Darwinism's Last Stand, Parsimony
by Steve PetermannWhile the effectiveness of natural selection in evolution is being questioned by more than just ID proponents, it is the non-intentional (randomness) aspect of the mantra, "random mutations and natural selection" that is the most vulnerable to both scientific and logical attack.
Ultimately the issue of design or non-design is causation. Regarding causation, Darwinists are invariably either ill informed about the philosophy of science or in denial about the tentativeness of their causal presumptions. This is evidenced by the ubiquitous invocation of "natural law" as a non-intentional causal given. The problem with this presumption is that regularity alone is intentionality neutral. As an example in most human systems a basis in regularity (order) is intentionally established so that creative change can occur. What is called "natural law" can just as easily be intentional as non-intentional.
To be scientific let's look to observation. What we find from observing nature is stability and change. There is the nomalous and the anomalous, regularity and irregularity. Once again in human systems, both of these correlate perfectly with an intentional origin. Unless there is evidence to the contrary this should be the default position with biotic systems as well.
When confronted with this challenge the first line of defense of Darwinism is to claim incompleteness, to write promissory notes that eventually the anomalous will disappear with further research. Given the analogical evidence from human systems, this appeal to further research is tantamount to a faith statement rather than a scientific assertion. As William James said:
Round about the accredited and orderly facts of every science there ever floats a sort of dust-cloud of exceptional observations, of occurrences minute and irregular and seldom met with, which it always proves more easy to ignore than to attend to… Anyone will renovate his science who will steadily look after the irregular phenomena, and when science is renewed, its new formulas often have more of the voice of the exceptions in them than of what were supposed to be the rules.
Since the argument of scientific incompleteness harkens too closely to the same invocation by fundamental religionists, this tact is often not pushed. The only thing left then is parsimony. Parsimony is described in various ways.
Occam's Razor is one:
One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Einstein's famous quote is another form:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
or another common strain
All things being equal the simplest explanation is preferred.
So does parsimony swing the day for Darwinism? Not hardly. First of all things are not equal. The evidence from human analogy biases the situation towards intelligent design. Because of this it is the burden of Darwinism to overcome this evidence in favor of a "simpler" explanation. Dwarwinists would also have to demonstrate that their solution is simpler. To do that they would have to provide a complete causal scenario that is scientifically compelling. This would probably require a theory of everything.
Further, I think that scientists would agree that invoking parsimony as a final argument reflects a bale out instead of a convincing solution. Parsimony may be the last stand for Darwinism but it is neither legitimate nor compelling.
June 15th, 2005 at 4:17 am
And the alternatives to supernatural design are hardly parsimonious! Either an infinite number of other (undetectable) universes, or a (hitherto undetectable) intelligent race elsewhere in the universe.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — June 15, 2005 @ 4:17 am
June 15th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Exile From Groggs…you miss at least one viable alternative to supernatural design: natural teleology. Such teleology was pervasive among the Greeks and Stoics (Greek and Roman). Under this view, nature itself is purposive and the purpose is real/fundamental as opposed to mere psychological projection.
Comment by bipod — June 15, 2005 @ 10:54 am
June 15th, 2005 at 11:34 am
bipod: Isn't that just design with what we might consider to be an intelligent cosmos? Or if the cosmos isn't intelligent, don't we simply have to add a level of indirection, and assume that the fact that, since the cosmos came into being and has a real, fundamental purpose, then whatever caused the cosmos had to impose that intelligence?
Comment by Exile From Groggs — June 15, 2005 @ 11:34 am
June 15th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
The problem with your argument is that you pretend that it only applies to mainstream evolutionary theory. In fact, there is no reason in principle why every observable phenomenon could not be intentionally caused by the same invisible inhuman intellligence you speculate causes the diversity of life on earth. If ID can't develop a theory incorporating the ID which makes more accurate predictions than mainstream evolutionary theory, then the hypothesis is of no more use than speculating about an ID in any other field. Here is a link to a good article on The Panda's Thumb concerning the proper application of Occam's Razor:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-...
Comment by Aagcobb — June 15, 2005 @ 12:05 pm
June 15th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Aagcobb:
Yes in principal every observable event could be intentional. So? I don't follow your point.
Comment by Steve Petermann — June 15, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
June 15th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
'Mainstream evolutionary theory' was the subject at hand. I don't think he was pretending; but he was being intentionally specific. It becomes increasingly difficult to write an essay about everything.
Comment by ariel — June 15, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
June 15th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Aagcobb:
If Cob is trying to explain a failing in ID reasoning by saying: 'if an inhuman, invisible intelligence (aka: God — or something like it) can be invoked to explain ID than why not suggest that it is the force behind literally everything else in the universe,' then he has just committed a false dilemma which is characteristic of people who actually don't understand ID hardly at all (which is kinda funny since he visits at least the ARN message board all the time — so you'd think he'd know better). In any case it is the same fallicious arguement that Pennock tried to throw at Johnson (,Phillip E.) when he essentially argued that if you permitted the supernatural into the courtroom (Johnson's arena), that the defence can claim literally anything.
Well, suprise-suprise, Pennock missed the boat. ID isn't about invoking the supernatural (even from the Christian-ID perspective), its about invoking design, PERIOD, nothing more nothing less. One can say what the want about the unscientific-ness of the supernatural, but design is a whole 'nother thing because unlike the supernatural, design is something that everyone deals with everyday, and thus it is indeed objective and empirical.
Comment by Dane Parker — June 15, 2005 @ 6:41 pm