Posted on 01/13/2003 10:33:14 AM PST by Heartlander
|
John G. West, Jr. Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology January 9, 2003 |
| Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
|
Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle dealing with national and international affairs. The Institute is dedicated to exploring and promoting public policies that advance representative democracy, free enterprise and individual liberty. For more information visit Discovery's website at http://www.discovery.org. Please report any errors to webmaster@discovery.org |
According to evolution theory, natural selection is not intelligently directed (so far this is an untestable notion), but it's not exactly random either.
Out of curiosity --- since the genetic code features autonomous self-organizing complexity, why would you say it does not possess intelligence?
[Intelligence is defined as the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations]
Question-begging and just nuts. Sorry. Using anthropomorphic language to describe nature is not proof that nature was made by an old man with a long beard.
The self-organizing exhibited by DNA molecules is essentially no different than the sudden crystalization exhibited by a super-saturated salt solution. It's a natural physical process. I wouldn't describe either as "intelligent." (Well, the processes really are technically different, but the self-assembly is still striking when you see it.)
I am using the term mutation at the "A" level. Not all mutations are random. For instance, some are reactions to invading viruses, some are to changes in the environment, some are provoked by researchers in medicine. This ability to mutate exists and therefore I assert it is not always random.
I was specifically challenging your assertion that the theory of evolution was predicated on random mutation. There are other sources of genetic variation.
Exactly! So what is the big offense at telling K-12 students that the theory of evolution does not necessarily mean that speciation was the result of random events?
It's the truth, isn't it?
Strictly speaking, even the "random" parts are chaotic and not exactly random. You can't tell in advance what mutations will happen, but that's because you don't know what cosmic ray will hit what germ-line cell in what spot. Nevertheless, the behavior would be deterministic if you could know.
Natural selection by its very nature is a bias. After all, the second word is "selection." Even there, it may be difficult to anticipate what all the real-world selection criteria--"pressures"--are.
The joint operation of mutation and selection is neither random nor a "The-survivors-survive" tautology. It is a tendency toward adaptation to current conditions. What would be wrong with giving the K12ers a reasonably simple and accurate characterization rather than someone's antagonistic caricature?
Your concept of God ?
Using anthropomorphic language to describe nature is not proof that nature was made by an old man with a long beard.
I never said that nature was made by an old man with a long beard and neither did the Discovery Institute.
What is natural about autonomous, self-organizing complexity characterized by symbols, recursives, process and conditionals? Where in nature can I see this happen, except with regard to biological systems?
By this definition, plants are intelligent. Some species of plants produce thorns in response to physical stimulus. From here:
It depends on how it's presented. If the presentation is nothing more than sort of planting a "sleeper" issue that can be triggered at some point to slip in ID, then I'm opposed. Mutations seem to be random, within the constraints of the underlying chemistry. Whether speciation occurs will depend on environmental factors which are entirely understandable (isolation of mutated individuals, etc.). But to say "not necessarily random" is to slip in the subliminal suggestion that something supernatural may be involved. That's sloppy writting. (Or deliberately clever writing, depending on one's intent.)
The self-organizing exhibited by DNA molecules is essentially no different than the sudden crystalization exhibited by a super-saturated salt solution.
I don't see autonomy, symbols, conditionals, recursives and processes in its self-organizing complexity. There is no life there, no replication, no awareness of external friend or foe. I'd say they are absolutely different.
What would be wrong with giving the K12ers a reasonably simple and accurate characterization rather than someone's antagonistic caricature?
Tell the kids the truth, the whole truth, without any prejudice - and let them figure it out themselves. Then maybe we'll have a generation of good, critical thinkers that don't have to be intellectually spoon-fed all their lives.
You are seeing computer coding constructs in the DNA "code." That's nice. I assume, for instance, that codons themselves are the "symbols" for their aminos and regulatory genes are the "conditionals" or something like that. I don't know what you mean to correspond to recursive routine calls in the DNA context, or even what you're talking about at all with "process" but I get your drift.
You start simple and crude, with any sort of self-replicator molecule. It isn't DNA at all. It's probably something closer to RNA. It has essentially none of the lovely properties you cite, but all it really needs is a somewhat imperfect self-replication. That's enough for evolution to occur. Where selection pressures favor greater complexity, greater complexity will result.
If you can get to here by scenarios based upon simple self-replicators, how does "being here" show intelligent design?
By this definition, plants are intelligent.
Exactly! Life - even plant life - is a wonderful thing to ponder.
It depends on how it's presented.
Exactly! That's been the beef all along with the school boards and the parents and intelligent designers.
Tell the kids the truth, the whole truth, without any prejudice - and let them figure it out themselves.
I don't disagree with you on that, but I think intelligence is a bit more involved than stimulus-response.
You start simple and crude, with any sort of self-replicator molecule. It isn't DNA at all. It's probably something closer to RNA. It has essentially none of the lovely properties you cite, but all it really needs is a somewhat imperfect self-replication. That's enough for evolution to occur.
That's where you run right into a brick wall, Vade! The process of RNA editing itself requires autonomy and state changing (i.e. programming.) It has all the characteristics of a finite state machine:
Rest assured that Rocha and others are trying, very hard, to show how abiogenesis could possibly happen. But his document above is the best and most frank discussion of issues known to me.
On the top-down analysis, Yockey has made a convincing case that life must be taken as an axiom, and now a prize is being offered for a plausible mechanism: Discussion
I don't disagree with you on that, but I think intelligence // science is a bit more involved than non stimulus-over response.
Good explanation of Evolution // atheism !
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.