Front-loading from a creationist perspective
by KrauzeCreationism and Baraminology Research News has some novel and refreshing thoughts on creationism and front-loading:
What often happens in the Creationary community is that we have spent so much time arguing against Darwinism that we sometimes forget what it means for Darwinism to be false. That is, once we've won the argument against Darwinism, what then? This time is quickly approaching (or perhaps is already here). The issue is that the arguments against common descent were based on Darwinism. X couldn't evolved from Y because of the hideously complicated algorithms it would have to cross. The problem is that if Darwinism is no longer assumed, this argument doesn't work against common descent. If evolution is directed, then there is no limit to the sophistication of evolutionary pathways. Therefore, complexity cannot be used as an argument against common descent.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:01 am
With the fall of Darwinism, the argument for evolution loses a strike against it, and in this way becomes a stronger argument. Interesting perspective. Props to crevo for the analytical insight.
Comment by Inquisitive Brain — February 28, 2007 @ 9:01 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:48 am
.
I've disliked the argument anyway. If nothing else complexity is usually poorly defined. Premises containing imprecisely defined words lead to bad arguments. In fairness though, complexity has become a byword used by the popular media to characterize ID. Oversimplification makes reporting easier but only at the cost of sacrificing accuracy.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2007 @ 9:48 am
February 28th, 2007 at 10:19 am
It seems to me that front-loading creationists could just as well be classified under advocates of directed panspermia. While the former label contains a term which has an embarrassing history, the latter is a hypothesis proposed by the one and only Francis Crick.
The legitimacy of seeking evidence of directed panspermia via front-loading appears to be within an order of magnitude of the legitimacy of the SETI project. We should not be surprised if it produces no results, but it can't be dismissed outright.
So why not discard the ID label and go with directed panspermia? This would certainly remove the confusion with the ID based on theological viewpoints.
Comment by jeff_alexander — February 28, 2007 @ 10:19 am
February 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Bradford:
Just FYI - I am actually working on enhanced complexity metrics. Applying them to biology in our present state of knowledge of cell machinery may be problematic, but at least it should give a general idea of what the issue is from a theoretical perspective in the meantime.
It's not quite ready for public consumption yet, but hopefully in 6-9 months, if I can get a few extra people to look at it (if anyone is interested in looking at it, email johnnybATeskimoDOTcom - specifically looking for people with either (a) a computer science background in computability theory, (b) a mathematical background which includes chaos theory, or (c) any sort of biochemist who would be able to tell me how known/unknown or useful/unuseful these ideas would be to everyday biological work.
Comment by johnnyb — February 28, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I don't think you should be so sanguine about this. Here's the core of the piece:
What these folks want to do is suggest that the supposed "kinds" of Genesis 1 are the "pre-defined possible forms and mechanisms," and that any change from those forms has happened over the past 10,000 years (or more accurately, immediately following the Flood).
Teleological evolution, however, doesn't necessarily imply such a limiting notion of "pre-defined possible forms and mechanisms." There could a priori have been a virtually infinite possible set of forms and mechanisms, from which God / the designer selected those He / it wished to select. This is similar in many ways to Torrance's notion of creation as "contingent" on God's will. From the perspective of Christian theology (setting aside process theology), any notion of theistic evolution is necessarily teleological, since God is always providentially active in secondary natural causes.
Even with a more stringent teleological stance, such as front-loading, the "possible forms and mechanisms" are not necessarily sharply defined, as they are in the YEC "kinds." A front loaded injection of complex DNA molecules, for example, would not necessarily crisply define what forms would result over time. It seems to me that the only sort of "teleological evolution" that is consistent with the "baraminology group's" project is the sort that assumes the recent creation of complete organisms that diversify over a short time period via microevolution.
Moreover, front loading, it seems to me, does indeed go hand-in-hand with arguments from complexity. Who needs front loading but for the difficulty in deriving highly specific, complex biochemistry from the simple chemistry assumed to comprise the primordial earth?
Comment by dopderbeck — February 28, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Dopderbeck:
Front loaded DNA could tell us whether life is possible and the type of life forms the relevant genome could sustain. You have to crawl before you walk.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Hi Johnnyb who wrote:
I wish you well in your work. I did not intend to convey negative thinking by my comment. Obviously complexity is found throughout cells. If a useful description of biological complexity yields practical benefits so much the better.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
dopderbeck:
"the "possible forms and mechanisms" are not necessarily sharply defined, as they are in the YEC "kinds." A front loaded injection of complex DNA molecules, for example, would not necessarily crisply define what forms would result over time. It seems to me that the only sort of "teleological evolution" that is consistent with the "baraminology group's" project is the sort that assumes the recent creation of complete organisms that diversify over a short time period via microevolution."
First of all, the YEC kinds (depending on who you ask) may not necessarily as sharply defined as you might perceive.
In any case, the fact is that when you assume a front-loaded evolution, then the specific route of ancestry is not very relevant, especially in the early timescales. As gene pools become more distinctive and specialized, they would stop being able to interbreed, but the route from the initial pool to the major forms would not be as relevant as the current basic types of biology.
The point of baraminology and basic type biology is identifying core patterns where discontinuity is just as fundamental as continuity. This is just as workable from a common descent YEC framework as it is from an OEC w/ common descent framework.
Comment by johnnyb — February 28, 2007 @ 10:39 pm