Designed by Natural Selection

About a year and a half ago, I gave a response to an article in the L. A. Times about a book called The Moral Animal--Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright. This response resulted in my commentary called " Did Morals Evolve? " There are some interesting things in this book I want to comment on. Wright's argument is that it is possible to explain all of man's mental and moral development in terms of evolution, "survival of the fittest," and natural selection. One thing he acknowledges is essentially the same point of view held by one of the world's most famous evolutionists, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins makes the point in his watershed book, The Blind Watchmaker , that the world looks designed. He asserts it looks designed--but isn't. He believes natural selection can be invoked to account for all of the things that appear to be consciously design.

Robert Wright unabashedly makes the same point. He uses design language in his descriptions all of the time. He talks about nature wanting certain things and natural selection designing particular things, but then is careful at different points to add the disclaimer that this design is just a manner of speaking because Mother Nature doesn't actually design anything. Natural selection doesn't design anything. There is no mind behind this, no consciousness. It just looks that way. However, since it looks designed, he feels comfortable using design language to describe natural selection as a designer, which is no conscious designer at all.

I think his work might be more honest if he didn't use design language, but it's interesting that he is at least willing to acknowledge that nature does look designed.

Incidentally, I am one who believes that natural selection is a legitimate explanation for many things. I think we can see natural selection at work in the natural realm that does influence the morphological distinctives of populations. The shape of the body is ultimately going to be determined by the genetic makeup of the creature, but whether that phenotype gets passed from generation to generation will be determined by environmental factors--natural selection. And that will then begin to characterize larger groups of the organism.

Basically I believe in what is known technically as the Special Theory of Evolution, or micro -evolution, because it has been demonstrated without question to have occurred. We can observe it happening. This doesn't go against my Christianity or my conviction that God created the world. Darwinian evolution requires macro -evolution, or trans-species evolution.

Any design creationist of any ilk, whether old-earther or young-earther, can hold to this. For example, a population of mosquitoes can be almost entirely wiped out by DDT, except for those few who may be naturally and genetically resistant to that strain of DDT. Then they reproduce a whole strain of mosquitoes that are resistant to that strain of DDT. But this is unremarkable. When I hear these kinds of descriptions of minute changes and small variations within a species attributed to natural selection, I have no problem with that in itself.

The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it, and not by evidence that God could not have done it.

I do have another question regarding the assessment, or acknowledgment, that the world looks designed. If it looks designed, it could be equally explained by either the unconscious "design" of natural selection, as the author argues, or the conscious design of a Creator. If someone looks at the natural realm and observes that it looks designed but thinks that it can be accounted for by natural selection, then they are identifying empirical equivalency between two different explanations. Empirical equivalency means the observable data can be explained by two alternatives equally. In this case, the observation of design can be attributed to natural selection or conscious design. The evidence is equal for both. That's what it means to say that the world looks designed but natural selection can account for it. My question is, why opt for the evolutionary explanation if there are two different explanations that will equally do the job? When you have a question that needs resolution and two empirically equivalent solutions, you must look for some other information to adjudicate between the two. Is there something that can be said for one system over the other that would cause us to choose it as the paradigm which better reflects how the world came to be? What is the compelling evidence that would cause us to opt for a naturalistic explanation over some kind of theistic explanation? Frankly, I know of none. There is only a predisposition to look for a naturalistic explanation that leaves God out. If that is the case, then it needs to be acknowledged.

Why go for natural selection rather than for God? Because God is religion and natural selection is science. Science is seen as fact--and religion as fantasy. If we have a set of physical facts that can be accounted for by a theistic explanation, then you have to have some other information that may cause you to want to dismiss the theistic option. I'm asking "where is the evidence that makes the God option an intellectually untenable one, without bringing in a mere philosophic assumption (namely naturalism)?"

One might rightly ask, where is your evidence that God did it? I can give lots of it. I could give independent evidence that is unrelated to religious authority claims. I can give other evidence why it is reasonable to believe and would be intellectually and rationally compelling to believe that there is a conscious mind behind the universe. I could give cosmological and moral arguments that God is the best explanation for the existence and nature of the universe. Many of these rely on scientific evidence.

Given two options to explain the apparent design features of the universe, one seems to be a bald-faced authority claim -- the non-religious, so-called scientific one.

We have two options--one scientific and one religious--that equally explain the observation of a designed universe. The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it and not by evidence that God could not have done it. However, the design claim that I am making can be further substantiated by other evidence for the existence of God. When push comes to shove, if you are rational, it is more reasonable for you to adopt the conscious design explanation--the God claim. Most people are not going to do that because it is not scientific.

Why does that matter? Because science knows the answer. How do they know the answer? Because God doesn't exist. How do they know that? Because nature did everything. But how do you know that?

That is the question we are trying to ask and there are no rationally sustainable answers forthcoming.

Funny thing is, it turns out the whole thing about the millions of years is a bunch of BS, which most people take on faith merely because they've been hearing and reading it all their lives.

Certainly, anything is possible. Altho studying the archaelogical evidence first-hand has been a hobby of mine for over 30 years, so I can't say my analysis matches yours. But that's the beauty of this world, anything is possible.

Do you agree that species seem to 'evolve' around us all the time? (Micro-evolution, so to speak?)
If so, do you agree that these small changes, given time, can add up to big changes?

Given that you believe the Earth is younger than is commonly thought, do you agree that 'evolution' has indeed occured in species since the beginning of life on Earth -- be that 10,000 or 4+ billion years?

Your "problem" would not apply to a monoethnic colony world...

How long do you figure your little monoethnic world would stay monoethnic? I mean, they say there's less variation in the entire human race than there is in a typical group of 50 African monkeys and you assume that means that the human race got cut down to some tiny number of individuals very recently and then built itself up again. Moreover, given the kinds of time frames which Gunnar Heinsohn, Heribert Illig, Emmet Sweeney and other real experts talk about when dealing with those kinds of questions, it seems unlikely your monoethnic world would last more than three to four thousand years at most. A planet is basically too big a place to have a monoethnic society.

Do you agree that species seem to 'evolve' around us all the time? (Micro-evolution, so to speak?)

Yes, nobody who keeps up with the question disputes microevolution.

If so, do you agree that these small changes, given time, can add up to big changes?

No. In the first place, no amount of time would suffice for macroevolution and, in the second place, the time frames typically claimed by evolutionists are entirely fictional.

Again, microevolution yes, macroevolution, no. I believe the evidence supports the idea that genetic engineering and re-engineering were common things in the world before the flood and that more than one pair of hands was involved in it. It appears obvious to me at least, that the same person or being who designed dogs and cats did not design biting flies, mosquitos, ticks, and chiggers.

-- Sorry, but I'm from the Randi school that says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Also, from the science school that requires at least some nod in passing to the scientific method. I see neither here. --

And you feel comfortable making that claim when all you have seen of the theory is a two paragraph "in a nutshell" description of the theory! My friend, with all due respect, if you do intend to maintain any amount of academic integrity you need to do a little more research before making such comments. It is absolutely ludicrous to come to your conclusion seeing the evidence that you have seen.

Let me give you a little advice, get the book and read it. Once you have seen the evidence then make your decision. If after a serious evaluation of the issue you don't agree with Behe's conclusions, that is fine. At least you will have made an informed decision rather than an irrational move to simply appease your ideological bias.

And you feel comfortable making that claim when all you have seen of the theory is a two paragraph "in a nutshell" description of the theory! My friend, with all due respect, if you do intend to maintain any amount of academic integrity you need to do a little more research before making such comments. It is absolutely ludicrous to come to your conclusion seeing the evidence that you have seen.

I didn't start asking those questions yesterday. You are the one advocating a new theory on the basis of the "irreducible complexity" idea. But the essence of science is repeatable measurements, so where are the measurements here - how is "complexity" measured?

Let me give you a little advice, get the book and read it. Once you have seen the evidence then make your decision. If after a serious evaluation of the issue you don't agree with Behe's conclusions, that is fine. At least you will have made an informed decision rather than an irrational move to simply appease your ideological bias.

At the risk of repeating myself, you have to get over the "trust me" bar first. And I don't think that will be achieved by evangelizing.

And by the same token, creationists are guilty of arguing that because the current accept theory has not been proven that automatically proves theirs.

Nope. Nothing is automatic. Evolution is not just not proven, it is false. It has been proven false by science. There is absolutely no way evolution could have occurred. The reason is that organisms, every feature, every facet of them, is completely intertwined with every other feature so random change to such an organism is totally impossible. If things did not arise at random, then they were designed. There is no other logical alternative.

... which nobody reads. Millions have read Behe's work and to say that it has not been examined by people in the scientific community is absolute nonsense. Are you claiming that the articles against him are by morons whose words should not be accepted as scientifically sound??????

I'm saying it's not the same thing as a formal pre-publication review process.

Not a refutation. Behe's work has been more thoroughly examined than 99.99% of the stuff published in scientific journals. The numerous attempts at refuting his work prove that.

Jerry Coyne, of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, arrives at an unanticipated verdict: "We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." (p 29 darwin's black box)

Apparently you do not understand what the neo-Darwinian view is. The neo-Darwinian view is that evolution is gradual, the sense of the Coyne article is that it is not. Therefore the quote is correct and does not say something contrary to what Coyne said.

Now as I said before, to attack someone for a period! is pretty lame. His work remains regardless of his ethics and his work has not been refuted in spite of numerous attempts at such a refutation and what is important for this discussion is not Behe, but his work.

Strawmen are easy, aren't they? Koukl is an old earth creationist, and nowhere suggested that God recently created the earth, complete with predefined fossil arrangements, with the intent to fool some into thinking that complex and less-complex organisms must share a common ancestry.

No, it's just a simple case of Occam's Razor, as steve-b pointed out in a different sub-thread here. The evidence points to evolution, but it's equally compatible with an infinitely devious trickster god, or a very devious & skilled group of cobbler's elves.

Occam's Razor is misapplied here.

Occam's Razor presupposes an unnecessary plurality: if the simplest (in this case, naturalistic) explanation is sufficient, why inject God (metaphysics) into the equation as an alternative explanation?

Wielding Occam's Razor in this case only works, of course, if the naturalistic explanation IS sufficient - if the evidence for that explanation is found wanting, then waving the Razor amounts to little more than premature waving of the victory flag.

Considering that those having concerns about the various flavors of evolutionary theory are not limited to only what you likely perceive as Bible-thumping fundies, I'd suggest that the "simplest" explanation may not be as ... fundamental... as you'd like. Particularly once one gets past the fossil record (where it's easy to picture one life form just sort of slowly changing over time into something else) and delves deeper into the more complex biochemical interactions that don't appear to lend themselves to Darwinistic mechanisms.

Occam's Razor also presupposes little or no evidence for the more "complex" explanation. Looking outside of the confines of an evolutionary debate could provide evidence supporting a metaphysical alternative to Darwinism (e.g.; the odds against there being any life-supporting body in the universe , who was Christ, what is the evidence for a resurrection, what are the evidences/philosophical arguments for dualism, the continued failure to satisfactorily explain abiogenesis, etc.)

Your task is to come up with positive evidence for these elves/tricksters.

Not today, thanks!

What would falsify ID? I've asked before and had no answer.

Evolution is easily falsifiable. This has been posted many times. Rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian rocks would do it.

Behe's book has stuff taken out-of-context; partial sentences put as though they were whole sentences. Behe has been called on this but he waffles. I have heard Behe talk. He seems to me to be just a charlatan. His examples were poor and he continued to complain that his critics were against him because of religion. After hearing his presentation, I have to conclude that he took the quotes out-of-context on purpose.

Please read the web page carefully and identify who the "designer" in ID is. It is intentionally not identified because that is a theological issue.

Well, on this page they call the designer "God"...

#4. Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, all these isms, what do they have to do with me and my life?

Materialism is a powerful philosophy of life today because it sets the boundaries for what is right and wrong in society. It explains the ''rules'' that govern our civilization. It goes to the very intellectual roots of society, the very foundation that our social and cultural institutions are built upon.

Indeed, if materialism is right -- as most intellectuals propose -- then ''God'' is merely a figment of our imagination. Therefore, God didn't create man; man created God. Doestoyevsky once said that ''if God is dead then all things are lawful. '' Might makes right. The State is the ultimate enforcer of rules.

Let's look at how materialism has infected the legal system, welfare and popular culture.

Evolution is easily falsifiable. This has been posted many times. Rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian rocks would do it...

Not really, at least not within my experience. The evos would just have the guy who found the rabbit fossils rubbed out and find some way to destroy the fossils or, equivalently, flood the media with denunciations of the guy, the organization he worked with, and the rabbit.

By all rights, several of Ed Conrad's findings in Northern Pa. should more than suffice. The mammalian or near-mamalalian lower canine tooth in the image here:

for instance ought to kill the standard paradigm stone dead. That was found in carboniferous strata, and no large land animals of any sort were supposed to exist at that time. Moreover, the tooth is not serrated and is clearly not that of a shark or any sort of reptile. The hand in the picture is mine, and I'm about 6-4, 240; figure the size of the cat or bear who originally owned the tooth accordingly.

Again, microevolution yes, macroevolution, no.

But isn't it a basic truth that a bunch of small changes add up to equal big changes?

That seems like a simple, observable fact of life. And seems to prove evolution true, altho I respect your difference of opinion about the time period in which evolution has been occurring.

Our difference of opinion does not appear to be about evolution. You don't seem to disagree about that. The difference of opinion seems to be over the amount of time evolution has been occurring on Earth.

Do you disagree?

The mammalian or near-mamalalian lower canine tooth in the image here: (photo) for instance ought to kill the standard paradigm stone dead. That was found in carboniferous strata, and no large land animals of any sort were supposed to exist at that time. Moreover, the tooth is not serrated and is clearly not that of a shark or any sort of reptile.

The tooth IS clearly that of a shark. Serrations on shark teeth vary from obvious to microscopic. Also, the tooth has the typical flat attachment surface of a shark (probably a Megalodon variant) rather than the deep root necessary to anchor a mammalian canine.

What would falsify ID? I've asked before and had no answer.

[snip]

Exactly. If a group of microbiologists studied his flaggellum example and found a history and precursors and/or DNA/mDNA pre-constructs, it would only invalidate the example and the kooks will just go on and look for a "more-irreducibly-complex" example to tout.

Behe's book has stuff taken out-of-context; partial sentences put as though they were whole sentences. Behe has been called on this but he waffles. I have heard Behe talk. He seems to me to be just a charlatan. His examples were poor and he continued to complain that his critics were against him because of religion. After hearing his presentation, I have to conclude that he took the quotes out-of-context on purpose.

Or he's totally whacky and on a mission from the mysterious ID'er.

-- Evolution is easily falsifiable. This has been posted many times. Rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian rocks would do it. --

Proving that the neo-Darwinian mechanism can't account for the life we see today, as Behe pointed out, would also falsify it. Seeing the evolutionists, like yourself, attack him with a religious ferver without ever seriously addressing the scientific issues raised is evidence that that claim is only lip service.

-- Behe's book has stuff taken out-of-context... --

Give me an example and please explain how it falsifies the scientific evidence he uses to support his theory.

-- where does the "science" part come in?--

If you would read the book you might find out. But then again, that just might challenge your ideology so I don't anticipate you will.

-- "I can't see how this structure evolved, therefore it didn't" which is the same thing as saying "I know it when I see it" or, more explicitly, "trust me". --

Is it more logical to say that "I believe evolution to be true even though it cannot account for the life we find today", or, that "because evolution cannot account for all life forms today I question it".

Your statement that "I can't see how this structure evolved, therefore it didn't" directly implies that it is rational to believe the structure evolved even though the current mechanism can't support it. That is called "blind faith", or, as you say, "trust me". You have engaged in classical circular reasoning by assuming evolution to be true, looking only for the evidence to support it, then using that to prove evolution is true. Your cart before the horse science won't fly in my book.
-- I didn't start asking those questions yesterday. --

So, when did you read Behe's book? If you were already familiar with his work why did you ask me, in a previous post, to explain it as I would to "someone who didn't understand it"? I have a hunch that you haven't

-- You are the one advocating a new theory on the basis of the "irreducible complexity" idea. --

Are you actually serious when you write this stuff? I have repeatedly, I think this is the fourth time, asked you to read Behe's book, where he is the one advocating the new theory, to become more informed on the issue. Instead, you would rather base your belief on a two paragraph synopsis. It is shotty research like yours that caused the space shuttle to explode, airplanes to crash, ships to sink, and bridges to collapse. You need to be more thorough before you come to such dogmatic conclusions.

As much as I would like you to read the book and make an informed decision, I don't anticipate you will. In fact, most Darwinists never will because their naturalistic/atheistic ideology is more important to them than truth in science ever could be.

By the way, there are many other books which illustrate the improbability / impossibility of Darwinism and show how a design oriented universe is a much more plausible theory. However, I don't anticipate you will read those books either.

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.

#4. Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, all these isms, what do they have to do with me and my life?