Posted on 06/23/2008 3:05:46 PM PDT by betty boop
Thank you so much for writing!
1. Restating him, Swenson claims that natural selection requires the intentional dynamics of living things in order to work, but that Darwin’s theory lacks an explanation of such intentional dynamics. You say this view is “absolutely correct.” But then you deny that this can be a valid criticism, on the strength of an analogy: “…Celestial motion requires the dynamics of gravitational attraction of mass to work, this puts the origins of mass/gravity outside the framework of any theory of Celestial motion.”
But jeepers, if celestial motion requires such dynamics, then how can it be considered “separately” from them? It seems clear there is nothing “intentional” about Celestial motion; it simply demonstrates a response to the dynamics of massive bodies in a gravitational field. But how does it follow from there that the origin of mass/gravity is “outside” the theory of Celestial motion? Indeed, the theory implies there would be no celestial motion without mass/gravity. It seems to me the theory of celestial motion reduces to mass/gravity, such that the “origin” of mass/gravity is the same as the origin of celestial motion, and not “outside” its framework. In any case, there is no “intentionality” involved here; this is simply the way physical/mechanical systems ordinarily behave.
But biological systems do not “behave” in this way. Unlike physical systems, biological systems — and presumably only biological systems (from the amoeba on “up” to man) — display the behavior known as intentionality. That is, they possess a form of sentience/perception/intelligence that enables their ability to discern the features of their surroundings; to identify possible alternative paths relevant to their survival and prosperity; and to choose one of them. As far as I know, no physical/mechanical system has ever been observed doing this.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing in Darwin’s theory that accounts for, or explains, this “strange” feature of biological systems, probably because, first, it’s difficult to reconcile with any explanation from randomness; and second, intentionality itself is not a physical/mechanical system, though assuredly it’s a bona fide feature of Nature all the same. After all, we do know that animals choose their mates, for instance.
2. Swenson wrote, “Darwinism has no observables by which it can address or account for the directed nature of Evolution.” I gather you are “agnostic” re: “the directed nature of Evolution.” Well, it sure looks “directed” to me! I guess our difference consists in how we look at things; i.e., on our respective worldviews.
But what do we mean when we say that something looks “directed?” One way you could look at it would be to say that (very crudely put), something is suspected of being “directed” if you “get ever so much more out of it than you put into it, at its initial conditions.” Darwin’s theory meets this test: From random mutation, via natural selection, we get the entire Tree of Life.
3. You really yukked it up over this one: “Because natural selection works on a competitive population of many, and the Earth as a planetary system evolves as a Population of One, Darwinian theory can neither recognize nor address this planetary evolution.”
I tend to take a larger view of this problem. I don’t think it’s at all foolish to consider the problem of planetary evolution, for the simple reason that it’s the very context in which biological evolution proceeds. So it’s not nonsense to speak of a “Population of One” at some basic level of the problem.
Plus I don’t stop at planetary evolution. My passion is cosmology. And that means I try to think as much as possible in universal terms. Thus I recognize such a thing as the evolution of the universe itself. Intuition tells me that, if we understand the particulars of the evolution of the universe, this may give us splendid guidance in understanding its “special cases”: planetary evolution, and biological evolution. Not to mention the evolution of human culture and society collected under the rubric, “history.”
But then, I tend to have a speculative train of mind. Do I expect Darwin’s theory to “explain” all of this? Absolutely NOT! Nor does Swenson. And I gather that is precisely his point.
4. Swenson wrote: “Darwinian theory has no account of the insensitivity to initial conditions (like consequents from unlike antecedents) required to account for the reliability of intentional dynamics or the evolutionary record writ large.”
To which you replied: “A theory need not have every initial condition described or explain everything in order to explain quite well how living systems respond to environmental pressures, explain evidence both new and old, and allow one to make predictions.” But Swenson is right, it seems to me, at least to the extent that Darwin’s theory does not even begin to deal with “initial conditions”: that is, whatever it was that happened, which caused life to emerge. On your view, it isn’t necessary to know the “initial conditions” in such a case in order to make reliable predictions. And I’m sure this is the case. For you and Darwin, Life is simply axiomatic, a presupposition…. A really really good guess. But I don’t know myself how one can derive/account for the evolutionary record of Life writ large without tracing the guess down to initial conditions. But hey, that’s just me….
5. “The incommensurability between biology and physics assumed by Darwinian theory provides no basis within the theory according to which epistemic or meaningful relations between living things and their environments can take place.”
I think here Swenson is raising an issue you may not have thought of before. I’ve already given an example of the “incommensurability between biology and physics,” of the irreducibility of biology to purely physical laws: intentionality. Here Swenson proposes another incommensurable: How to place living systems within the non-living world in a unified scientific approach. Darwin really is no help here.
6. You really seemed to object to this: “Evolution according to Darwinism is defined as a change in gene frequencies, and this puts cultural evolution outside the reach of Darwinian theory.” To which you replied: “What does cultural evolution have to do with Biological evolution? Why would a theory in Biology have to be applicable to culture for it to be valid within Science?”
Well you’ve got a point there! On the other hand, it’s possible to view the problem another way, as Swenson evidently does.
Here’s a proposal: Darwin’s theory states that evolution is a time-directed process involving the dynamics of random mutation and natural selection, to a very large extent driven by changes in the natural environment that in turn drive the unfoldment (evolution) of biological processes. Now it seems to me that Darwin’s theory does not take into effect the fact that a certain species, Man, unlike other animals, has the obvious ability to modify the environment itself, by virtue of the fact that his intentional processes (“intangibles”) play out in “tangible” (i.e., physical or material) ways that contribute to human fitness and survival value in the long run.
Now we unavoidably are talking about cultural context here: Man modifies the “existential space” in which he himself is “modified” as an evolving entity.
Darwin’s theory sheds no light on this problem at all.
By which I do not mean to suggest — at all — that Darwin’s theory is useless. It has been of enormous help in elucidating problems in many scientific domains. All I mean to suggest that it is not a complete theory, in that it has no theory of Man.
Thanks for sticking with me so far, allmendream; and thank you so very much for your last. Sorry to take so long responding; but you gave me a lot to think about! May God ever bless you.
The theory of BIOLOGICAL evolution through natural selection has nothing to do with PLANETARY evolution, CULTURAL evolution, SOCIETAL evolution, LEGAL evolution or any other change that someone wishes to describe as evolutionary.
The theory explains how BIOLOGICAL system evolve through natural selection. Planets do not undergo natural selection, they undergo gravity, cooling, rotation, impact, etc.
This guys criticisms are infantile. Who is this joker?
There is a place some where for a Celestial Mechanics Comedian.. A physics comic.. a cosmetolical jester.. even a Quantum Mechanics 3 Stooges.. There is massive amounts of humor going to waste.. As Cargo Cultists of Java see 747's in the sky and worship them and the cargo they carry.. many "scientists" see galaxy's and other un-dark matter with their scopes and worship the cargo they carry.. The similarity between those shamans is eerie.. and should be studied..
I thought the standard definition of life is the ability to reproduce oneself.
Interesting play on cosmology.. There could be a niche for Cosmetological Cosmology.. All the pictures of galaxys created from various wavelength views of space.. A little rouge here and some eye makeup there, and a schmig of eye lash lengthener over there.. makes for some beautiful pictures of galaxys that are totally cosmetological.. i.e. maybe.. Cosmology Porn..
Does Cosmology Porn originate in a big bling?
On the "incommensurability between biology and physics" - here's another item for the discussion:
Many biologists consider physical laws, artificial life, robotics, and even theoretical biology as largely irrelevant for their research. In the 1970s, a prominent molecular geneticist asked me, "Why do we need theory when we have all the facts?" At the time I dismissed the question as silly, as most physicists would. However, it is not as silly as the converse question, Why do we need facts when we have all the theories? These are actually interesting philosophical questions that show why trying to relate biology to physics is seldom of interest to biologists, even though it is of great interest to physicists. Questioning the importance of theory sounds eccentric to physicists for whom general theories is what physics is all about. Consequently, physicists, like the skeptics I mentioned above, are concerned when they learn facts of life that their theories do not appear capable of addressing. On the other hand, biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts. Ernst Mayr (1997) believes this difference is severe enough to separate physical and biological models: "Yes, biology is, like physics and chemistry, a science. But biology is not a science like physics and chemistry; it is rather an autonomous science on a par with the equally autonomous physical sciences."
LOLOL!
As been posted many times the incommensurability of facts cannot be determined without knowing the entire system.. Facts appear to be uniquely independant of other facts sometimes.. but they may not be.. Photosynthesis may seem independant of predation.. But all predators are at the top of a food chain.. at the bottom are plants.. The success of the Tiger is dependant on the success of "grass".. Less grass, less Tigers..
Is a human an animal or a spirit?.. Is a spirit "dark" energy/matter as the animal is "light" energy/matter?.. What is energy?.. What is matter?.. What is spirit?.. Could be what seems incommensurable isn't... Seems to me that was Jesus main message.. and the meaning of being "born again".. Which is an evolving of a primate into a spiritual creature.. A shape shifting or transmuting or morphing of one form of energy into another.. maybe even from one form of matter into another.. AND the "incommensurability between biology and physics" is not incommensurable at all..
And the same is true of the universe. If there were no resonance in the three-helium reaction at the precise thermal energy of a star’s core, there would be no life at all. And so on...
Ditto for "beyond" the universe. In the absence of space, things cannot exist. In the absence of time, events cannot occur. Without space/time there is no physical causation at all. And measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation since the 1960's all point to a beginning of real space and real time. Or to put it another way, space/time is created as the universe expands.
There was a beginning of space/time and therefore physical causation itself. And the uncaused cause of space/time and therefore physical causation can be no other than God the Creator.
Witness how the many physical cosmologies (multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time, hesitating, etc.) take space/time and physical causation as a 'given' just like Darwin took life as a 'given.' It is understandable to the extent that science cannot measure God or observe Him. But neither should scientists take a position about God (e.g. Dawkins' atheism) under the color of science when, by its own dogma of "methodological naturalism" science never considered the supernatural in the first place.
Like betty boop, I sue for full disclosure. Science should stop the practice of making statements as if it knows or could ever know the fullness of "all that there is."
For instance, scientists will often claim something is "random" when they really mean it is "unpredictable." Indeed, one cannot say something is random when he doesn't know what the system "is." A series of numbers extracted from the extension of pi may appear random when they are in fact highly determined. Likewise, we do not know and cannot know the full number and type of dimensions.
Nor do we know, nor can we know, of the existence of 'massless' particles which have no effect on any observable phenomenon.
Truly, only God can see "all that there is" all at once. Only He speaks objective Truth.
Man is not the measure of God.
On your other point about what energy "is" etc - I must demur because, like our previous attempts to discuss dimensionality, I tend to speak in classic terms and our conversation would be confusing to lurkers.
Jeepers, it looks like the late Professor Mayr may have wanted to impose a "separate but equal" doctrine on the natural sciences!
This makes absolutely no sense to me at all. After all, all biological systems — living beings — have a physico/chemical basis and are thus susceptible to the action of the universal physical laws, though evidently they are not wholly determined by them. Still, how could a biological theory be considered "complete" if it omits the "physical" aspect of the problem from its purview?
Thank you so much for your kind words of support, dearest sister in Christ, and for posting the Patee excerpt! I find it very telling....
And you A-G replied: "Indeed. That is the point of the evolution of the biosphere or planet as 'one.'... And the same is true of the universe. If there were no resonance in the three-helium reaction at the precise thermal energy of a star’s core, there would be no life at all. And so on..."
Thank you ever so much for your outstanding essay, dearest sister in Christ! Like you and hosepipe, I see "the big picture" here, compared to which Darwin's evolution theory is but a mere "slice" of Reality. it's not even "general" for evolution writ large; i.e., at the universal level, let alone the planetary.
Certainly it has no theory of Man, who is a biological organism. I keep harping on that; but to me it's important. Because it doesn't, fools are led to believe that Man is "only" just the "smartest animal" on the block. At the same time, may your deity help you if you should ever suggest that Man is the culmination of the Tree of Life!
Yes I do believe that is the "standard" definition. But there are living beings that would then be inexplicable on that basis, for instance, mules.
Rod Swenson is affilated with the Center for the Ecological Study of Perception and Action, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. I have read several of his papers, and find him a most engaging read.
RE: the above italics. Again, my "beef" with Darwin's theory is that it has no theory of Man, who is a biological organism. You point to the reason that this is so: You put sociology outside the evolutionary domain. And yet perhaps the most astonishingly successul adaptation in biological evolution, one that created astounding fitness value for homo sapiens sapiens relative to the rest of the biosphere, was a "social" selection: male-female bonding. This was the foundation of the family, itself the basic social unit eventually extending to clan, tribe, nation, and so forth.
This is an example of something I drew your attention to earlier, that man displays a facility for transforming the evolutionary space in which he himself evolves. Darwin's theory does not address this question. Therefore, I maintain that it is an incomplete theory.
Thank you, dear Sister, for another "A-G 'keeper'"!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.