Posted on 11/01/2005 6:27:26 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
We can never understate the Light in darkness metaphor - whether Genesis, the Sermon on the Mount, the Gospel of John, the Epistles or Plato's cave.
Understanding comes from the Light, it illuminates all who live in the Light. There is no single mind in darkness, those who dwell there cannot see. But we have the mind of Christ - the Light of the world - and thereby together in the body of Christ are led into Truth.
We speak of Spiritual matters which may be troubling or incomprehensible to those who are still in darkness, but it is our duty and honor to be a vessel for the Light to shine in the darkness.
How can there be any understanding in darkness?
Very wise counsel..
Wise counsel also..
A highly interesting post, as always.
I'm not sure you're entirely correct on this point, however, in the sense that I don't think it's an entirely a "non-phenomenal" matter. Or, at least, one can point to specific phenomena that seem to be closely related to the issues you've raised.
Your discussion of "organic units" touches upon a seldom-discussed facet of this whole "ID vs. Evolution" debate (even though it does inform Behe's ideas of irreducible complexity). Namely, there is a "system-level" aspect to the problem that is hard to address by appealing to individual mutations that may or may not be advantageous.
Consider the human endocrine system. For many functions there are highly specialized cells in one part of the body that produce a hormone in response to signals sent by other highly specialized cells elsewhere in the body, which enables the body to begin some other process that enables yet another process. For example, my son is diabetic, which has forced me to learn at least a little bit about insulin, and how it fits in with metabolism. It's part of an amazingly complex, precise, and delicately balanced system that enables glucose to be properly processed by the body.
It's tempting in these "ID vs. Evolution" threads to focus on individual bits of DNA and the changes therein; however, this is again quite suggestive of the elephant analogy. The real question, of course, is to explain the development of highly specialized, multi-component systems -- whether it be by hypothesizing the actions of a designer, or by proposing that it came as a result of individual undirected changes in small bits of DNA.
The latter is, of course, the predominant view, but (at least on these threads) there is a strong tendency to leave out the other side of the equation, which is that the "undirected DNA change" has to be accompanied by a mechanism that can reliably translate the mutation into something useful, such as the pancreatic beta cell for the production of insulin, plus the various pieces of the metabolic process that rely on insulin.
It's difficult (for me, anyway) to construct scenario by which an enormously complex system like this comes about by a series of random individual changes -- especially in a system that contains other enormously complex systems with which it must be compatible. The dangers of incompatibility are highlighted by the fact that my son's diabetes came from the immune system selectively objecting to the existence of those pesky beta cells.
The "evolution side" of the debate is constrained to treat this "system-level" aspect as an explicit example of "phenomenal reality." It is not necessary to agree with Behe's conclusions to acknowledge that he's brought up the very important point that evolutionary theory often does not provide rigorous answers to these system-level questions.
Amen to that, Alamo-Girl! Thank you so very much for posting the charming blind men + elephant tales. Isn't it amazing how "multi-cultural" this fable is?
I certainly agree with you about the central importance of the Great Hierarchy of Being -- God-Man-World-Society -- as the context in which and by which things can be truthfully understood.
Thank you so much for writing, dear Alamo-Girl!
Thank you so much for your excellent post, r9etb!
You wrote that I may not be entirely correct with respect to my comments about non-phenomenal reality. Maybe you are correct about this, r9etb. Certainly the examples you give of "system-level" relations seem to entail phenomena. For as you wrote, "the 'undirected DNA change' has to be accompanied by a mechanism that can reliably translate the mutation into something useful, such as the pancreatic beta cell for the production of insulin, plus the various pieces of the metabolic process that rely on insulin."
The point I was trying to get at, however, is that the ultimate system-level is the universe itself: The universe appears to be ordered and purposeful. That is, it is "lawful," and its laws may derive from yet deeper principles. (People have been known to vehemently disagree with me over this issue, as it is their right to do.)
It seems to me the ultimate system-level cannot be an object of intentionalist consciousness, however, since the intending consciousness is part and participant in it. To put it crudely, to my understanding, non-phenomenal existents cannot be subjected to the type of tests for which the scientific method is famous. Since the universe itself cannot be reduced to fit the intentionalist method, I think it partakes of the non-phenomenal with respect to this particular aspect. Likewise history is "non-phenomenal" in this sense: We do not know its future course, so we clearly do not have an object for intentionalist consciousness about which reliable propositions can be advanced. Likewise the concept of "human race," for another example, partakes of the non-phenomenal in a certain fashion. And then there is the case of the individual human person, who also partakes of the "non-phenomenal" as a "component" or dimension of his being.
Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here....
Thank you ever so much for writing, r9etb!
What an astoundingly penetrating insight, Amos!
Certainly I don't believe that Truth emerges from "dialectics." Perhaps the most spectacular inversion of truth and reality (which takes its base in Truth) I have ever seen was accomplished by means of "dialectics." (Hegel's Phenomenologie. FWIW.) I am convinced that the entire technique of dialectics is aimed at dethroning God, and hoisting man up onto the vacant throne....
Thank you ever so much for this excellent essay/post!
A penetrating visual.. and haunting spiritual metaphor..
I can SEE IT.. I can SEE IT..
Doubtful.... ;-) It appears to me that you're basically extending Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem to physical reality. I have no clue if that's permissible, but your approach does seem consistent with Schroedinger's complaint about the difficulties facing an observer trying to get "outside" of the quantum system one is trying to observe. (I can't recall the exact context or wording, nor have I any idea whether his complaints still have weight; but I do recall its similarity to what you're saying....)
OTOH, for the sorts of physical phenomena being discussed in the ID vs. Evolution debate, the "evolution" side must assume that there is nothing except "phenomenal" reality of the sort they can observe. From their perspective, any of the system-level questions must be answerable strictly in phenomenological terms.
In terms of your comment, and the topic of this thread, the question is: is it possible for scientists to "get outside" of evolutionary processes to the point that they can correctly describe the development of something like an endocrine system? That turns out to be an interesting question.
The first possibility is that the process does end up being fully describable in a way that doesn't require an inordinate number of multivariate "happy accidents" and coincidences. In that case, the scientific approach will have triumphed on the topic of "systems evolution." Still, one would have to wonder whether an evolved intelligence could escape the constraints you've laid out to the point where one could understand the evolution of intelligence.
Another possibility is that design actually played a role at some point, for some things. One way to approach this possibility is through the example of my son's insulin. It's manufactured using recombinant DNA techniques, using bacteria and/or yeast. It's an example of intelligent design, albeit ID of a fully human character. The question is: can one use scientific processes, applied "in the blind," in such a way as to properly infer the presence of designers in a process where we a priori know them to have been involved?
I've had answers all over the map on this question ... but in any case, it seems to me that the question itself is perhaps an example of the issue you're raising; and it also seems to offer a way to test your idea on a specific example: does the presence of even a human designer take us into this "non-phenomenal" realm? Or would we expect that an agent's actions on physical objects always leave a mark of some sort, even if we cannot have access to the full characteristics of the agent by which those actions took place?
As it stands now, the "standard" scientific position is apparently that it would be impossible to detect, much less test, the physical traces of design -- apparently even human design -- without having some additional pieces of information besides the products of design. (At least, that's the claim one typically sees on these threads.)
The scientific implication of this position is to place "design" into your "non-phenomenal" universe at a surprisingly close distance. (Of course, the fact that we can easily detect many sorts of design makes me think this stance is not correct, but that's a different discussion.)
On the other hand, if it turns out that one can use scientific methods to infer the presence of a human designer in the test case, then the horizon of the "non-phenomenal" is pushed back somewhat -- and it would also naturally raise the corollary question: "why wouldn't design be detectable, at least in theory?" Of course, one would still be required to provide scientifically acceptable tests whenever a design hypothesis was made, but there would be at least a chance for science to detect design if in fact it had occurred.
Personal Note...
When judgeing apples and oranges, judging the quality of apples by how much orange is in them is CHEATING.. and not wise..
Speaking of "systems evolution," in which highly specialized, multi-component systems supposedly evolved, one wonders why the human eye is sensitive to only a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum - - visible light. Why can't we also see radio waves, microwaves, X-rays and gamma-rays? Logically, we especially need to be aware of the deadlier waves such as gamma, X-ray, just for survival. Why weren't those of us who can’t see those nasty waves (100% of the human population) "naturally" selected out . . .
And surely by now we should have evolved a highly specialized, multi-component system to allow us to function in the dark, since we don’t use the entire night for sleeping. Something like the infrared detector system that snakes use for hunting mice in the dark. Humans like to hunt, too, just a little higher up the food chain.
Gotta go see grandson perform the role of Romeo in his college play. Keep this great little discussion going until I get back, would you please? Herein, Light.
Am in mulling mode (and just about to call it a day), and so hope to write again tomorrow.
Meanwhile, I think your essay is wonderful.
It seems to me that the issue is usually prosecuted as an observation - that the entire (functional) system must appear all at once. Looking backward, it would be called “irreducible complexity” – looking forward, “specified complexity”.
I would suggest that the system level question is already being addressed by those investigating “information theory and molecular biology.”
Information (successful communication) is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. All communication in Shannon's theory entails sender, message, encoding, channel, noise, decoding, receipt.
As your original posts suggests, insulin production results from a signaling process; it is a system – moreover, a functional system which supports the survival of the organism itself (a higher autonomous entity).
IOW, the system is not merely physico-chemical activity– but the communication, the action of signaling – encoding/decoding directed toward the survival of a greater “whole”. These (information, autonomy, semiosis or encoding/decoding, complexity, intelligence) are the “markers” of “intelligent cause” even if the investigators themselves loathe the entire Discovery Institute.
So, yes, I would assert that it is possible to identify "certain features" of life as the result of "intelligent cause" rather than an undirected process.
As a case-in-point, the Urey/Miller experiments of 1950 were something of a Frankenstein experiment, simulating lightning strikes on basic chemicals. They were able to produce about a dozen amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. But scientists in the pre-DNA world didn’t know that life is information-rich. Building blocks are not enough; the amino acids were going nowhere.
But experiments continue to try to create life in a test tube, only now with the understanding that life requires information (successful communication). The most famous experiment might be Wimmer’s creation of the polio virus.
His team did not create the polio virus scratch from the chemicals. Rather they started with a message, and then used life to provoke the virus to make itself. More specifically, they first converted an information sequence from RNA into DNA, which they could synthesize (the RNA could not be synthesized). Then they synthesized back from DNA to RNA, which they put in a cell-free juice, whereupon the virus built itself. The juice was a human cell shredded up with the nucleus, mitochondria, and other large structures within the cell removed.
In my view, their experiment fits the Shannon mathematical theory of communications perfectly. It shows that a message (RNA) can be broadcast as noise (polio virus) by providing the interrupt, the cell-free juice.
It may not however be possible for science to say whether the intelligent cause was a phenomenon (emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence) or an agent (God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, Wimmer's team, etc.) And science should not be required to identify the origin of “intelligent cause” just like it is not required to identify the origin of life in the theory of evolution.
So much for my comments with reference to the question applied to an identifiable "system" in space/time, i.e. biology…
When we ramp the boundary up to the lofty structure of “all that there is”, the “tools” for asking questions change considerably.
For one thing, we cannot apply information theory, physics, geometry and the ilk outside of space/time; and we must look beyond space/time because all such thoughts (cosmology, philosophy, theology) are in context with the beginning, the void. There is no space, no time, no physical laws, no energy/matter, no mathematics, no reason, no qualia etc. and most especially, no physical causation in the void.
For another, we must consider that we as observers are part of the system being observed and effect it perhaps in ways we cannot yet detect; we must be aware of the difference between a thing and the image of it, the discrete and the continuous, absolute or universal and so on.
Moreover, when we ask such questions as ”what is reality?” we run the risk of being blind men trying to describe an elephant. Therefore we must rely on Spiritual revelation, stay in the Light and be aware of the Great Hierarchy of Being. Beyond that we can share thoughts and be open-minded and perhaps make a bit of progress.
My two cents...
So true.. You take a few reluctant "scientific" drama queens and a few aggressive "scientific" drama queens and put them into a thread together and expect progress.. and what you get is not science but drama..
This Cyber Sitcom(Hierarchy of Being) is addictive.. and the players are the audience too.. And you have to be very careful NOT to learn something.. Quite spiritual I would say.. Even trying to leave intact you can get Zapped by one of the spirits by ricochet.. its Qualiatatively dangerous..
Indeed, when the correspondents stay in the Light which is Spirit, one would "have to be very careful NOT to learn something".
I think you missed the point. If you read that paragraph again, you'll note that the case in question was contingent on the scientific determination that design is detectable. It is that condition that confers the "chance" to detect design.
Personal Note...
To see two apples and insist that one of them is an orange because of its color is CHEATING.. and not wise..
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.