|
Author
|
Topic: How has Darwinism persisted?
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 29. April 2007 21:46
Cindy
Curious about your self description: quote:
"a determinist/materialist proponent of ID"
and
"Science cannot, currently, test for materialism."
I understand ID to be explicitly testing whether materialism is sufficient or showing where it is insufficient to explain biotic systems or abiotic systems. e.g., Dembski's filter.
In particular, Dembski's filter distinguishes Intelligent Design by what is not determined (order or natural law) or random.
Darwinism tries to explain such design by waving a wand at Random Mutation and Natural Selection.
That begs the question: While some "mutations" are random, are all "mutations" random? Or are some "designed"?
Correspondingly, form what origin does Darwinism claim "Natural Selection"? i.e., it is built on the assumption of self replicating biotic systems.
But what evidence is there for abiogenesis?
Furthermore, population models reveal that there is not the remotest possibility for "Natural Selection" actually securing the very large number of "mutations" needed for creating new species within the entire known universe or all time.
Even more devastating is that Natural Selection cannot even sustain a species from oblivion due to accumulating harmful mutations.
See John Sanford, Genomic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. (2005)
IP: Logged
|
|
Cindy S. Clark
Member
Member # 5016
|
posted 29. April 2007 22:42
nosivad,
I wish I could reply to your post, but I'm not sure I understand what you said. Is English not your first language? Or, perhaps, you are like me and inadvertently edited out something that was needed for the sake of clarity?
IP: Logged
|
|
Cindy S. Clark
Member
Member # 5016
|
posted 29. April 2007 23:38
David,
I'm not sure I understand your post either. Perhaps I am tired. I had to mow today. I hate mowing.
Is it true? What you said? Is ID science dependent on disproving materialism? THAT would be a disappointment.
I know the materialism/ID thing seems a contradiction, but it isn't. I simply don't think they negate each other. Neither will ever be proven or disproven. Short of a designer stepping up and confessing, it just can't be done. And very little can be done by their attacking each other. We CAN, however, discover flaws in our thinking. Isn't that what science is?
Those who believe can't discover. All they can do is seek evidence that supports, and avoid evidence that contradicts, their beliefs. As long as belief passes for knowledge, it's hopeless. Discovery requires ignorance. Well...let's say it requires acknowledged ignorance. If just plain ignorance was all it took, I reckon we'd be drowning in a sea of discoveries.
I guess that's the ax I have to grind. I am ignorant and starving for data. I'm not married to my current position. No one would be happier than me if it was proven to be totally without merit. But that can't happen as long as science is being used to validate and/or attack personal beliefs. That's what I hate. The hijacking of science. And mowing. I really don't like mowing.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 30. April 2007 08:41
Quote David: I understand ID to be explicitly testing whether materialism is sufficient or showing where it is insufficient to explain biotic systems or abiotic systems. e.g., Dembski's filter.
Quote Cindy: Is it true? What you said? Is ID science dependent on disproving materialism? THAT would be a disappointment.
At least IMO, the science of ID deals with intelligent goal-directed causation.
Lots of people, including most ID supporters equate intelligent goal-directed causation with some type of metaphysical and non-material phenomenon. Lots of people also equate the causal relationships described by theories in physics as describing real physical or material phenomenon.
Contrary to what most people believe, science, at least real science or hard science deals with the testing, refinement and practical application of non-trivial testable predictive theories. At the heart of every real scientific theory is a deterministic algorithm of the general form F(C1, C2,..,CN)=E where C1,…CN represent quantifiable causal variables and E represents a quantifiable effect variable.
In terms of real predictive science, the question of materialism comes down to questions about theories involving deterministic algorithms of the general type F(M,G, C)=E where M represents mental or metaphysical or non-material causes, G represents goal variables and C represents more traditional causal variables.
A lot of historical ID was based on the well documented fact that do date no one has been able to come up with valid non-trivial predictive theories of evolutionary change that fit algorithms the form F(C)=E . More specifically, a lot of historical ID was based on the observation that there were no valid evolutionary theories based of the F(C)=E type where C involves random mutations and natural selection. Most of the advocates of historical ID argued or believed that “If evolution can’t be explained by F(C)=E then scientific explanations must involve algorithms of the form F(M,C)=E
Almost no one involved in the evoluation debate seems to be interested in the alternative explanation which is “If non-trivial predictive theories of evolution of the form F(C)=E can not be formulated, then non-trivial predictive theories of evolution must have the form F(G,C)=E” . In a more general form, “All non-trivial predictive theories of causal involving intelligent causation must algorithms of the form F(G,C) =E and any causal relationship involving intelligent causation can be expressed as a non-trivial predictive theory using algorithms of the form F(G,C)=E”. Non-trivial predictive theories using algorithms of the form F(G,C)=E are generally labeled teleological theories or intelligence based teleological theories.
Once it is recognized that evolutionary processes can be addressed scientifically using teleological theories, the issue of materialism comes down to the question of whether or not goal variables are considered material or non-material. From a scientific perspective, there are no meaningful differences between teleological and traditional non-teleological variables. Therefore if you decide to define teleological variables as material, then ID becomes a material science. If you decide to define goal variables as immaterial, then physics becomes an immaterial science.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. April 2007 18:06
Bye Cindy.
IP: Logged
|
|
Cindy S. Clark
Member
Member # 5016
|
posted 30. April 2007 20:24
Bye nosivad.
Life Engineer:
We don't exactly speak the same language either. LOL!
However, if you are saying that evolutionists don't want to think about the vast sea of purpose they're swimming in, then I agree.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 30. April 2007 21:22
Lifeengineer
quote:
From a scientific perspective, there are no meaningful differences between teleological and traditional non-teleological variables.
I don't follow.
The problem with materialism is it a priori presumes there are no teleological causes or that they cannot be tested. Thus Darwinism is assumed to be true as the only option regardless.
Contrast:
Posit tests that distinguish between teological variables from teological sources that can be tested based on empirical evidence.
I believe there is a major difference.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 01. May 2007 09:18
David,
Quote: The problem with materialism is it a priori presumes there are no teleological causes or that they cannot be tested. Thus Darwinism is assumed to be true as the only option regardless.
Your statements pretty well summarizes many of the major misconceptions regarding Darwinism, science, and teleology.
First, I am not sure what materialism really means. Some people seem to interpret materialism as anti-teleology and some people seem to interpret materialism as naïve realism. As far as I can tell most interpretations of materialisms don’t have much to do with science.
Second, it is important to remember that science recognizes the existence of two types of teleological causation. The first type of teleological causation is the ‘god did it’, unobservable, untestable, and/or magical forms goal directed causation. Science does not reject the existence or possible existence of such causes, but it does assert that scientific theories can not be based on untestable causes. The second type of teleological causation is that involving clearly definable and measurable goal or goal expectation variables. Despite a lot of misleading rhetoric to the contrary, real science has always accepted the validity of this second type of teleological causation.
Third, Darwinian theories have always, despite numerous attempts to deny it, been teleological theories. Darwinian theories predict ‘under ideal conditions, evolutionary changes can be predicted by the goal of survival’.
Quote: Posit tests that distinguish between teological variables from teological sources that can be tested based on empirical evidence.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. But relative value of teleological theories and models versus non-teleological theories and models is determined by testing the predictions produced by teleological algorithms of the general type, F(G, C)=R versus the predictions produced by non-teleological algorithms of the general type F(C)=E. When you are dealing with intelligent systems and processes associated with living systems, there will essentially always be a teleological algorithm and theory that will produce better predictions than non-teleological algorithms and theories.
The starting point for understanding the relative merits of teleological and non-teleological theories is to understand the processes of defining and quantifying the variables used in predictive theories. A surprising number of people seem to have trouble learning the concepts associated with defining and quantifying variables.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 11. May 2007 13:39
LifeEngineer
I think I agree with your final comments on testability of teleological relative to non-teleological algorithms. The difficulty is when people refuse to even allow teleological options.
On Materialism, I recommend starting with the definition in the ISCID Encyclopedia: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Materialism
quote:
Materialism
Materialism in philosophy is a form of physicalism which claims that existence is entirely explainable in material terms, or that matter (its forms and interactions) are all that exists. Thus materialism denies existence to spiritual realms and entities entirely, and relies upon cause and effect only as far as these can be quantified to properties of matter itself to explain all observable phenomena.
Materialism is opposed to both spiritualism and positivism, and was developed primarily by the Greek atomists. Epicurian materialism was described in a didactic poem by the Roman philosopher Lucretius, and the philosophy has pitted itself throughout its existence against all spiritual theologies of interfering or creating deities. Modern science relies upon assumptions arising from philosophical materialism for its considerable power in explaining natural phenomena in terms of physical processes that can be initiated and/or controlled by human beings for practical purposes.
Many philosophers fault modern science for its attempts to apply materialism to questions it cannot address in any way other than simple denial of experience, which includes denial of human consciousness and free will. Such qualitative attributes of matter are instead said to be either reducible to the deterministic interactions of matter, or emergent from the complexities of the interactions of matter.
Please reconsider your assertion:
quote:
The first type of teleological causation is the ‘god did it’, unobservable, untestable, and/or magical forms goal directed causation. Science does not reject the existence or possible existence of such causes, but it does assert that scientific theories can not be based on untestable causes.
This appears to be equivocation and false dichotomy. "god did it" may or may not be "unobservable, untestable". If there is a God, and he interacts with nature, then his interactions or interventions would be observable and possibly testable. This Judeo-Christian worldview holds that God both communicates, and interacts. One time occurrences have observable phenomena that can be scientifically tested. e.g. see the Shroud of Turin which has undergone more than 250,000 hours of scientific examination. See: http://www.shroud.com
Similarly, predicted interactions or "prophecy" can be examined for evidence of corresponding phenomena and thus be statistically testable.
Correspondingly, "magical" may refer to a non-natural entity, slight of hand, or assertion. The first wo should exhibit testable phenomena, and be distinguishable from the latter.
[quote}real science has always accepted the validity of this second type of teleological causation. [/quote]
This begs the question of whether Darwinism or ID are "real science". Much of the current furor is caused by those holding to "materalism" who explicitly deny a priori that such teleological causation could exist, and thus that any appeal to such is a priori non-scientific.
See the definition of Teleology in ISCID Encyclopedia.
quote:
Teleology
The word "teleology" means the study of ends. The Greek word telos---like the English word "end," as well as the French word fin and similar words in other languages---can mean either a simple conclusion or an aimed-at result. Teleology has to do with ends in this second sense---the sense of goals or purposes---as when one speaks of "the means to an end." Nowadays, the term is often used to designate end-related phenomena themselves, and not just their study. Thus, the word "teleology" most often refers to aims, goals, intentions, designs, purposes, and similar phenomena. It is one of the most controversial terms in our contemporary lexicon, amounting virtually to a swear word in some influential academic circles. The reason is that many scientists, philosophers, literary scholars, and others view it as a mark of intellectual honor to deny the existence of teleological phenomena. etc
quote:
Third, Darwinian theories have always, despite numerous attempts to deny it, been teleological theories.
The common understanding is that Evolution is non-teological by Darwin's foundational principles:
quote:
Of course, there is no purpose in evolution, just random mutations within DNA,. . .
Rick Groleau, Evolution in Action
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/evolution.html
Your claim:
quote:
evolutionary changes can be predicted by the goal of survival’.
appears to be another assertion and/or equivocation of the meaning of "teleological". This is contrary to all common understandings of teleological relating to purpose and intentionality of the causation - not our interpretation of the consequences.
Please show any example of a priori Darwinian prediction of survival, compared to after the fact circular claim that evolution resulted in survival, and it survived, therefore evolution must have occurred.
More importantly, show where any "selfish gene" gave physical direction and causation with an intention of achieving survival - rather than anthropological interpretation of data caused by random mutations.
I look forward to your positing and testing for teleology in the universe vs materialistic natural causes in a closed system.
[ 11. May 2007, 13:45: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. May 2007 14:07
Life Engineer
Since when can a "random walk" have a goal? What is teleological about Gould's claim -
"intelligence was an evolutionary accident,"
or his comparison of evolution with
"a drunk lurching back and forth between the gutter and the barroom door,"
or with
"Full House" the book where that comment was made. The essence of Darwinism is certainly not teleological by the wildest stretch of the imagination, even your imagination. Words have meaning and you should use them with more care. Darwinism is the antithesis of teleology, in blind defiance that there was ever a purpose in any aspect of the origin and subsequent evolution of life. Indeed, that is its greatest and most flagrant failure. How any thinking person can still believe any aspect of the Darwinian model escapes me entirely.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. May 2007 15:20
David,
You provide some interesting definitions/descriptions of materialism and teleology. Let me preface my comments by saying that I am far from a fan of literature based definitions. The term materialism seems to usually be associated with the unscientific concept of naïve realism or ‘the world really exists the way scientists describe it’. Real science, by contrast, deals with complex constructs involving quantified variables, functional/causal relationships, and predictive theories. I really have a hard time seeing how materialism actually relates to real scientific constructs.
Quote: Thus materialism denies existence to spiritual realms and entities entirely, and relies upon cause and effect only as far as these can be quantified to properties of matter itself to explain all observable phenomena.
I don’t know about materialism, but I don’t think that science denies the existence of spiritualism. What real science asserts, is that scientists can analyze the world and solve practical problems using observable variables. Real science most emphatically does not claim to be able to explain all observable phenomena. I believe this has clearly been proved to be impossible.
It seems to me that quite a bit of the confusion that exists surrounding materialism arises from a failure to recognize the very real constraints that exist with respect to human knowledge. Humans and humans using scientific techniques can not achieve anything approaching perfect or complete god-like knowledge. Science is set of rules designed not to create god-like knowledge. Rather it is a somewhat cumbersome but effective procedure (if properly followed) for preventing human authority figures from imposing silly misinterpretations on observable evidence.
Science is about finding and validating sets predictive relationships that are sufficiently reliable to permit us to design solutions to practical problems. Science, IMO, does not deny the existence of spiritualism. Science simply recognizes the limited human ability to address such issues.
Quote: If there is a God, and he interacts with nature, then his interactions or interventions would be observable and possibly testable.
If there is a God who wishes to communicate with humans in a manner that we can understand then I don’t imagine she would have any problem doing it. It, as most theologians seem to suggest, God is or desires to remain a mystery to man then I assume he will succeed in remaining a mystery. No test developed by a feeble human intelligence is likely to see through a veil that God doesn’t desire us to see through.
I also have a hard time accepting the idea that there ‘truths’ that some God insists we accept but that are in direct conflict with hard science theories and testing. I find it easy to accept and understand that there are silly human beliefs that academics give the label scientific theory that are in conflict with testing. I also find it easy to accept that there are silly human beliefs that certain human religious leaders label as ‘Gods truth’ that contradict the results of hard science testing. My personal belief system accepts the ‘current truth’ a testable predictive scientific theories and reject any beliefs presented by human authorities that contradict current scientific truth.
I'll address your question on teleolgoy in a second post.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. May 2007 15:45
David,
Quote: Please show any example of a priori Darwinian prediction of survival, compared to after the fact circular claim that evolution resulted in survival, and it survived, therefore evolution must have occurred. More importantly, show where any "selfish gene" gave physical direction and causation with an intention of achieving survival - rather than anthropological interpretation of data caused by random mutations.
Lets take out the Darwinian and selfish gene and look at the question of whether teleological theories can ‘predict’ evolutionary changes under new or novel conditions. More directly relevant from a scientific perspective, can a teleological theory produce a better or more reliable or more accurate prediction than any competing non-teleological theory.
If, as a simple example, we perform a selective breeding experiment to increase the some dimension such as height or length, will the resulting changes in the lengths of individual bones and internal organs be 1) randomly distributed, 2) follow a simple proportions or 3) be mostly compatible with efficient functioning of the newly evolved organism.
Just so you aren’t kept waiting, a group of people at Duke did some testing and that across the full range of evolutionary changes in animals, they found that all known species, evolved forms and observed variations in evolved forms were all compatible with the goal of efficient locomotion.
I know this doesn’t answer all your questions, but I hope it is a starting point for further discussion. On one level, teleological theories are simple and easy to understand. On a more formal level the concepts involved get quite complex.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 12. May 2007 23:02
LifeEngineer
Thanks for the comments.
I believe your example ideally demonstrates Intelligent Design through selective breeding.
The results of the Duke experiment fit very well with Intelligent Design of the relative proportions for locomotion with variations allowed about those proportions, (even though they were attributed to "evolution").
The key issue in "teleology" vs "materialism" is the causation, as to whether the cause of the change is planned and directed by intelligence, or is random (stochastic) per the natural laws.
That intelligent persons can posit teleological causes or random natural causes does not make the theory teleological.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 13. May 2007 10:41
Quote: The key issue in "teleology" vs "materialism" is the causation, as to whether the cause of the change is planned and directed by intelligence, or is random (stochastic) per the natural laws. That intelligent persons can posit teleological causes or random natural causes does not make the theory teleological.
It is interesting that both mainstream academics and traditional ID supporters want to limit limit the concept of teleology to the scientifically unacceptable spiritual or magical form. Neither side is willing to accept scientific teleological causation and teleological theories involving human defined goal variables.
The scientific solution to both human inteligence and design by intelligence evolution depends on acceptance and understanding of scientific teleology. The fact that both biologists and traditional IDists are unwilling to consider scientific solutions to the issue probably explains why the Darwin versus ID debate remains unresolved.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic