would refute the materialistic explanation for the evolution of life?

I refuted it in my previous post. I'm sure you don't mean disprove, right? You can refute creationism, but you can't disprove it.

I don't think the materialistic explanation can be refuted at all, not by evidence, not by logic. Any attempt to do so is futile.

I agree it's futile, but not because it can't be challenged with evidence and logic, but because physicalist believers refuse to acknowledge the problems with their theory.

Essentially the problem is one of perception, because at the centre of the controversy is the issue of whether miracles happen or not. I say "miracles" because as far as I can tell anyone who refutes the materialistic explanation is essentially claiming that life is the result of a miracle.

It is unfortunate that religious crap has to come up everytime someone wants to discuss the possibility that some sort of universal consciousness has particapated in the development of the universe. It doesn't have to have anything to do with miracles or supernaturalism.

 

[Locrian]

Science is fully qualified to say what physical things are going on in biology, but they are not qualified to insist that physicalness is all that's going on in biology

...It is unfortunate that religious crap has to come up everytime someone wants to discuss the possibility that some sort of universal consciousness has particapated in the development of the universe. It doesn't have to have anything to do with miracles or supernaturalism.

I'm just not quite getting you. What is the difference between something that is unphysical to the point science can't study, and something that is supernatural? I get the feeling the answer to this is in your posts already, but there is quite a lot of writing here I can't put your view together myself.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm just not quite getting you. What is the difference between something that is unphysical to the point science can't study, and something that is supernatural? I get the feeling the answer to this is in your posts already, but there is quite a lot of writing here I can't put your view together myself.

Let's say the laws that established the physical universe are physical laws. The empirical methods and the machinery we use to study the physical universe are based on physical laws, so all they can reveal is that which has come about through those laws.

But what if there are other laws which do not produce physicalness but, say, consciousness. Just like I am suggesting there are "laws" that are particular to physicalness, there might be laws particular to consciousness. But in both cases development is dependent on naturally occurring laws. If it were possible for something to exist without governing laws, or to circumvent the laws that bring about their own existence, then that would be "super" natural. But if something has to obey laws, then it is natural.

I am just saying that the laws which establish physicalness aren't necessarily the only laws; plus, if there is consciousness behind creation, it appears to have to obey laws, including physical laws, in order to create or assist with creation. So my point is that if there is some sort of creationary consciousness, it isn't able to do anything outside natural laws, physical or otherwise.

 

[Johann]

if there is consciousness behind creation, it appears to have to obey laws, including physical laws, in order to create or assist with creation. So my point is that if there is some sort of creationary consciousness, it isn't able to do anything outside natural laws, physical or otherwise.

If the role of consciousness in organic evolution is restricted by physical laws, it seems to me physical laws alone can account for any observable phenomenon.

Consider the case of an automobile; surely someone studying its movements doesn't have to account for the existence of a driver, since anything the driver can possibly do is restricted by what the automobile itself can do. The driver only makes choices, it doesn't cause anything physically observable that cannot be observed in its absence.

Likewise for evolution, if it must be governed by physical laws, then the only role of a conscious agent is to make choices. But the problem is, whereas we can understand why a driver would take an automobile through this street instead of that, we have no way to know why the supposed "conscious agent" decided that we should have two eyes and one nose, or tonsils and an appendix. If there is a "driver" behind evolution, it doesn't seem to be doing anything we can understand, so it's safer not to assume a driver at all since it adds nothing to our understanding.

Now that is not to say the driver isn't there, only that is not fair to expect people to believe a notion completely lacking evidence.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If the role of consciousness in organic evolution is restricted by physical laws, it seems to me physical laws alone can account for any observable phenomenon.

Consider the case of an automobile; surely someone studying its movements doesn't have to account for the existence of a driver, since anything the driver can possibly do is restricted by what the automobile itself can do. The driver only makes choices, it doesn't cause anything physically observable that cannot be observed in its absence.

If you don't have to account for the input of the driver, then you should be able to remove the driver without any observable physical effects. Right? Yet you will have an observable physical effect.

True, the automobile puts limits on what a driver can do, but the car doesn't drive itself. Also, the automobile doesn't only offer limitations, as you seem to imply, it offers potential as well. That potential doesn't insist that driver steer left only on Tuesdays, go 50 mph on Wednesdays, or ride around in reverse on Saturdays. The driver gets to decide how to use the car, which is nothing but a dumb thing that just sits there (even if its motor running) waiting for guidance. And the driver also can push the car to do things it isn't designed for, like forcing it to ride two wheels, or smashing into the guy driving ahead him because he's going too slow.

So there are physical effects you can observe only because a driver is present, and whose freedom of choice and purpose physical laws can't account for.

. . . it's safer not to assume a driver at all since it adds nothing to our understanding . . . it is not fair to expect people to believe a notion completely lacking evidence.

I can't quite agree with either of your assertions. Those explanatory "gaps" I pointed to where there is no satisfactory explanation for how chemistry can self-organize into a cell and how organs evolved, they might eventually be explained by a chooser (not that we shouldn't exhaust exploring every physical possibility for causes). And you are wrong that the notion of a chooser is "completely lacking evidence." There is evidence, it's just that few people study the best evidence, plus when they look (if you are physicalist), then you will look for it in a way that only reveals physical stuff.

But I've not said anyone should assume a chooser, or believe in some sort of creationary consciousness. What I said was that those who are studying physcial stuff should stop making huge inferential leaps from inadequate evidence/logic in order to make claims to the public that physical processes are "most likely" the cause of everything. The public deserves objective opinions about what is both known and unknown, and for those opinions to be "clean" of surreptitious efforts to sway people in favor of physicalistic ontology.

 

[Johann]

If you don't have to account for the input of the driver, then you should be able to remove the driver without any observable physical effects. Right? Yet you will have an observable physical effect.

That depends on what is meant by "physical effect". What a driver does to a car that can be observed, I wouldn't call it physical. What happens is that drivers make cars go through paths that driver-less cars would rarely follow. In the case of evolution, it seems reasonable to suppose that, without some guiding intelligence, we wouldn't see the order and purpose we associate with living organisms. But the problem is, you must be able to see that order and purpose to feel the need to postulate the guidance of an intelligent agent. Failing to see that, you can be happy that it all happened by chance.

I'm not arguing for the physicalist position, just trying to show how they may be justified according to their own criteria, just like you and I feel we are justified according to our own criteria.

The driver gets to decide how to use the car, which is nothing but a dumb thing that just sits there (even if its motor running) waiting for guidance. And the driver also can push the car to do things it isn't designed for, like forcing it to ride two wheels, or smashing into the guy driving ahead him because he's going too slow.

So there are physical effects you can observe only because a driver is present, and whose freedom of choice and purpose physical laws can't account for.

I will disagree with you here but please don't take it the wrong way. Everything you described above are physical things (even riding on two wheels, which to me looks like magic). And just like we already have automatic transmission and cruise control, it seems valid to postulate that cars may one day do all those things by themselves. What we don't have, in the case of cars, is a mechanism to explain why cars would develop those abilities by themselves. But in the case of evolution we do have such an explanatory mechanism; applied to cars, we could say that cars that drive themselves have a better chance of surviving, procreating, and passing those characteristics to their descendants.

I think what you are failing to see is the explanatory power of physicalism. It can explain everything you explain by adding a conscious agent, without incurring in what could well be an unwarranted assumption.

Those explanatory "gaps" I pointed to where there is no satisfactory explanation for how chemistry can self-organize into a cell and how organs evolved, they might eventually be explained by a chooser

But the same was said about other things for which a conscious agent was thought to be required by any explanation, and people have been smart enough to explain them without invoking the conscious agent at all. One thing you should not bet on is science's failure to repeat past successes. There is no precedent for it, and there's plenty of precedent against it.

you are wrong that the notion of a chooser is "completely lacking evidence." There is evidence, it's just that few people study the best evidence, plus when they look (if you are physicalist), then you will look for it in a way that only reveals physical stuff.

And if you're not physicalist, then the evidence doesn't look physical. Doesn't this look like people simply find out the consequences of their assumptions?

What I said was that those who are studying physcial stuff should stop making huge inferential leaps from inadequate evidence/logic in order to make claims to the public that physical processes are "most likely" the cause of everything.

That is not what I see them doing. What they do say is that they have the best explanation, not the most likely account of events. And I do think they should say their explanation is the best available, because it is, even if you don't like it. As to what really happened, I suspect even if you were there and saw it happening with your own eyes, you would still not be able to understand it. Just think of a fertilized egg turning into a beautiful, almost perfect human being in less than twenty years - say what you want about DNA and cell replication, it's quite a fantastic thing to behold.

The public deserves objective opinions about what is both known and unknown, and for those opinions to be "clean" of surreptitious efforts to sway people in favor of physicalistic ontology.

Well, everyone is selling some agenda so physicalists can't be blamed, at least not in particular. But they are not as successful as you seem to fear they are; at least in the US, polls show the majority of people remain unconvinced.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)A practical reason to consider the idea of a universal consciousness is because it would help to account for the origin and evolution of life. Right now two physicalist theories are trying to fill logic/evidence holes which I say are wholly inadequate for the job.

Okay, the arguments do not satisfy you; and, it's unreasonable to demand that you go back to school and pick up the chemistry and physics necessary to understand the arguments. Is it reasonable to ask that you stand back and evaluate your qualifications to critique the arguments?

One is that chemistry/physics has the ability to self organize into a cell (abiogenesis). The problem is, no such purely physical self-organizing ability can be shown to exist.

This is an assertion that you haven't see the existence of totally inanimate processes. They really are there, been demonstrated, and, "No, they have not been catalogued in detail, studied under all conditions, and the specific conditions and time requirements for biogenesis elucidated." That's going to take a while.

You can't get chemistry to behave anything close, in fact, to the quality of self-organization need to bring about something as complex and operationally effective as a cell.

So how do those with a physicalistic agenda (as I put it before) answer this problem? They cite the tiny, itsy-bitsy, minute amount of self-organization that material processes are capable of (i.e., relative to the degree of self-organization needed to produce a cell) as powerful evidence that matter can self-organize into a cell; this is the "extravagant extrapolation" I mentioned and where I agreed with Phillip Johnson. For decades there has been little more than the Miller-Urey experiment to support the idea.

The second theoretical advantage to having a universal consciousness assist in the development of creation is how it would help explain the quality of evolution. As I pointed out, natural selection can only be shown to produce simple adaptive change, not something as complex and exquisitely effective as organs. Yet physicalist believers preach natural selection-genetic variation as the source of all evolution like they do have sufficient evidence it can produce the quality of change needed to produce organs.

Gene "stutter" has produced a population of six-fingered humans in N. Amer.. This modification is transmitted to offspring (breeds true), is non-lethal, currently not particularly advantageous nor disadvantageous in the "Darwinian" sense, and is a "produced organ." Can this organ evolve into an extra pair of ears, magnetic field sensors, poison claw, or whatever over the next million years? Certainly. You've seen four leaf clovers, eight petalled blossoms on six petalled flowers, pictures of frogs with extra legs, polydactylate cats. Usually it's just a "stutter" in the expression of characteristics in the individual development; occasionally it's the expression of a "stutter" in the actual genetic material and is passed on. What the surplus organ contributes toward survival or extinction of the organism is up to chance, and what it eventually does in terms of atrophy or morphing (ribs to gills to jaws) is likewise up to chance.

More extravagant extrapolation, but that's fine because physicalists KNOW they are right and that anyone who doubts the theory must be a screamin' supernaturalistic, creationistic, ID believin' fool (as one poster in this thread seems to imply). It couldn't simply be someone questioning theories that don't seem to hold water. No way.

You don't see how they hold water --- doesn't mean they don't hold water. It would probably be more useful for you and your understanding to shift to specific examples in which you take the discussion stepwise, "Follow this, follow this," or, "Hold it! You took that corner past the Elks' Lodge on two wheels and lost me." Trying to develop all the basics of physical, earth, and life sciences in a rebuttal to some very general arguments ain't going to work.

Notice "quality" is the key issue with both self-organization and evolution. That's because the physicalist theory relies on mechanics alone to produce the kind of system building seen in life. But when we observe how mechanics operate, they are rather dull when it comes to creative change. Leave a bunch of chemicals alone and you might get amino acids, but wait for a billion years and guess what else you get . . . little more. Hmmmmm.

I sense some personal umbrage taken at the notion that you're here simply as the consequence of random chance and the universe's increasing entropy? This is the reason thermodynamics has never been popular, stylish, or fashionable.

(snip)Should that be taught in science classes. Absolutely not. If you read what I said, I only ask that evolutionists stop pushing physicalist ontology. Science is fully qualified to say what physical things are going on in biology, but they are not qualified to insist that physicalness is all that's going on in biology, and that is exactly what the "agenda" is.

There has been no demonstration of a need to appeal to anything beyond the minimal set of physical laws. Appeals to personal lacks of understanding of physical laws aren't really adequate. It's regrettable that such knowledge isn't as generally accessible as might be desirable, but it simply will not carry the weight in any debate regarding existence of Loch Ness monsters, yetis, bigfoot, Jersey devils, or some agenda behind the creation lending purpose to life.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Okay, the arguments do not satisfy you; and, it's unreasonable to demand that you go back to school and pick up the chemistry and physics necessary to understand the arguments. Is it reasonable to ask that you stand back and evaluate your qualifications to critique the arguments?

Don't condescend, my education is just fine (a lot broader than yours I'd bet). Yours is probably the oldest and certainly the most dubious argument zealots use to justify why they don't have to properly explain themselves. Either produce adequate facts to support abiogenesis/organs-from-simple adaptation or not. But don't claim anyone with half a brain can't recognize "extravagant extrapolation" when they see it.

This is an assertion that you haven't see the existence of totally inanimate processes.

Nonesense. I have not based my argument on personal incredulity. I have clearly stated where I believe the OBJECTIVE facts are missing. But if you've got 'em, then please show 'em.

They really are there, been demonstrated . . .

Great! Let's see them.

. . .and, "No, they have not been catalogued in detail, studied under all conditions, and the specific conditions and time requirements for biogenesis elucidated." That's going to take a while.

Ohhhhhhhh, so you don't have them after all. If not, then why are you arguing with me that physicalist believers shouldn't be telling the public that abiogenesis is the "most likely" origin of life? Isn't it because you believe a purely physical explanation is a foregone conclusion in spite of the fact that it can't yet be demonstrated? Tell me, exactly how is that a clean, objective, mind expressing a fully unbiased opinion?

Gene "stutter" has produced a population of six-fingered humans in N. Amer.. This modification is transmitted to offspring (breeds true), is non-lethal, currently not particularly advantageous nor disadvantageous in the "Darwinian" sense, and is a "produced organ."

Well, I've seen two headed lizards too. That's not a relevant example because the genes for a finger already existed, so it isn't much of a problem for mutation to replicate that.

Can this organ evolve into an extra pair of ears, magnetic field sensors, poison claw, or whatever over the next million years? Certainly.

Certainly? Show us the evidence (assuming you mean a finger can evolve into ears).

You've seen four leaf clovers, eight petalled blossoms on six petalled flowers, pictures of frogs with extra legs, polydactylate cats. Usually it's just a "stutter" in the expression of characteristics in the individual development; occasionally it's the expression of a "stutter" in the actual genetic material and is passed on.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not genetics-natural selection can evolve an organ.

What the surplus organ contributes toward survival or extinction of the organism is up to chance, and what it eventually does in terms of atrophy or morphing (ribs to gills to jaws) is likewise up to chance.

Proof please, that only chance is involved. Or is that an assumption on your part because you are already convinced there is no conscious guidance in mutation, so it MUST be chance. You cannot demonstrate chance acting this way anywhere else.

You don't see how they hold water --- doesn't mean they don't hold water. It would probably be more useful for you and your understanding to shift to specific examples in which you take the discussion stepwise, "Follow this, follow this," or, "Hold it! You took that corner past the Elks' Lodge on two wheels and lost me." Trying to develop all the basics of physical, earth, and life sciences in a rebuttal to some very general arguments ain't going to work.

I did give specific examples, and as is typical of extremist believers, you just don't want address them. You don't need all the great stuff science has discovered to logically critique the arguments and evidence behind abiogenesis and evolution theory.

Today I was reviewing Eldredge's book on punctuated equilibria, which I hadn't looked at since the late 80's when it impressed me so much. I wanted to see if he ever went past "simple adaptation" to explain how intricate organs develop. He didn't. Most of the last 20 years of my life I mostly accepted that genetic-natural selection could do it because I'd always believed that somebody somewhere had the evidence to support that concept. It's only been the last few years that I realized the evidence isn't there.

Now, you seem to insist I should believe contrary to evidence and accept what you are already convinced of. But I can't see why you'd be convinced of the certainty of either abiogenesis or simple adaptation as the origin and evolutive factor of life UNLESS you were already committed to a physicalistic explanation regardless of how much evidence there isn't.

I say, you are talking like the dogmatist, and I am behaving like the uncommitted thinker skeptical of zealous believers exaggerating the importance of bare evidence to pump up the credibility of their belief system.

I sense some personal umbrage taken at the notion that you're here simply as the consequence of random chance and the universe's increasing entropy? This is the reason thermodynamics has never been popular, stylish, or fashionable.

This is such a tired, old, worn out tactic. I don't give a damn what the truth is. It is what it is. You are the one determined reality has to be physical. And increasing entropy only explains how energy becomes available to fuel things and space is made for it to happen, it doesn't account for the organizational quality found in the formation and evolution of life.

There has been no demonstration of a need to appeal to anything beyond the minimal set of physical laws. Appeals to personal lacks of understanding of physical laws aren't really adequate.

Well, keep your blind faith in physicalism. I'm going to continue to question exaggerated claims when I see them.

It's regrettable that such knowledge isn't as generally accessible as might be desirable . . .

Yes, it's too bad, but that's why we need the all-wise scientists to tell us mental midgets the TRUTH.

. . .but it simply will not carry the weight in any debate regarding existence of Loch Ness monsters, yetis, bigfoot, Jersey devils, or some agenda behind the creation lending purpose to life.

Did I mention "Loch Ness monsters, yetis, bigfoot, Jersey devils"? This is classic strawman tactics by somone unwilling to make a decent argument. I also didn't say anything about purpose, but it seems clear that you'd prefer a purposeless existence, which is fine with me.

I have been talking about physicalist believers exaggerating claims, and you've said very little about that. Instead you've tried underhanded tactics to either discredit my education, understanding, objectivity . . . or associated me with superstition and other nonsense to undermine my credibility.

I want to thank you for your response however because you have provided an example of exactly the sort of antics physicalist fanatics engage in trying to convince people they have the inside track to the truth.

 

[Bystander]

Condensation of amino acids to form a dipeptide can be represented generally as

4NH₂-R_{(α, β etc.)}-CO₂H + 4NH₂-R'_{(α, β etc.)}-CO₂H = NH₂-R_{(α, β etc.)}-CO-NH-R'_{(α, β etc.)}-CO₂H + NH₂-R'_{(α, β etc.)}-CO-NH-R_{(α, β etc.)}-CO₂H + NH₂-R_{(α, β etc.)}-CO-NH-R_{(α, β etc.)}-CO₂H + NH₂-R'_{(α, β etc.)}-CO-NH-R'_{(α, β etc.)}-CO₂H + 4H₂O .

Formation of n-peptides is inconvenient to write explicitly since the number of possible sequences increases as 20ⁿ if we confine ourselves to the 20 essential amino acids.

The "primordial soup" is more conveniently represented as

(periodic table)(set of stoichiometric coefficients) = CAS registry (20 million compounds as of 10a ago)x10ⁿ ,

where n = 100 - 1000, or so. There are constraints: no product requiring a greater mass of a given element than is present in the original reactants can be formed; no two products requiring more than half the mass of a given element can exist simultaneously; und so weiter.

The Gibbs free energy changes for amino acid condensations (in aqueous solution) and in the general primordial soup reaction are given by our old friend

ΔG = ΔG^o_f + RTlnK ,

thusly:

ΔG = ΔG^o_f(R-R') + ΔG^o_f(R'-R) + ΔG^o_f(R-R) + ΔG^o_f(R'-R') + 4ΔG^o_f(H₂O) - 4ΔG^o_f(R) - 4ΔG^o_f(R') + RT(ln(a_(R-R')) + ln(a_(R'-R)) + ln(a_(R-R)) +ln(a_(R'-R')) + 4ln(a_(H2O)) - 4ln(a_R) - 4ln(a_R') , and

ΔG = Σ(ΔG^o_f(ith compound, i = 1,very large no.) + RT(Σ(lna_i) - Σ(n_j,stoichlna_{(j, j = 1,91)}) .

"a" denotes activity, the product of concentration and activity coefficient, pick your own concentration scale, or use G. N. Lewis' "fugacity."


Anything unusual about these expressions? Nope. Any "extravagant extrapolations?" Nope. It's just plain ol' thermo. Ambitious, perhaps, if any real attempt is made to evaluate an equilibrium state for the "primordial soup," but otherwise perfectly straightforward.

What can we deduce from inspection of such expressions? No possible product is present in a zero concentration at equilibrium (ln0 = - infinity, violating the equilibrium condition that ΔG = 0). That is to say, for "broadly educated" people with "half a brain," that it is thermodynamically inevitable that large molecules form, and that "complex" structures, micelles, colloids, double layers, you name it, form in the soup. The only "extravagant extrapolations" made so far in this thread are from the unassailable position of abject ignorance of thermodynamics in various assertions that "it just can't happen."

What part of "ribs to gills to jaws" do people not understand? It's ancient history to the paleontologists. Stuttering genes producing extra ribs or extra fingers to be modified into "new organs" ain't too difficult a concept to wrap the brain around, is it?

 

[Rade]

The problem is that speciation can't be shown to produce the truly creative stuff like organs. THAT is what is in question, not that genetic variation and natural selection aren't incessantly producing new species.

To Les Sleeth. With all respect--you are just not correct. Already over 50 years ago this question was answered by Bernhard Rensch in his exceptional book titled: Evolution above the species level", 1959, Columbia University Press. This book is a classic for evolutionary biologists--it was peer reviewed by Theodosius Dobzhansky--I need say no more about its quality. You will want to read chapter 6. E. titled "Evolution of new structural types and new organs".

In other areas on this thread you discuss "consciousness" as being a primary axiom of philosophy--that is, first there was a "consciousness", next came "existence" that derived from this consciousness. Of course, you are free to start your philosophy from this position--I do not, I hold that consciousness derived from the process of organic evolution--that is, I do not believe that bacteria have a consciousness--yet mammals clearly do--somewhere between bacteria and mammals consciousness as a unique identity was created by organic evolution. Nor do I hold that consciousness as a thing is found in non-living things. You will be interested in knowing that Dr. Rensch has a wonderful chapter 10 Titled "Evolution of phenomena of consciousness", with a subchapter "Philosophy and the evolution of psychic phenomena".

I am happy to see that this thread as moved away from discussion of P. Johnson and his religious non-scientific concept of ID, which has no place in Physics Forum. I would look forward to future discussion of the ideas presented by Dr. Rensch on his discussion of evolution of organs and consciousness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Condensation of amino acids to form a dipeptide can be represented generally as

4NH₂-R_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO₂H + 4NH₂-R'_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO₂H = NH₂-R_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO-NH-R'_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO₂H + NH₂-R'_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO-NH-R_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO₂H + NH₂-R_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO-NH-R_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO₂H + NH₂-R'_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO-NH-R'_{(?, ? etc.)}-CO₂H + 4H₂O .

Formation of n-peptides is inconvenient to write explicitly since the number of possible sequences increases as 20ⁿ if we confine ourselves to the 20 essential amino acids.

The "primordial soup" is more conveniently represented as

(periodic table)(set of stoichiometric coefficients) = CAS registry (20 million compounds as of 10a ago)x10ⁿ ,

where n = 100 - 1000, or so. There are constraints: no product requiring a greater mass of a given element than is present in the original reactants can be formed; no two products requiring more than half the mass of a given element can exist simultaneously; und so weiter.

The Gibbs free energy changes for amino acid condensations (in aqueous solution) and in the general primordial soup reaction are given by our old friend

?G = ?G^o_f + RTlnK ,

thusly:

?G = ?G^o_f(R-R') + ?G^o_f(R'-R) + ?G^o_f(R-R) + ?G^o_f(R'-R') + 4?G^o_f(H₂O) - 4?G^o_f(R) - 4?G^o_f(R') + RT(ln(a_(R-R')) + ln(a_(R'-R)) + ln(a_(R-R)) +ln(a_(R'-R')) + 4ln(a_(H2O)) - 4ln(a_R) - 4ln(a_R') , and

?G = ?(?G^o_f(ith compound, i = 1,very large no.) + RT(?(lna_i) - ?(n_j,stoichlna_{(j, j = 1,91)}) .

"a" denotes activity, the product of concentration and activity coefficient, pick your own concentration scale, or use G. N. Lewis' "fugacity."


Anything unusual about these expressions? Nope. Any "extravagant extrapolations?" Nope. It's just plain ol' thermo. Ambitious, perhaps, if any real attempt is made to evaluate an equilibrium state for the "primordial soup," but otherwise perfectly straightforward.

What can we deduce from inspection of such expressions? No possible product is present in a zero concentration at equilibrium (ln0 = - infinity, violating the equilibrium condition that ?G = 0). That is to say, for "broadly educated" people with "half a brain," that it is thermodynamically inevitable that large molecules form, and that "complex" structures, micelles, colloids, double layers, you name it, form in the soup. The only "extravagant extrapolations" made so far in this thread are from the unassailable position of abject ignorance of thermodynamics in various assertions that "it just can't happen."

For all your showing off, you missed the point. You demonstrated that some bit of organization can happen if you put the right chemicals together in the right conditions, and you demonstrated that chemistry has the potential to account for the structure of life. Did you demonstrate self-organization can take off by itself, and keep going until it reaches the complexity and functional proficiency of a cell? No. Are you listening to my objections? Self organization is the issue, not anything else.

Say you have all the parts that make up a car in a big pile. By making those collection of parts bounce around, can those parts organize themselves into a car?

Your answer, if you answered as above, would be first to show how it is possible for all those parts to be assembled into a car. But I never doubted that to begin with. What I doubted was if parts bouncing can be made to assemble into a car. And then, you proclaim you've really proven something because you got some washers and bolts to hook up.

What part of "ribs to gills to jaws" do people not understand? It's ancient history to the paleontologists. Stuttering genes producing extra ribs or extra fingers to be modified into "new organs" ain't too difficult a concept to wrap the brain around, is it?

Again, you missed the point. I haven't denied that all life has evolved. I have questioned whether natural selection and genetic variation alone are the only influences on genetic change during the period starting about 600 million years ago when lots of new organs developed because they were needed to support lots of new life forms. I am not talking about a finger either. I mean the really good stuff like eyes, livers, ears, brains.

We have what we can actually, in person, empirically observe -- natural selection achieving minor changes -- and then we have what you say is possible for natural selection to achieve, but cannot show it ALONE is doing it now or has done it in the past.

Right NOW you need to show natural selection getting creative. You can't go back in time and attribute creative change to it when you can't observe such changes now. The only reason you want to is, I say, because you are a physicalist devotee, and not because the evidence is there yet. Maybe one day it will be, but it isn't there now.

You seem outraged that I won't buy your belief system, and that I say it is pumped up with dogma, exaggerations, faith, tons of theory . . . but nothing that rises to the level of proof. Today I was reading Michael Ruse's complaint (Professor of philosophy of science at FSU, and a devoted Darwinist) that Darwinists have turned evolution into religion. That's how you act. Absolutely OUTRAGED that someone just won't accept what you see as obvious. If they don't, they must be some ignert, uneducated, moooooron with half a brain because YOU, as the ultimate authority on all things existent have decided the TRUTH is . . .

Arrogance doesn't improve with education.

 

[Les Sleeth]

To Les Sleeth. With all respect--you are just not correct. Already over 50 years ago this question was answered by Bernhard Rensch in his exceptional book titled: Evolution above the species level", 1959, Columbia University Press. This book is a classic for evolutionary biologists--it was peer reviewed by Theodosius Dobzhansky--I need say no more about its quality. You will want to read chapter 6. E. titled "Evolution of new structural types and new organs".

It is theory, reasonable to be sure like almost all scientific theory, but theory. Darwin's belief that life was one continuous "progressive" record of change was perfectly reasonable, but not supported by later paleobiological research. I don't think you realize how much your belief system makes you accept a great, perfectly reasoned theory as virtual fact. I have seen this exact same thing here with physics enthusiasts who discuss parallel universes and the universe bubbling up out of quantum fluctuations as though they are established fact.

I spent a good part of today googling for studies which might prove that natural selection has led to complex organ development. You know, actual proof! The best thing I found was a study of fishes possibly between stages of developing placentas. But even these findings didn't make the researchers claim they had proof. They were excited by the possibilities, but conservative in that they recognized they would need a lot more information to prove anything.

This contrasts with some thinkers here who seem to want us all to believe that the proof has been around for a long time. Proof is something significantly more stringent to a skeptic than it is to devotees of belief systems.

 

[Rade]

Say you have all the parts that make up a car in a big pile. By making those collection of parts bounce around, can those parts organize themselves into a car? .

Are you saying that this is your understanding of the mechanism of the organic theory of evolution ? Genesis states that the complex human body was created in all its complexity from Earth dust + god energy (e.g., lots of breath energy shaking Earth dust) = human. This is a clear statement open to falsification about the mechanism of "intelligent design" for humans--if you hold that god is both intelligent and a designer. So, it seems to me that if you in fact hold the first sentence above as being nonsense(which I think is what I read you saying), then logically you must hold the mystical ID god approach as nonsense, which is all that is being said by those that hold the evolutionary process based on scientific evidence (e.g., non-mystical) to be self-evident as to the question of origin of the human species on the earth. This is not a pig headed "scientist" position, it is logical, derived from the evidence of the senses that are then used by consciousness to form the concept of human evolution. The above reported mystical god based "mechanism" on the origin of humans just does not make sense--it is not self-evident--it is not supported by the genetic and morphological facts of Primates to which humans belong. Now, if you have a logical fact based "mechanism" on the origin of humans based on mysticism, PLEASE DO SHARE IT.

Thus, all your goings-on about scientists being non-factual faith pushers, closed-minded, etc. just does not compute. Of course scientists work within the areas of reason, logic, objective reality, laws of nature. Of course the mystical approach to metaphysics will never be accepted by any scientist, just as the scientific approach will never be accepted by mystics.

 

[max1975]

A couple cents...

I am tempted to make a vigorous theological case against Intelligent Design, and an even more vigorous theological case against old-school creationism. But either would likely run afoul of the forum's religion rules. So I'm afraid science (or rather a set of people claiming to speak for science) is going to receive the brunt of my criticism. My apologies for the necessary lack of balance.

I am not a scientist. I am not aware of all the data, nor am I qualified to evaluate all the data. I have familiarized myself with the ID/Evolution debate to a degree, probably more than most laypeople, but I don't know all the ins and outs. In such cases, I rely on people who do know all the ins and outs to to argue with each other in language I can understand. Sadly, that argument is not taking place, at least not in the public eye.

I think I understand evolution and natural selection well enough. They're fairly simple concepts, and they make sense. As far as the origin of life itself and the evolution of specific organs, well, that's a bit more complex, but I'm certainly willing to believe it's all the result of natural processes.

I've encountered the notion--probably due to sloppy use of language--that intelligent design is not a scientific theory because "There's no need to introduce a supernatural element to the process." Which is nonsense. There is nothing supernatural, unnatural, pseudonatural, or antinatural about intelligence.

Now, I want the standard natural selection theory to be true. It harmonizes well with my personal God/Universe/Everything model. If ID is true, it seems to me that the Intelligent Designer interferes with us arbitrarily, and maybe cruelly. If that Designer is God, I find that unsettling. If it is some other, alien intelligence, I find it downright terrifying.

So I don't like ID, and I'm looking for the set of people claiming to speak for science to shoot it down. But mostly I see them do 2 things:

1. Attack the motives of the ID proponents
2. Dismiss the theory as "Not Science."

Well, great. Yes, I'm sure the IDers are all terrible people, and it's just awful the way they can use scientific words to make themselves sound, to the layperson, indistinguishable from the Real Scientists. Unfortunately, through their sinister machinations they have somehow managed to plant this ridiculous, scary idea in my head that maybe chance mutations and natural selection are not adequate explanations for what sure looks designed.

The fact that these people are nefarious miscreants is not a refutation of their arguments. Bad people can be right about things. And while the science types with all their profound wisdom can see through the smoke and mirrors and dismiss the theory without a second thought, that doesn't really help me. "Don't worry," they say. "We have a process of peer review that ensures only Real Science gets through." As if such an institution was immune to bias, politics, and error. Hey, did you know the Pope's infallible too?

Look, set of people who claim to speak for science: I'm sorry if it's difficult to make a complex argument about an esoteric subject clear to people who are not educated in the field. But sometimes, that's your job.

The way the case against ID has been made in public only lends credence to the IDers' claims of persecution by a dogmatic elite. Refute the theory on the merits, even if it annoys you to have to do so.

On a final note, it would be very nice if, when a man of science wants to make theological claims, he would admit that he does so as a man, and not as a scientist, and thus be speaking about something he is qualified to speak about.

 

[hypnagogue]

So I don't like ID, and I'm looking for the set of people claiming to speak for science to shoot it down. But mostly I see them do 2 things:

1. Attack the motives of the ID proponents
2. Dismiss the theory as "Not Science."

Your point (2) has a direct consequence for your desire to see ID shot down. When scientists dismiss ID by saying it's not science, what they mean it's that it's not falsifiable-- that is, it has thus far been formulated in such a way that it can't be shot down by experiment or evidence. So there is no epistemological standard here by which we could really judge ID claims to be true or false, and so no use in considering them as serious opposition to the standard scientific picture of evolution.

Imagine that scientific theories are sumo wrestlers. If theory A is a better fit to the evidence than theory B, then in our analogy, A is a better wrestler and knocks B out of the ring. For any reigning sumo champ, there is always the possibility that a young upstart will come along and dethrone him; likewise, for any accepted scientific theory, there is always a possibility that a new theory will come along that is a better fit to the facts and so will become the new accepted theory. But for this overthrowing to occur, there must be an actual wrestling match-- there must be an actual basis by which theories can be compared and one deemed superior to another. Insofar as ID claims have thus far been scientifically unfalsifiable, they are like a phantom sumo wrestler who claims he's better than the current champ, but never steps into the ring to prove it. Our phantom sumo wrestler may argue at length why he could beat the champ, but the words are meaningless until he shows everyone he really can do it. Certainly we should not consider handing the championship title over to our phantom sumo wrestler just because he talks a big game. If the scientific community seems dismissive of ID, it is for the same reason that we should be dismissive of our phantom sumo.

More on this from a recent New York Times article:

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

[...]

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

To see this shortcoming in relief, consider an imaginary hypothesis of intelligent design that could explain the emergence of human beings on this planet:

About six million years ago, intelligent genetic engineers from another galaxy visited Earth and decided that it would be a more interesting planet if there was a language-using, religion-forming species on it, so they sequestered some primates and genetically re-engineered them to give them the language instinct, and enlarged frontal lobes for planning and reflection. It worked.

If some version of this hypothesis were true, it could explain how and why human beings differ from their nearest relatives, and it would disconfirm the competing evolutionary hypotheses that are being pursued.

We'd still have the problem of how these intelligent genetic engineers came to exist on their home planet, but we can safely ignore that complication for the time being, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence in favor of this hypothesis.

But here is something the intelligent design community is reluctant to discuss: no other intelligent-design hypothesis has anything more going for it. In fact, my farfetched hypothesis has the advantage of being testable in principle: we could compare the human and chimpanzee genomes, looking for unmistakable signs of tampering by these genetic engineers from another galaxy. Finding some sort of user's manual neatly embedded in the apparently functionless "junk DNA" that makes up most of the human genome would be a Nobel Prize-winning coup for the intelligent design gang, but if they are looking at all, they haven't come up with anything to report.

edit: Actually, the same article brings up one observation that can be taken to be a more direct challenge to ID claims:

Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.

 

[chronon]

Well, great. Yes, I'm sure the IDers are all terrible people, and it's just awful the way they can use scientific words to make themselves sound, to the layperson, indistinguishable from the Real Scientists. Unfortunately, through their sinister machinations they have somehow managed to plant this ridiculous, scary idea in my head that maybe chance mutations and natural selection are not adequate explanations for what sure looks designed.

Good. That is what science is all about; questioning the current explanations of phenomena. However, you need to distinguish between two methods of questioning theory A.

1) You have an alternative theory B which you think explains the phenomena better.

2) You have no alternative theory, but you think that some things in theory A are not tenable.

Either of these are valid. However they are both very hard. In case (1) you will find that not only does theory B have to deal with a particular result, but all other relevant results, at which stage most alternative theories fail dismally.

In case (2) it is not enough to say 'This looks complicated, so it must be wrong'. To demonstrate a negative is difficult, and would typically require some sophisticated mathematics.

It looks to me like ID'er start of by taking path (2), but when you look for the sophisticated arguments for this to have any chance of success you find they aren't there. Rather they seem to have changed tack, and say 'well since we've shown that theory A is flawed, this supports our alternative theory B'.

 

[jtbell]

Insofar as ID claims have thus far been scientifically unfalsifiable, they are like a phantom sumo wrestler who claims he's better than the current champ, but never steps into the ring to prove it. Our phantom sumo wrestler may argue at length why he could beat the champ, [...]

It seems to me that our phantom sumo wrestler is actually arguing at length about why the champ can't beat him. In other words, he's dissing the champ's ability without claiming any ability to do what the champ has done so far, i.e. organize and explain a large body of current biological knowledge.

 

[Johann]

Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.

I'm no ID enthusiast, but I really laugh when I see this thing being offered as a counter-argument. Don't they have anything better to think of? Here's a suggestion:

"Brilliant as the design of my brain is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: I don't understand more than 2% of the world around me"

Or is anyone ready to claim the brain has fewer blind spots than the eye?

 

[matt grime]

I've encountered the notion--probably due to sloppy use of language--that intelligent design is not a scientific theory because "There's no need to introduce a supernatural element to the process."

you are vaguely alludnig to occam's (or as I've also seen it, ockham's) razor: if we have two competing theories A and B and the hypotheses of A are a subset of B and further if the extra hypotheses of B are not required to explain the current data then A shuold be preferred over B. But this isn't why some of us dismiss it as "not science". We would dismiss it as bad science according to this rule of thumb, since there is nothign to be gained from supposing that there is a guiding designer at work in the personified or deified sense.

Which is nonsense. There is nothing supernatural, unnatural, pseudonatural, or antinatural about intelligence

I think it is the idea of the designer that is the issue, intelligent is just the adjective, and it is the agent noun we dislike.


As Hypnagogue says, it is not science in the Popperian veiw since it is not falsifiable: it does not explain the data (it actually states "the data is too complicated to be natural", which, no matter what the IDers may try to claim, is hardly in the spirit of enquiry is it?) or predict results that we can check against experiment or compare to future finds. That is the experimental sciences anyway. Mathematics and certain aspects of theoretical physics are axiomatic and only internal consistency is required there. but ID has no theory or logic by which we can check its internal consistency.

 

[max1975]

Thanks for the replies to my rant. While the answers are not wholly satisfying, I think you've shown me honestly and reasonably why they can't be, due to the legitimate boundaries of science.

I do think it is entirely appropriate for Science (by which I mean the public image, not the discipline itself) to refuse to allow itself to be used to make theological claims. I wish it were similarly reluctant to be used as a weapon against people's faith.

I have a quick question about falsifiability (though I'm leaving town for a couple of days and will not see any answers till I get back.)

Suppose I set up an experiment to prove that cells will eventually form, without my intervention, given the right mix of chemicals. How many billion years must I watch this mix fail to produce cells before I can say the idea is falsified? At which point my lab assistant will surely say, "Maybe you've got the wrong mix of chemicals," and I'll shoot him.

Is theoretical falsifiability treated differently than practical falsifiability?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Part 1

(I sort of got carried away with this reply, which requires two posts to fit.)

First, let’s clear up one thing. I thought we agreed this was not to become a discussion about ID. I made it clear in my second post in this thread that I wasn’t defending ID (and I’d been careless not to say so more unambiguously), but rather some points Phillip Johnson made were objections I’ve had myself. I have clearly outlined what those objections are, which is there are important gaps in evidence for abiogenesis and evolution theories which should prevent scientism devotees from proclaiming to the public that it is physical explanations which are “most likely” to be eventually found for those missing components.

To a large degree I think this disagreement is between a class of thinkers who are convinced they have the epistemological advantage in all matters of knowing, and others who dispute that.

If you review comments by Bystander, Rade, Hypnagogue (and the person quoted in the NY Times article), and Chronon, one can see an epistemological assumption in place. A small sampling:

There has been no demonstration of a need to appeal to anything beyond the minimal set of physical laws.

This is not a pig headed "scientist" position, it is logical, derived from the evidence of the senses that are then used by consciousness to form the concept of human evolution. The above reported mystical god based "mechanism" on the origin of humans just does not make sense--it is not self-evident--it is not supported by the genetic and morphological facts of Primates to which humans belong. Now, if you have a logical fact based "mechanism" on the origin of humans based on mysticism, PLEASE DO SHARE IT.

When scientists dismiss ID by saying it's not science, what they mean it's that it's not falsifiable-- that is, it has thus far been formulated in such a way that it can't be shot down by experiment or evidence. So there is no epistemological standard here by which we could really judge ID claims to be true or false, and so no use in considering them as serious opposition to the standard scientific picture of evolution. . . . Certainly we should not consider handing the championship title over to our phantom sumo wrestler just because he talks a big game. If the scientific community seems dismissive of ID, it is for the same reason that we should be dismissive of our phantom sumo.

The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

1) You have an alternative theory B which you think explains the phenomena better. . . . 2) You have no alternative theory, but you think that some things in theory A are not tenable. . . . It looks to me like ID'er start of by taking path (2), but when you look for the sophisticated arguments for this to have any chance of success you find they aren't there. Rather they seem to have changed tack, and say 'well since we've shown that theory A is flawed, this supports our alternative theory B'.

Imagine you are living in late 15th century Spain, and have been summoned to the inquisition to defend taking a scientific approach to studying the world. Every logic point you make for using it is judged by a set of standards that derive from assumptions, such as the Bible is the absolute truth. So if you say it seems like the Earth is billions of years old, that can’t be true because it conflicts with the Bible, or if you say the human body seems evolved from more primitive forms, that also can’t be true for the same reason.

In that time, the Church had achieved great power, so doesn’t that success mean they had “won” the competition for power? I mean, we can’t claim the Church was incompetent with respect to acquiring influence. Once having earned the place of power, weren’t those who’d help get it there entitled to wield that power? Because they had the power to do so, because they had won the battle for influence, and because the Church represented an epistemological system, didn’t church leaders therefore have more rights than others to say how we all should evaluate things? So when your empirical epistemology is discounted for failing to meet the standards of religious epistemology, they are correct and you are wrong because, after all, you’ve not met the standards of those who have the most right to set knowing standards.

Getting back to this thread, the quotes I chose from everyone are relevant to my objections. All of you seem to assume that empirical epistemology is the end all in knowing. You have set up empiricism as THE one and only way to truth, and then demanded everyone meet empirical standards. You judge criticisms of this attitude with that standard, you judge everything with that standard. Why?

Well, because science has achieved so much with physical stuff, some believe it is the way to all knowledge. Those who understand science start thinking of themselves as the new priests of the Scientism Church who have the knowledge the ignorant masses lack. As Michael Shermer once pointed out in his Scientific American column Skeptic, “being the Age of Science, it is scientism’s shamans who command our veneration.”

The attitude becomes, “Look what we’ve achieved, doesn’t that give us epistemological rights? Don’t those in power have the right to demand everyone get in line with what they know is the one and only way to acquire knowledge?” So now fully justified, every discussion is judged by the firmly-entrenched assumption that if something doesn’t meet empirical standards it is inadequate.

(continued in next post . . .)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Part 2

(. . . continued from the previous post)

In contrast to studying things “out there,” some people have explored the inner life. And some of these inner practitioners experience “something more” to reality than what’s perceived strictly through the senses. And sense perception is what empiricism relies on 100%, so if something actually can be known about reality in some way that isn’t sense dependent, then it isn’t going to be known empirically, and the inner method of knowing isn’t going to meet the empirical standard.

If might doesn’t make right, neither does the what the majority believe. But it is still true that the vast majority of humans think there is “something more” to reality than physicalness. Must of what they believe has trickled down from serious inner practitioners, so it isn’t necessarily that they know anything through their own efforts. But many aspire to know that way, and others (IMO) may at least “sense” there is something there.

Then there are those who are obsessed with studying externals, which is precisely what science is about. Is it logical to predict that science might attract a higher-than-normal percentage of people (normal for the population as a whole) who are focused more on externals than anything going on inside themselves? And then, if you practice a discipline that actually requires you to look away from yourself, and comes with the assumption that all reality is physical, then is it likely that one’s externalistic bent is going to be even further emphasized to the point of not only denying there’s anything internal worth knowing, but which even might cause one to look at others who do believe so with contempt? (Richard Dawkins comes to mind.)

What’s disturbing to serious inner practitioners is that the externalists, almost to a person, don’t know the slightest thing about what’s been achieved inwardly over the millennia. Yet they are totally convinced that inner adepts have nothing to add to human knowing. Unfortunately they look at religion as representing innerness, which isn’t where one finds inner competence. They complain about the ignorance of religion, and associate it with all inner pursuits. But the ignorance of religion has nothing to do with innerness, it has to do with the general state of understanding of the human population. If there weren’t religions, the ignorant would do something else ignorantly.

So now we are in a better position to understand one bit of logic scientism advocates employ, which is to say, if you haven’t got a better theory, then you aren’t allowed to critique ours. Really? Why would that be? Is it because scientism devotees have assumed they are most qualified to decide what is true and “most likely” about their theory, and so if anyone criticizes too much, they must be uneducated, or a creationist, or whatever?

If so, it means scientism believers aren’t required to give dissenters serious consideration. Is that how we operate in other areas of life? Do you have to be politician to question laws and policies, or a parent to question someone beating their child? It is a dirty little tactic to say if you aren’t a recognized expert in my subject, I can dismiss your challenges without having to answer them directly.

In my case at least, where I criticize the abiogenesis and evolution theories is where they don’t make sense, and where (I say) scientism believers can’t properly justify the “mostly likely” designation they assign to their physicalist theory (and I am someone who started out long ago as an atheist and a full believer in abiogenesis and evolution).

The scientism logic I criticize is, after deciding a priori the universe is purely physical, one concludes life musthave been started and evolved by purely physical means. Is that the conclusion of an objective mind loaded with all the evidence needed to make that claim, or is that a mind conditioned by participating in a method (empiricism) that only reveals physicalness? Is that conclusion of a balanced consciousness, or is it the conclusion of a mind fixated on externals?

At this point of my life I am moved both by what I observe and what I have realized through over three decades of meditation. When I hear the physicalist explanation for abiogenesis, for instance, I see a problem right away. The problem is attributing abilities to mechanics that just aren’t there. If mechanics alone could be shown self organize to the extent physicalists claim then I would fully accept the possibility of abiogenesis. Likewise, I don’t see the evidence that natural selection alone (especially in 600 million years that includes several mass extinctions) is capable of producing the quality of organs (particularly the human brain) we find in creation. Right now, natural selection looks as pedestrian as mechanistic processes always do.

So how might someone with inner experience, but also committed to things making sense, think about all this? Using myself as an example, I wonder what could have lifted the quality of natural selection to produce a human brain. When I look around, I see no organizing force of the quality needed to take mechanics beyond their tedious monotony except when human consciousness gets involved. Thinking inferentially, I can’t see why some sort of consciousness might not have started spontaneously (and naturally) where we say the universe started spontaneously and naturally, evolved for eons, and then was able to participate in creation and add that organizational part, possibly working through genetic manipulation.

What might account for punctuated equilibrium? Well, possibly the evolutive force proliferated so many life forms in the Cambrian period searching for ideal avenues of development. While any species were the focus, they had the benefit of being within the evolutive priority and that’s when lots of complex organs/organisms develop. At some point the evolutive force narrows the number of species within evolutive priority; those in the priority continue to develop creatively, those left behind have only genetic variation-natural selection to help them survive, and most don’t. As the eras pass, the evolutive priority narrows evermore, settling finally (apparently) on the hominid group. And what determined the evolutive priority? Well, since the evolutive force in this model is some sort of consciousness, it was whatever might best facilitate the emergence of consciousness in a physical system. That would explain the prosaic performance of natural selection today, and why species seem to stabilize at some point and evolve little more.

Do I think that’s the truth? No, it’s just me playing around trying to come up with something that explains everything I have experienced inside, and what I can observe outside. I am not committed to any belief system which abhors anything that belief system can’t explain. I am just looking for what makes sense and is true. That’s why I am free to sting the rump of the scientism horse. It’s not because I am against science, but because I am against prejudice, exaggeration, dogma, and attempts at unfairly influencing public opinion in any field, including religion, and against intellectual bullying by people think only they know the truth.

This is why I fight the physicalists who think they get to automatically take credit for explaining the gaps in our understanding. Lots might be physical, but not everything necessarily is that makes this universe work.

 

[matt grime]

Thanks for the replies to my rant. While the answers are not wholly satisfying, I think you've shown me honestly and reasonably why they can't be, due to the legitimate boundaries of science.

I do think it is entirely appropriate for Science (by which I mean the public image, not the discipline itself) to refuse to allow itself to be used to make theological claims. I wish it were similarly reluctant to be used as a weapon against people's faith.

I have a quick question about falsifiability (though I'm leaving town for a couple of days and will not see any answers till I get back.)

Suppose I set up an experiment to prove that cells will eventually form, without my intervention, given the right mix of chemicals. How many billion years must I watch this mix fail to produce cells before I can say the idea is falsified? At which point my lab assistant will surely say, "Maybe you've got the wrong mix of chemicals," and I'll shoot him.

Is theoretical falsifiability treated differently than practical falsifiability?

who knows, but just so you're aware, such an experiment has nothing to do with evolution or darwinism, but abiogenesis. evolution explains the development and differentiation of species, it says nothing about the origin of life. a point that ID defenders often overlook. what next? creationists saying "we're not evolved from chimpanzees"? good, cos no evolutionist says that either.

whatever your beliefs about the origin of life, we have a reasonably well understood mechanism for the evolution of life. there are (at least) two different views on the way that evolution progresses/progressed. One that it is continual and gradual, the other that it tends to go in fits and starts, perhaps impelled by extremal changes in environment (ice ages and so on). Dawkins would be one of the "sudden jumps" people wouldn't he? the sum collection of huiman recollection is far too short to know through experience either way.


we are also conducting scientific investigation into abiogenesis, who knows what it'll turn up, i don't even know what it has turned up already. but surely it is better to experiment for reproducable results than to simlpy appeal to a larger mysterious force? even if the experiments all show that nothign man made can reproduce nature.

one thing i like to baer in mind is that there are "devoutly fanatical" scientists who believe in god. science explains a the wherefors, and religion offers a purpose to them, the why's if you will. there is no conflict here. science says very little about the ultimate "reasons" for anything. but i can think of no fanatically devout theists (the bible is the absolute word of god, yes, the king james AV obviously) who are scientists.

 

[hypnagogue]

Les, my post was made in response to max1975's question about what science's take on ID is and why it is that way. To the extent that IDers claim that ID is a better fit to the facts than evolution, the whole matter about falsifiability of course must come into play. If ID wants to supplant evolution, then it is throwing itself into the scientific ring, and must abide by the rules therein. This is not to say that the scientific method is the only way of knowing. It is merely to say that if one wants to supplant an accepted scientific theory with a new theory, one must do so on scientific grounds. If that does not or cannot happen, then there can be no traction between the scientific theory and its proposed replacement, no basis for real comparison and thus competition.

That does not necessarily imply that the new theory is wrong; the point is that if it is wrong, we will have no way of knowing, which is unacceptable to scientific epistemology. We may have reason to suspect that phantom sumo is a good wrestler, but if he never gets in the ring, we'll never be able to truly evaluate him one way or another. Some may choose to believe that he is indeed a great wrestler, but scientific epistemology is more demanding and will simply dismiss phantom sumo until he decides to get into the ring and show his mettle. Again, this is not to say that science is the only path to knowledge; it is to say that science's criteria for what constitutes knowledge are stringent, and in order to effect change in scientific knowledge or theory, one must submit oneself to those stringent criteria. It could well be that some form of ID is true, but until a falsifiable ID hypothesis is put forward, there can be no scientific way of comparing ID and evolution, and so ID cannot be a proper scientific alternative. So this is not so much about an epistemological advantage as it is a matter of epistemological turf: If you want to stomp around in the turf of scientific epistemology, you must abide by the rules of scientific epistemology. Questions about which forms of epistemology are superior to others are a different matter.

But your priority here, I take it, has not been so much to push some variant of ID as it has been to draw attention to gaps in existing theory about abiogenesis and evolution, which of course is welcome skepticism. I do have to question the force of your objections, though. It is one thing to say that existing theory does not yet satisfactorily account for such-and-such, and quite another to say that it cannot account for such-and-such. You seem to argue for the former, perhaps quite validly, but then you seem to make the inferiential leap from the former to the latter, which I do not think is justified.

How do you know that physical systems cannot self-organize in such an exquisite way to form a cell from primordial soup, or a new organ or whatever? It is certainly not sufficient to argue that we thus far have not observed this process or come to a completely satisfactory theoretical account. You require extra principles to explain why this observation or theoretical account will never come about, even in principle, but I cannot see that you offer any such principles in a detailed or compelling way. You assert that if we let biological molecules sit in a jar for billions of years, we will just end up with the same inert biological molecules, and so life could not have self-organized in this way. But this seems to me like just the kind of extravagant extrapolation you accuse evolutionary theorists of: You generalize the results of an experiment made in a small tank with certain chemical conditions over an exceedingly brief time scale to apply to the primordial Earth and its huge seas and churning atmosphere and so on, which its much richer set of chemical composition and events, over a period of billions of years. If that is not extravagant extrapolation, what is?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les, my post was made in response to max1975's question about what science's take on ID is and why it is that way. To the extent that IDers claim that ID is a better fit to the facts than evolution, the whole matter about falsifiability of course must come into play. If ID wants to supplant evolution, then it is throwing itself into the scientific ring, and must abide by the rules therein. This is not to say that the scientific method is the only way of knowing. It is merely to say that if one wants to supplant an accepted scientific theory with a new theory, one must do so on scientific grounds. If that does not or cannot happen, then there can be no traction between the scientific theory and its proposed replacement, no basis for real comparison and thus competition.

I agree, and that is why as soon as I could I tried to distinquish my points from ID. If you were only commenting on ID trying to duke it out with science, then you've made a good point.

But your priority here, I take it, has not been so much to push some variant of ID as it has been to draw attention to gaps in existing theory about abiogenesis and evolution, which of course is welcome skepticism. I do have to question the force of your objections, though. It is one thing to say that existing theory does not yet satisfactorily account for such-and-such, and quite another to say that it cannot account for such-and-such. You seem to argue for the former, perhaps quite validly, but then you seem to make the inferiential leap from the former to the latter, which I do not think is justified.

Ahhh, well I am ready to defend that inferential leap. But I hope you will keep in mind that I do so not as a "believer," but purely on the basis of inferential logic taken from observation.

How do you know that physical systems cannot self-organize in such an exquisite way to form a cell from primordial soup, or a new organ or whatever? It is certainly not sufficient to argue that we thus far have not observed this process or come to a completely satisfactory theoretical account.

Yes, but you have to remember I am responding to the "most likely" claim of physicalists. The physicalists have claimed they are justified in inferring most likeliness, and I am claiming there is a more-supported inference.

You require extra principles to explain why this observation or theoretical account will never come about, even in principle, but I cannot see that you offer any such principles in a detailed or compelling way.

Of course not, because I don't think I have to offer those principles. If I propose to someone who comes back from a walk in the woods broken out in blisters, that walking in the woods causes blisters, do you have to explain what does cause blisters before you can refute my logic (by, for instance, pointing out that thousands of people walk in the woods all the time and don't come back with blisters)? Obviously another factor is needed to explain the blisters, such as being allergic to poison oak, etc. It is a common but bogus argument that we can't dispute the quality of someone's inference because we don't have a better one to replace it. Bad inference is perfectly capable of standing on its own.

You assert that if we let biological molecules sit in a jar for billions of years, we will just end up with the same inert biological molecules, and so life could not have self-organized in this way. But this seems to me like just the kind of extravagant extrapolation you accuse evolutionary theorists of: You generalize the results of an experiment made in a small tank with certain chemical conditions over an exceedingly brief time scale to apply to the primordial Earth and its huge seas and churning atmosphere and so on, which its much richer set of chemical composition and events, over a period of billions of years. If that is not extravagant extrapolation, what is?

But my friend, I am not the one who claims we can infer from what happened in that jar that chemistry can keep on self-organizing into a cell! I am disputing their inferences, not substituting my own.

There may have been a richer set of chemicals and events, but then go ahead and recreate such conditions and show us that chemistry can self-organize with the quality needed to reach the self-sustaining system we find in a cell (and BTW, life is believed to have formed within the first 1/2 billion years, not over billions of years). But don't proclaim to the world that little bit of self-organization is going to fill the bill for the kind of self organization needed to create a living system.

If I am guilty of extravagant extrapolation, I most definitely want to know it so I can vigorously purge it out of my mind. I have theories, but you won't catch me saying (or believing) they are most likely. I really don't know. What I do say I know is that the inferences made from the Miller-Urey experiment and simple adaptation are extravagant.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, that settles it. I suppose we all left to the high priests of science to explain how the universe works. Obviously no one is intelligent enough to recognize gaps in logic, glossing over missing evidence, pushing a theory as the truth in such a way that all but insists on an ontology, and then when confronted about the ontological propagandizing, speaking out of the other side of the mouth saying, "oh no, we aren't talking ontology, we are just doing science."

Les, there are no gaps in the logic. There are plenty of evidential gaps, but men like Johnson would have you believe that these 1) make up the bulk of the explanation, and 2) that these gaps are far more significant than they actually are. In fact, one notable thing that people don't seem to notice in criticizing the logic of evolutionary evidence is that it isn't even possible to have a logical gap in an inductive argument. There are only degrees of certainty about the conclusions that can be drawn based on the amount of supporting evidence. There is no issue as to whether one claim follows logically from another - in principle, they cannot.

I don't agree with Johnson's desire to reconcile Biblical creationism with science, but I do agree he has astutely analyzed the dogmatic attitude of the scientific community. That is the title of his article, and that is what I am asking thinkers to evaluate. I doubt if I will get anybody to look past Johnson's beliefs and strictly critique the points he makes in his article.

Well, as I said, I would be glad to do it if you really want that, but it has already been done. Johnson hasn't made a claim that I know of in the last ten years that he didn't already make before that, and plenty have already responded to him, plenty that are way more qualified than anybody you are going to find on these forums.

But this is irrelevant. So what if he is a creationist? It makes absolutely no difference, just like it makes no difference if he is a scientist. Any good scientific thinker should be able to evaluate his points on face value without knowing a single thing about the author of the points.

It might make no difference to you, but I'm sure you can understand why people that are already well acquainted with Dr. Johnson don't want to respond to him. The man is disingenuous, plain and simple. Perhaps I'm getting a little more indignant than I should, but frankly, you are the last person with any right to criticize another for quickly becoming indignant.

Anyway, I will try to make a general reply to what I see as the crux of Johnson's argument. Keep in mind that this is not easy to do, as again, he is very careful not to state any positive conclusions, not to make any direct claims. As such, it would not even be possible in principle to actually refute any of what he is saying. He does make incorrect claims at times, though I'm not sure if he did in this specific article (at this point, I can't remember it that well and will have to re-read it to determine) as to where there actually are gaps. Michael Behe, the other central figure of the ID movement, actually makes far more specific claims as to what the gaps are than Johnson does, and he has been wrong many times.

But yeah, the general reply I said I would make. This is one way to construct the basic argument of the IDers:

If evolutionary theory were true, there should be no explanatory gaps in the theory.
There are explanatory gaps in the theory.
Therefore, evolutionary theory is not true.

There are plenty of ways to attack this argument. It should be blatantly obvious that this argument is sound, for many reasons. So I will not bother with it. To be more fair, I'll try to construct a watered-down version, more in the spirit of this particular article:

If evolutionary theory were true, there should be no explanatory gaps in the theory and there should be no evidential gaps in its supporting evidence.
There are either explanatory gaps in evolutionary theory or evidential gaps in the evidence that support it.
Therefore, we should not believe in evolution.

The first problem that springs to mind with this argument is that it is invalid; it is not possible for an imperative statement to follow logically from a factual statement. I'll ignore that, though, because it does raise legitimate questions as to when and why we should believe (or accept) a scientific theory.

A more significant problem that arises is that whether or not a given person is going to accept or believe a given theory is a matter of personal choice and varies from person to person. We seem at an impasse because those who study evolution are satisfied with the evidence and theory that they have (in a very broad sense*), but others are not.

I could make an appeal to authority here; although that is sometimes considered to be a logical fallacy, 'judgement' in the sense of an expert opinion is considered a category of evidence in both formal debate and in judicial proceedings. I could just say that those who study evolutionary theory know quite a bit more about it and are more qualified than those who do not to judge its veracity. That claim is almost certainly correct, but you can raise any number of counterclaims that you already have, and though you cannot substantiate them broadly, you can narrowly (that is, you can find individual examples of scientists that are fervently physicalist to a dogmatic degree and claim from that we should not trust evolutionists in general).

To avoid this potential conflict, let us forget about the appeal to authority. Though I personally believe that Hume effectively demonstrated (and contemporary neurological studies corroborate) that there can be no such thing as true practical reason, I'll also ignore that because, frankly, we do not need to be that philosophically sophisticated (interesting how they share the Greek root "sophia," isn't it?) in this matter. Colloquially, it is fair to say that some beliefs are reasonable and some are not. So what constitutes a reasonable belief, colloquially, and does the belief in either evolution or ID qualify?

I would think that even you could agree that those who believe in evolution are at least being reasonable. The only thing you seem to find unreasonable is the claim that ID (in whatever variation) is not, or even cannot be, true. So let us evaluate the reasonableness, colloquially, of ID. Although there may be no specifics in the positive claims made, the broad positive claim of the IDers seems to be that some form of intelligence intervened at least once during the process of evolution. That is, evolution did occur, but not by completely mechanistic means.

So let us ask several questions about this hypothesis:

1) Is there any evidence to support this hypothesis?
2) Can there be any evidence to support this hypothesis?
3) Is it possible to falsify this hypothesis?

1) As far as I know, no IDer has ever offered any evidence to support the claim that any intelligence (other than the intelligence of the evolvers themselves) ever intervened in the evolutionary process.

2) This one is a little trickier. If a natural intelligence intervened in the process; that is, a Space Odyssey scenario where some race of spacefaring creatures prodded evolution in a certain direction at key moments, there are certainly be evidence to support this hypothesis. Look no further than the films and books themselves for what this evidence might look like.

On the other hand, if the hypothesis is that a supernatural intelligence intervened; that is, some sort of "miracle" occured, then I personally don't think that can ever be demonstrated by any means. Again, I appeal to Hume for proof that a miracle could never be verified or even supported. I know there is legitimate disagreement as to whether or not Hume was correct, but personally, I'm convinced.

3) The answer to this one has to be a definitive 'no.' In fact, let us even consider a weaker claim. If an IDer were to make the claim that evolution could not have happened by entirely natural means, then, if over the course of, say, another million years of human existence, we can decisively observe that all of the explantory gaps cited by IDers (abiogenesis, speciation, the creation of complex and novel organs) can be directly observed to occur by natural means, that claim will have been falsified, at least to the satisfaction of what we are here calling a "colloquially reasonable" person. But has the claim actually been falsified? No, it hasn't. Due to the nature of supernatural causes, if there had been supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process, the process would not necessarily look any different than if there had not been. Even if we cooked up some single-celled organism in a lab, using nothing but inorganic chemicals, an IDer could still claim that the only reason we were able to do so is because a supernatural force, not detectable to our instruments, intervened.

*By "in a very broad sense," I mean that there are plenty of disagreements as to what evolutionary theory should really be in its details. The only broadly accepted part of the theory is that the biodiversity we observe today is the result of descent with modification from a less biodiverse initial population of some sort, filtered by natural selection (and many other mechanisms, but natural selection is the only one broadly accepted) and other natural means. For this reason, I will just take it for granted that IDers are only criticizing these broad aspects of evolutionary theory. Actually, they can't criticize natural selection as a mechanism, as that has been rather conclusively demonstrated, but they can criticize the hypothesis that all species in existence today descended from a smaller pool of different species by completely natural means.

 

[loseyourname]

By the way, I have to apologize for something. First, I still didn't do any point by point addressing of Dr. Johnson's article. However, I did try to address at least the spirit of his general argument. I already know that doing so will not satisfy because Dr. Johnson's beliefs, and his general argument, are not completely in line with your own. However, I will wait for you to state a positive claim before I address that, even though I already have a pretty good idea from the past of what claims you will make.

For these reasons, if you completely dismiss my entire post, I'll understand. Hopefully, you can understand my reasons for making the post anyway. Even if it doesn't prove useful to you, it might to someone else.

 

[Les Sleeth]

It might make no difference to you, but I'm sure you can understand why people that are already well acquainted with Dr. Johnson don't want to respond to him. The man is disingenuous, plain and simple.

I am going to agree with almost everything you say in this post after this point, which is to suggest that you may be being blindly prejudiced against anything Johnson has to say. If you think every Darwinist despises Johnson, check out Ruse's attitude (of all people!):

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/ruse.html

Anyway, I will try to make a general reply to what I see as the crux of Johnson's argument.

LYN, I suspect you took my first response to you, got busy with other things, never came back to see my adjustment to what I was trying to say in this thread (detailed in my second post), and then wrote the long refutation without benfit of seeing how the theme of this thread has changed. You make a lot of good points about ID, and some of Johnson's theories. But I've already distanced myself from most of what you criticize.

 

[Bystander]

"Lions, and tigers and bears" ... and Sleeths ... "oh my, oh my, oh my."

For all your showing off, you missed the point. You demonstrated that some bit of organization can happen if you put the right chemicals together in the right conditions, and you demonstrated that chemistry has the potential to account for the structure of life. Did you demonstrate self-organization can take off by itself, and keep going until it reaches the complexity and functional proficiency of a cell? No.

Still can't read? You're back to "It offends my intuition, therefore it can't happen. I don't care what is said about 'lna'." Did someone misinform you regarding the applicability of thermo? Tell you that there is an upper limit to the size of interacting moieties beyond which magical forces take over?

Are you listening to my objections? Self organization is the issue, not anything else.

"Self-organization" is a quality that requires Les Sleeth's personal, intuitive approval? No one said that every coacervate drop, micelle, gel, colloid, suspension, or other intermolecularly bonded/associated/complexed structure formed according to thermodynamic principles is alive, only that a very large set does form, and that in that set a very wide range of properties are going to be observable. Those properties are going to include your "self-organization," self-replication, catalysis of reactions, inhibition of reactions, photosynthetic catalysis, singly, and in combinations. You wanted to know what drives the "self-organization," and you've had that driver explained to you. Get over it.

Say you have all the parts that make up a car in a big pile. By making those collection of parts bounce around, can those parts organize themselves into a car?

Argument by analogy ... "Oh what'll I do. What'll I do. What'll I do." Giggle gleefully, and thank you for dribbling this p*ss-poor analogy down your leg and into the discussion. In all fairness, I'll have to concede that Les is NOT the author --- he just bought a Trojan Horse that not even the actual author realized he'd built.

Analogies are useful if and only if their characteristics correspond well with the relevant characteristics of the problem being considered. Let's procede with such a comparison:

1) interatomic bonding energies are MJ/kg as compared to interpart "bond energies" that are J/kg in an assembled auto, and under the conditions implicit in the analogy, (gm₁m₂/r), fJ/kg to nJ/kg;

2) the parts pile is placed in a 3 to 10 J/kg energy well (depending upon how far above the ground one chooses for COM of assembled vehicle), and the "parts pile" for the "primordial soup" is sitting in a 0 to 30 kJ/kg energy well (sea surface to mean ocean depth, a gross exaggeration, but we've got to give the analogy every break it can get);

3) the activation energy (moving parts around in energy well) for the "soup" is 3% at most of the bond energy, and 3 to 10¹⁵ times the bond energy for an assembled vehicle depending upon whether one looks at OEM bonding or analogic bonding.​

Hence, we apply the adjective "p*ss-poor" to the analogy.

Boosting the well depth for the "soup" to make the system correspond to the analogy puts us on the surface of a neutron star or at the event horizon of a black hole. Not really any surprise that the analogy predicts nothing going on. Reducing the well depth for the analogy to correspond to the well depth-bonding energy ratio of the "soup," it's obviously necessary to conduct the experiment in field-free space, or at worst, the near zero-G conditions of Earth orbit. Give me a J/kg bonding energy and the Keebler Elves to apply it (not to arrange parts, but simply to function as analogs to the bond formation occurring naturally between atoms), and there's no problem reassembling your junkyard to the point that lug nuts are returned to the specific lugs from which they were removed if so desired.

Conclusions:

1) analogies are like scissors in that it is dangerous to run with them;

2) physicists really should be careful in constructing analogies in that they never know when some philosopher is going to pick them up and run with them;

3) the combined statement of the 1st and 2nd laws, Gibbs Free Energy, is so offensive to the intuition of the lay public that it's probably worth finding some other approach to presenting it in science courses for non-majors.​

Should I "snip" this next paragraph? Nah.

Your answer, if you answered as above, would be first to show how it is possible for all those parts to be assembled into a car. But I never doubted that to begin with. What I doubted was if parts bouncing can be made to assemble into a car. And then, you proclaim you've really proven something because you got some washers and bolts to hook up.




Again, you missed the point. I haven't denied that all life has evolved. I have questioned whether natural selection and genetic variation alone are the only influences on genetic change during the period starting about 600 million years ago when lots of new organs [Bold]developed because they were needed[/Bold]

I suppose Lamarck and Lysenko could be argued to have been "closet vitalists." Turn things around so that "cause" precedes "effect:"

"Proto-organs developing at this time enhanced survivabilities of some organisms, and selection pressures furthered development of these to the point that they could be defined as organs."​

to support lots of new life forms. I am not talking about a finger either. I mean the really good stuff like eyes, livers, ears, brains.

We have what we can actually, in person, empirically observe -- natural selection achieving minor changes -- and then we have what you say is possible for natural selection to achieve, but cannot show it ALONE is doing it now or has done it in the past.

Right NOW you need to show natural selection getting creative. You can't go back in time and attribute creative change to it when you can't observe such changes now.

Salt excretion organ in the Galapagos iguana satisfy you? I know, I know. "Yes, but..."

The only reason you want to is, I say, because you are a physicalist devotee, and not because the evidence is there yet. Maybe one day it will be, but it isn't there now.

You seem outraged that I won't buy your belief system, and that I say it is pumped up with dogma, exaggerations, faith, tons of theory . . . but nothing that rises to the level of proof. Today I was reading Michael Ruse's complaint (Professor of philosophy of science at FSU, and a devoted Darwinist) that Darwinists have turned evolution into religion. That's how you act. Absolutely OUTRAGED that someone just won't accept what you see as obvious. If they don't, they must be some ignert, uneducated, moooooron with half a brain because YOU, as the ultimate authority on all things existent have decided the TRUTH is . . .

Arrogance doesn't improve with education.

Wohler put a stake through the "vitalists'" hearts in 1828. http://www.3rd1000.com/urea/urea.htm Unfortunately for Wohler, vitalists don't have hearts --- they're at about the same stage as slime molds on the evolutionary scale. ID ain't nuthin' more than vitalism in a new shade of lipstick.

The physical scientists put computers on loons' laps and desk tops, give them near instantaneous communication, a standard of living Louis XIV couldn't have dreamt, and what do the loons do? Endlessly whine about the way physical scientists do business, complain that we don't listen to them, don't take them seriously, that we really should listen to their intuitive cracked-pottery.

Les, you don't like it, that's tough --- go back to school and learn enough to understand what you're attacking. How long is it going to take to put together a complete picture from the reductionist point of view? Quite a while. It takes money and time to measure rate constants for amino acid condensation reactions, free energies of formation of how many polypeptides, syntheses of enough polypeptides to actually estimate a frequency of occurrence of "self-organization," association constants for pairwise and higher order "complexation" of biomolecules, and on and on down a very long list. You want everyone to drop everything and look for Obi wan's force? Don't let the door slap you in the butt on the way out.

 

[hypnagogue]

Yes, but you have to remember I am responding to the "most likely" claim of physicalists. The physicalists have claimed they are justified in inferring most likeliness, and I am claiming there is a more-supported inference.

I'm confused (honestly, not trying to sound smug): I previously had the impression that you were more interested in drawing attention to perceived gaps in the theory, but from the above it sounds like a big part of your attack is indeed to propose an alternate, superior explanation as well. And it is still eminently unclear to me that your alternate proposal is indeed better supported. What evidence supports your proposal?

As for the whole thing about "most likely"ness, I'm not sure how I feel about that, that is, I'm not sure how much we can or should make of "most likely" claims in a context like this. What does "most likely" mean in this case? 90% confidence in the truth of a claim? 80%? 51%? How is such confidence quantified? Or is it more of a figure of speech used to express subjective expectations?

Of course not, because I don't think I have to offer those principles. If I propose to someone who comes back from a walk in the woods broken out in blisters, that walking in the woods causes blisters, do you have to explain what does cause blisters before you can refute my logic (by, for instance, pointing out that thousands of people walk in the woods all the time and don't come back with blisters)? Obviously another factor is needed to explain the blisters, such as being allergic to poison oak, etc. It is a common but bogus argument that we can't dispute the quality of someone's inference because we don't have a better one to replace it. Bad inference is perfectly capable of standing on its own.

I don't quite see the pertinence of this response. I wasn't claiming that you need to produce a better proposal to replace abiogenesis proposals. I was claiming that in order to effectively argue that physical principles cannot entail abiogenesis, it is not enough to argue that our current knowledge or theory is limited. Just noticing that we are currently impoverished in this way does not at all imply that this will always be so.

Rather, to argue that physical principles cannot (or if you prefer, most likely cannot) entail abiogenesis, you need to explain why this is the case. You need some underlying principles that ensure that the current state of impoverished knowledge / theory will always be so impoverished, because of some basic and inextricable underlying reasons. If you fail to demonstrate such principles, then you have no inductive basis by which to say that our failures today will still be failures tomorrow, and your argument will have a distinct "God of the gaps" air about it.

If I am guilty of extravagant extrapolation, I most definitely want to know it so I can vigorously purge it out of my mind. I have theories, but you won't catch me saying (or believing) they are most likely. I really don't know. What I do say I know is that the inferences made from the Miller-Urey experiment and simple adaptation are extravagant.

So you are claiming that positive extrapolations from the Miller-Urey experiment are extravagant, i.e. just because some basic biological compounds can be shown to self-organize spontaneously, this is not sufficient reason to believe that life can also spontaneously self-organize.

I am claiming that your negative extrapolation from the Miller-Urey experiment is just as extranvagant. i.e., just because very limitied, small scale experiments have not yet been able to demonstrate self-organization beyond a certain degree of complexity, this is not sufficient reason to believe that life cannot spontaneously self-organize.

 

[loseyourname]

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/ruse.html

Hey, at least I'm honest about this. I'm not even going to open a link from the leaderu domain unless we're specifically engaged in a theological discussion.

LYN, I suspect you took my first response to you, got busy with other things, never came back to see my adjustment to what I was trying to say in this thread (detailed in my second post), and then wrote the long refutation without benfit of seeing how the theme of this thread has changed. You make a lot of good points about ID, and some of Johnson's theories. But I've already distanced myself from most of what you criticize.

No, I read the whole thread. I explained why I made the post, and anticipated that you would not respond (even exonerating you of doing so) in the next post. I suspect you did not read that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey, at least I'm honest about this. I'm not even going to open a link from the leaderu domain unless we're specifically engaged in a theological discussion.

Well, you seem a lot more informed on ID stuff than me because I don't know anything at all about leaderu . . . I was strictly trying to refer you to the exchange of ideas between a hardcore Darwinist and Johnson. I could show you other comments of Professor Ruse who suggests it might not be the smartest thing to revile Johnson and other ID guys.