Posted on 03/07/2009 11:52:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Expelling Design from Biology
Professor Walter Bock introduces his short essay by referring to the letter Darwin wrote to Asa Gray in 1860:
"I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of design".
Ernst Mayr took up the challenge and he also found a tension between his understanding of evolutionary theory and the need to use terms like "design" and "purposefulness". Mayr concluded:
"Given all this, the conclusion is inevitable: we find in all organisms a fitting together of inborn actions or structures so perfect that one can hardly avoid such terms as 'design' or 'purposefulness'."
Bock's discussion seeks to move the thinking of biologists beyond Darwin and Mayr. He points out that "design" is a loaded word. He cannot find a synonym for "design" that does not also incorporate the concept of a designer. Since this implication is not acceptable to Darwinians, Bock wants to remove all references to design from biology:
"the term design carries with it too many undesirable connotations, such as the existence of a creator, and should not be used in evolutionary theory"...
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
Ping!
Thanks for the ping!
A creator is not part of evolutionary theory...and evolutionary theory is rejected by most of those who believe in a Creator. Duh!
Herein lies the dilemma for the evolutionist. He cannot find a neutral word for “design” that conveys order with suitability, without accidentally acknowledging the enormous mental power he suspects is needed to bring this all about. Poor blind man.
They are in quite a conundrum. They can’t help but use the language of design when studying biological organisms, but design implies a designer, which the desperately seek to avoid. You almost feel sorry for them, that is until you realize that their whole enterprise is designed to banish God from His own creation.
==Poor blind man.
Ouch!...and yet, SO TRUE.
Excellent post.
Interesting strategy - elevate someone from 150 years ago and equate him with all modern biology so you can impeach modern biology.
This tact, used in this source, appears to be a touch less than scrupulous.
If you see a skyscraper, you see design and think of an architect. If you see an automobile, you see design and think of an engineer (and bailouts nowadays!). Why is it so different to look at living organisms made up of billions of cells, each tiny one extremely complex in and of itself, meticulously working with all the others to allow for life, and see design and a Designer?
Statistically, it is millions of times more probable to take the parts of a car, drop them into a huge bucket and come out with an aesthetically pleasing, working automobile than it is for a single living organism to have “just happened” through random chance.
If you see a skyscraper, you see design and think of an architect. If you see an automobile, you see design and think of an engineer (and bailouts nowadays!). Why is it so different to look at living organisms made up of billions of cells, each tiny one extremely complex in and of itself, meticulously working with all the others to allow for life, and see design and a Designer?
Statistically, it is millions of times more probable to take the parts of a car, drop them into a huge bucket and come out with an aesthetically pleasing, working automobile than it is for a single living organism to have “just happened” through random chance.
You need to be created before you can evolve.
This simple truth reveals that no one can give
a legitimate reason for not believing in God
because the world (creation) reveals Him.
The resolution to Darwin’s quandry is simple: take the view of Maimonides regarding the opening of Genesis: the only verse that actually says anything about creation is “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
The biosphere is an environment designed to produce tremendous variety of life more-or-less automatically. The staunchest defenders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis almost admit as much when they point to genetic algorithms as experimental confirmation that a Darwinian mechanism can lead to novel complexity: the algorithms aren’t designed, the environment in which the evolve (the computer, the mathematical instantiations of ‘fitness’, the mechanism by which they change (albeit with stochatic elements purpose-built into it) are all designed).
Cover your eyes and tell G_d he doesn't exist. He could use a good laugh.
Don’t bother. Die-hard darwinists will only counter the probability argument by extending the time window into the millions/billions/trillions/uber-illions of years in some deluded “logic” that if they have enough time, the impossible becomes not quite so.
True. The overall majesty of creation may generate enough guilt to condemn each man for not acknowledging a Creator(according to Romans 1:20), but there should still be in me the great and awesome fear that we are able to notice this Creator is the God of Israel and our Kinsman Redeemer only because He chooses to reveal Himself (Romans 9:16). We stand, because He is able to make us stand.
Examine our tendency to speak of evolutionary processes -- or even complex, chaotic ones -- informally with words connoting intelligent thought.
I guess what I am saying is that evolution, itself, may be the intelligent designer we have been looking for. The problem may be that we try to see a detached, volitional intelligence with preconceived goals when we hear the words. Perhaps the volition is there; perhaps not. But if the process of conceiving goals is itself Darwinian, why does it need to be volitional? Or detached?
Do you believe that God was the creator and that at 4000 BC he set everything in motion?
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.