Yes, it is pretty amazing, dearest sister in Christ! Yet really, they never argue the point; they just level the accusation, hit-and-run style.
Speaking as a Christian, I have no problem whatsoever with material and efficient causes in nature. These are the stock-in-trade of science. Science also accepts a rather attentuated form of formal cause — initial conditions + the physical laws. What it rules out in principle, however — ever since Francis Bacon — is formal cause, by which Aristotle referred to causal "ends," or purposes. Increasingly it is becoming obvious that biology cannot be done if formal causes continue to be excluded from the scientific method.
Anyhoot, CottShop spoke in an earlier post about Alex Williams' inversely-causal Metainformation, which would be a formal cause. Theoretical biologist Robert Rosen reintroduces formal cause in his relational diagrams as the necessary cause that "closes the causal loop" in complex systems (especially biological ones), such that all causes within the system — formal, material, and especially efficient — take place within the system itself, and not through dependence on causal influences from the surrounding environment. In a multicellular/multi-component system such as a biological organism, this type of "causal closure" would appear to be necessary for the proper organization of the system.
Anyhoot, I'm a Christian, and I just love this stuff!
And I know you do too, my dearest sister in Christ! Thank you ever so much for writing!
I misspoke myself: This statement — "Alex Williams' inversely-causal Metainformation, which would be a formal cause" — should have read "Alex Williams' inversely-causal Metainformation, which would be a final cause."
Ditto with the statement referring to Rosen: "Theoretical biologist Robert Rosen reintroduces final cause in his relational diagrams."
Jeepers, sorry for the careless error! It's late. Time to turn in for the day!
Good night to all and God bless you!
[[In a multicellular/multi-component system such as a biological organism, this type of “causal closure” would appear to be necessary for the proper organization of the system. ]]
I’ll have to read your post over more tomorrow- but just wanted to add that this closed loop entails species specific parameters which prevent going beyond certain measures to ensure the species remains fit and viable and able to thrive- these parameters are also what allows Microevolution to occure within the closed loop- Macroevoltuion apparently demands that the loop not be closed to allow for mega-structural changes- but we know from myriad experiments this isn’t the case now or ever- the species would be moved beyond it’s own species specific capabilities without any species specific metainformation to handle the changes
Or put another way, it's like placing a template down over reality, and everything that shows through is admitted as relevant to one's problem; but the template itself also occludes much from view, which is still very much a part of the reality under investigation.
I hope this makes sense. Sometimes the most obvious things are the most difficult to explain. Go figure!
Anyhoot, if the use of doctrinal templates is what constitutes a "method," then it seems to me it's a pretty bad one. FWIW.
I agree, (and this is what I find disagreeable about science based on Biblical literalism) but submit that this is something of an oversimplification. To say that we put a "template" over reality that occludes parts of it from view implies that without that template those parts would be visible - all we have to do is not apply that template and we'll see it all. Taken in those terms, that appears to be an implicit assertion of materialism - that everything that is there can be perceived, so what we can perceive is all there is.
To say that limitations that are a consequence of the range of our sensory perception are "doctrinal" seems disingenuous.
And of course I strongly agree that biology cannot progress much without dealing with final cause. It is absurd for the biologists to speak in terms of "apparent" functions.
Biological systems are exceedingly well organized; if the liver was not functionally specific, we would be physically dead.
The implied taboo on final causes under methodological naturalism certainly should not apply to biological life.
And I assert it should be lifted altogether. After all, there is nothing scientifically inappropriate in asking whether anything else in the universe appears to be functionally organized.
[[What it rules out in principle, however — ever since Francis Bacon — is formal cause, by which Aristotle referred to causal “ends,” or purposes. Increasingly it is becoming obvious that biology cannot be done if formal causes continue to be excluded from the scientific method.]]
And htis is a key point- The study of biology shows that indeed there is purpose- especially behind species specific metainformation- this is a major problem for the hypothesis of macroevolution, and hte evo simply dismisses purpose- or at best tries to claim unguided mistakes have purpose because the system they are workign on already has the information present to ‘guide’ the mistakes in a purposeful manner, and as the species suppsoedly evolves more and more, the complexity of information builds through trial and error- William’s article on life’s irreducible structures clearly showed that this is impossible- which again, is why evos simply dismiss the whole fact of inversely-causal Metainformation. They dede hierarchy, but claim heirarchy came about in a stepwise fashion without hte help of a metaguide system- or at best, claim the metainformation was trasnfered from nature to the species durign hte process of suppsoed macroevolution, apparently much like a game of red rover (I can’t beleive some i nthe evo field even suggest that- but there ya have it)
[[Science also accepts a rather attentuated form of formal cause — initial conditions + the physical laws. ]]
But they are stuck insisting hte impossible- that nature ‘could provide’ anticipatory information to deal with problems that are bound to arise in the future- so they devise a scenario whereby species, as they supposedly evolved, storing all manner of presently useless information, and when problems do arise, the problems are seived through al lthis stored info until just by chance ‘somethign works’, at which point, it’s retained, and passed along because of the benifit. However, Macroevolution hypothesis tells us that what isn’t useful is discarded, and one would gave to wonder just how many trillions of years it would take, and how many generations it woudl take for this weeding out process to take place by happenstance.
Ruling out formal cause, right fro mthe getgo, certainly isn’t an objective pursuit of science, espeically when we see a plethora of evidence to show that an anticipatory guidance system is inplace, keeping speices fit within species specific paramters.
I think I missed the thread on Rosen’s ‘closed loop’- would you have a link to it as I think htis is also a key to understandign hte heirachal system of metainformation- was the loop referrign to comication of informaiton? or just to the presence of species specific information?