The Edge of Evolution
by BilboI've just started reading my copy of Behe's latest book, The Edge of Evolution. I'm wondering if anybody else is reading it, or has finished it, and what they think of it. For those who hate it, let's keep the comments clean. For those who love it, let's try not to gush too much.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I just ordered mine today but I am really looking forward to discussion after I have given it a read.
Comment by Jehu — June 7, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
June 7th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I haven't read it yet, but man, the reviews so far from ID critics are scathing. If anyone wants to extol its virtues, that would be a nice offset.
Comment by thechristiancynic — June 7, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
June 7th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Have they even read it yet?
Comment by Jehu — June 7, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
June 7th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Quite a few people have obtained review copies, so yes. At least, I assume that even PZ isn't so arrogant as to review (and quote from) a book he hasn't read.
Comment by thechristiancynic — June 7, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
June 7th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I have seen quite a few "reviews" where the author clearly has not read the book.
Comment by Jehu — June 7, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
June 7th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
And you know this how, without having read the book yourself? I guess they stated they didn't read it.
Comment by Raevmo — June 7, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
June 7th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Do you have links to these "reviews" (oh, how I despise the derisive use of quotation marks), and how do you know other than educated guesses, since you admitted you haven't read it yet? Just in the interest of being totally forthright. [Edit: Looks like Raevmo and I had the same thought at nearly the same time.]
Comment by thechristiancynic — June 7, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
June 7th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
In some cases yes. A lot of people are just log rolling the reviews of Chu-Carroll and others, hence the derisive use of quotation marks. One blogger is actually keeping track of all of the reviews of Behe's book.
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=12...
Comment by Jehu — June 7, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
June 7th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Hi Bilbo,
I've read most of it and think Behe has done a fine job. A lot of it is like Darwin's Black Box but he extends his arguments to include discoveries in biology over the last 10 years. What may surprise many people is how hard Behe comes down against YEC. He fully accepts descent with modification but, as would be expected, he rejects that RM&NS can be the whole story.
The premise of the book is that there are certain things that Darwinian gradualism can accomplish, but some features in biology are just too improbable for that to be the whole story. He attempts to outline the "edge" of evolution beyond which it just isn't reasonable to expect random changes to account for some complex biotic features.
He really has a talent for using analogies in everyday life to illustrate his points. I don't know enough about the math(with the biology) he uses to evaluated it, but I know it will be and has already been a point of contention with critics.
This book is much more technical than his first and should stimulate a lot of response from critics. I expect a flood of critical blogs and essays over the next few months. It will be interesting to see if the responses are just dismissive (like Michael Ruse's) or if they have some substance.
What this book does much more than the previous one (probably because of recent research) is illustrate the mind bloggling complexity of biotic reality. Not only in the structures we see but in the coordinated instructions and processes to build them. Althought it may not be "scientific" it just reinforces this design engineer's sense that there is something intelligent going on in evolution.
Comment by Steve Petermann — June 7, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
June 7th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
There are several really clear substantive errors at key points in Behe's book, and this is what us bloggers are pointing out. What would intrigue me is if any pro-ID people anywhere exhibit the capacity to find and criticize these sorts of errors themselves in a work by the mighty Behe.
I'll give you a head start: one, two.
Comment by nickmatzke — June 7, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
June 8th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Apparently the fear and loathing of Behe amongst the Darwinist devote has created an anti-Behe internet log rolling phenomenon.
One example is a post by Nick Matzke who reviews a post by someone called ERV, who has not read the book, but critiques the book anyway, solely on information gleaned from Chu-Carroll's review.
To get an idea of how extensive this is, the book has been out for two days and you if Google for "Chu-Carroll" and "Behe" you get well over 25,000 hits. Amazing.
Comment by Jehu — June 8, 2007 @ 12:04 am
June 8th, 2007 at 1:44 am
NickMatzke: I'm an ID supporter, but I would actually like to know if the whole thing is bunkum. But the ad hominems and condescension of so many critics causes me to doubt the doubters. I suppose that's true because the vitriol seems to indicate there's more at issue than just the facts of science.
When most people hear a merchant badmouth a competitor, they tend to trust that merchant less. I think the same is true when non-scientists observe the ID/Evolution debate. Behe may be wrong on everything, but his manner and his tone give him a huge edge over detractors who treat him as if he's an imbecile, a liar, or worse.
Comment by russ — June 8, 2007 @ 1:44 am
June 8th, 2007 at 3:57 am
Not "fear and loathing," but a genuine distaste for vacuous claims, and hand-waving wordiness attempting to hide a lack of substance.
As y'all from the ID side read Behe's book, could you do everybody a favor? How about posting any new research data he reveals in the book. It's been about eight years since he told me he had a research project on the boards for publication "next year" that would support ID. Does he reveal the project in the book? Does he reveal any new research that supports ID?
And second, please chronicle the scientific predictions he offers. In a tome of such thickness, designed to advance a scientific notion, surely he lays out two or three dozen questions that can easily be turned into research to confirm or falsify a hypothesis. What are the real science claims Behe makes? Don't rehash what Behe said, don't fuzzify what he said with claims of somebody else being wrong: List the simple prediction, and how it can be tested.
The reviews I've seen have been scathing, too. Is there any reason they shouldn't be? List the reasons, in the categories above.
We can wait a couple of weeks, at least.
Comment by edarrell — June 8, 2007 @ 3:57 am
June 8th, 2007 at 4:19 am
LOL! Over 25,000 posts in two days? That pal is not mere distaste it is fear and loathing.
I haven't read the book yet but it does sound like it relates to the paper he published with Snokes in 2004.
I have seen good responses to many of the criticisms so far, however, I haven't read the book yet so, unlike some people, I am going to wait until I have read it before I start commenting on most of those issues.
Comment by Jehu — June 8, 2007 @ 4:19 am
June 8th, 2007 at 5:20 am
Have you read the book?
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 5:20 am
June 8th, 2007 at 5:27 am
That's a sharp observation. There is more at stake than mere facts of science and little inclination on the part of ID critics to own up to this. You see evidence of this not only by the vitriol but more subtly by the need to present themselves as objective defenders of science. Your instincts are spot on.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 5:27 am
June 8th, 2007 at 8:05 am
I'm on about page 70. I like it a lot so far. I'm going to do a full review once I have finished it. I haven't quite gotten to where he talks about what he thinks actually happened non-Darwinistically, but it at least seems that he is building up to a front-loaded evolutionary scenario. If that's winds up being the case, then every critic I've read so far has completely misunderstood what Behe is talking about. If it is not, then you can see what I think in my future review
It is simultaneously the best defense of Darwinian processes and the best critique of them together that I've seen. Possibly the only better defender of Darwinism is Wagner's "Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems."
The "trench warfare" analogy was good. Basically, the point is that "arms races" are actually products of design. When technology is developed it is design, implemented, and improved. But that isn't Darwinism. Darwinism is more like trench warfare, where only immediate benefits are considered. Therefore, if torching your own best bridges lead to a temporary advantage, that's what you do. You don't develop new technology while in the trenches, because that requires forethought and foreplanning.
Comment by johnnyb — June 8, 2007 @ 8:05 am
June 8th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Interesting analogy. The artillery and infantry advance technique in WWI was often disastrous. During bombardments, the defending soldiery retreated into the dirt; then no matter how bad the losses, a few survived to operate the machine guns, obliterating the enemy advance.
However, WWI trench warfare led to many innovations, including tanks, air power, snipers, gas, and flame. I suppose you could consider these meta"”developed outside the trenches. However, we also have modern infiltration and mixed assault groups (raiders). These can be seen as evolutionary products of the trench system as soldiers adapted to the local conditions. These techniques were adapted extensively to great effect in WWII.
Comment by Zachriel — June 8, 2007 @ 8:31 am
June 8th, 2007 at 8:46 am
One thing that has been missed in the criticism of Behe's new (and old) book(s) is that his position "“ now virually the "party line" for ID supporters "“ represents the almost total capitulation of the anti-evolution movement to virtually all of the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution by natural selection, as first presented by Darwin in 1859.
This is most noticeable in Behe's complete acceptance of common descent, as reflected in the phylogenetic classification systems now universally used by systematists. By completely accepting common descent, Behe has completely accepted one of Darwin's two main points in the origin: that of "descent, with modification." This means, of course, that Behe (and, by implication, anyone who adopts his view of evolution) must accept that humans are the direct genetic descendants of "woodland apes" who inhabited the thinning forests of central Africa a couple of million years ago, along with their close relatives, the chimpanzees.
Indeed, Behe also conceeds the other half of Darwin's explanation for biologicical diversity and adaptation: that of natural selection. His quibble is not with selection per se, but rather with the source of the variations upon which selection operates. Not surprisingly, this is exactly the same quibble cited by Darwin's contemporary, Asa Grey of Harvard, who remained simulataneously a "Darwinian" and a "theistic evolutionist." Darwin originally welcomed Grey's rationalization, but later rejected it as irrelevant.
Which is precisely what Behe's version of "intelligent design theory" has become…or, more precisely, what it has always been. Having accepted virtually all of classical Darwinism (i.e. common descent and natural selection), Behe looks for the tell-tale hints of intervention of his deity in the simulataneous appearance of mutations conferring antibiotic resistance in the protists that cause malaria. Quite beyond the mathematical problems of Behe's analysis (which have already been criticized elsewhere), his analysis leaves one wondering precisely why his "Intelligent Designer" is so dedicated to making the most deadly disease known to modern humanity even more deadly.
In other words, Behe and the rest of the ID crowd who accept any part of Darwinian evolututionary theory have resolutely avoided thinking about the moral and philosophical implications of their beliefs. William Dempski has promised some kind of apologetic for the problem of "theodicy" (i.e. the now universally accepted fact that, if there is an Intelligent Designer, He has an inordinate fondness for facilitating fatal bacterial infections). However, such a disquisition has not appeared, and one can only suspect that this is because it is in fact impossible to square the apparently vicious and morally blind actions of the Intelligent Designer with His alleged designs.
As Darwin himself said a century and a half ago, he couldn't bring himself to believe in the benevolence of a deity that would create the parasitoid Ichneumonidae. Apparently Behe and Co. not only can reconcile themselves to the perversity of such a deity, they use His malevolent designs as the underpinning of their worldview.
Is it therefore not far off that the IDers begin to rationalize all forms of apparent devilishness in nature by saying "the Intelligent Designer designed it that way?"
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 8:46 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:03 am
One critique of Chu-Carrol's much-linked review of Behe's book can be found here.
Comment by eric — June 8, 2007 @ 9:03 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I'd really like to get a copy of the book; I might see if I can borrow one from a library (however it's really not the sort of book that most British libraries would normally stock).
I'm interested in Behe's use of fitness-landscapes, as this is the kind of math that I use in my day job; At last we are onto a territory where I can offer some degree of expertise!
Chu's review seems pretty harsh; however if his interpretation of Behe's mathematical statements is correct then they could be entirely justified. In finance (my own field), we sometimes use evolutionary techniques to optimize financial products. An optimized product might be considered to be a point in a multidimensional fitness-space, but which point? The definition of "fitness" in finance can vary according to your client's investment strategy.
While financial instruments are much simpler than the simplest living organisms, the concept of fitness landscapes en an ecosystem has a credible analogue in financial markets, and that is why we use much of the same mathematics. Behe (allegedly) uses 2d fitness landscapes in his examples, which he correctly observes lead to all kinds of problems - by the way these are problems that have been known and understood for a very long time.
Behe (allegedly) claims that he has found a mathematical demonstration of the limits of evolution, because once you reach a local maxima in a fitness landscape, one cannot possibly evolve any better without making things incrementally worse, a notion that is contrary to the general idea of evolution.
According to Chu, Behe's mistake is to consider a very small number of dimensions in his genetic fitness "landscape" - when you consider hundreds or thousands of dimensions the number of maxima in that space does not increase proportionately to the amount of space one must search, which is why multi-dimensional optimization is so damn hard!
I'm drawing inferences from the negative reviews of Behe's latest book; however if these are to be believed it seems that Mike Behe has plunged into a field of mathematics of which he has had no practical or even theoretical experience.
Am I being fair? Like I said, I want to read the book but I really do not want to reward Behe for writing what may be a load of bunk. Does somebody want to sell me a 2nd hand copy?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 8, 2007 @ 9:07 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:15 am
The point of Behe's premise is to clarify the Edge of Evolution, i.e. the limits on what those processes can accomplish. That doesn't mean they don't operate or that everything was designed as we see it now.
I'm not quite sure what you would consider a better view. You seem to object both to accepting evolutionary processes and to the idea that everything is the result of design.
Behe clearly holds neither the extreme that evolution can do all or the alternate extreme that everything is a design choice, yet you are not satisfied with his position. So, if the extremes are wrong and his intermediate position is also wrong, what is left?
Perhaps it would be helpful and more clear if you stated in a positive manner the position you think Behe ought to be holding.
Comment by eric — June 8, 2007 @ 9:15 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Recombination is a critical component of evolutionary processes, along with a variety of other sources of novelty.
Recombination allows one to jump off any local maximum to another point in the fitness landscape. It may or may not be 'better', but the population that finds itself in the new location may still survive and reproduce. Like an animal on a bit of driftwood that washes ashore on an island, there is opportunity in an untested landscape.
Comment by Zachriel — June 8, 2007 @ 9:27 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I wonder about the designer's dedication to providing the intelligence and resources homo sapiens use to advance medical treatment of disease and cancer into the 21st century. Or would you have preferred to live among microorganisms a thousand years ago? Some of the plagues from that era were pretty nasty.
What are the moral and philosophical implications of Darwinism?
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 9:29 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Thanks to everybody who answered my previous batch of question: Once again, I'm curious about people's beliefs & attitudes to this debate. This time I want to know what people think of evolution.
Once again, I'm not so interested in a reasoned argument, I hope you just take your best shot. Of course, if you can provide a reason then all the better!
1. Assuming that you believe evolution is a genuine phenomena, do you agree with the assertion that it is purposeless, loosely speaking that it does not plan for the future.
2. Evolution has been called "dumb" and "random". While most people will agree that random mutations play an important role in evolution, do you agree that evolution is necessarily "dumb".
3. Evolution has been described as a successful scientific theory. Do you share this opinion?
—
Thanks, and feel free to suggest more questions.
Please do not shout down TT commentators who take the time to fill in this form… I know it's tempting but there will be time aplenty for debate later.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 8, 2007 @ 9:30 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Why do you bother making that statement? TT is one of the most open forums on the internet.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 9:33 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Eric asked:
"Perhaps it would be helpful and more clear if you stated in a positive manner the position you think Behe ought to be holding."
Rather than do that, perhaps it would be helpful to state in a positive manner the positions that Behe apparently already does hold. This was an exercise we did last summer in the notorious "evolution-design" seminar at Cornell. Having critically read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," the EBers and IDers in the course agreed that Behe:
1) completely accepted Darwin's inference of "descent, with modification," which of course includes the common descent of chimpanzees and humans from a primate ancestor
2) completely accepted Darwin's mechanism of "natural selection," which is the outcome of three processes: (a) variation, (b) heredity, and (c) fecundity
3) by implication, competely accepted all of the theory of evolution by natural selection, as set forth in Darwin's "Origin of Species"
4) disagreed with the neo-Darwinist inference that the origin of the variations upon which natural selection operates is "random" (i.e. unguided)
5) asserted that the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, and selected biochemical pathways (e.g. the blood clotting cascade, the origin and evolution of the vertebrate immune system, and a few others) could not be entirely explained by the neo-Darwinian model; specifically, that the probability of the spontaneous origin of the variations which were the basis for these pathways was too low to have come about without intervention by an intelligent designer
In other words, ALL of Darwin's "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man" were fully compatible with Behe's version of "intelligent design," which is limited to an explanation of the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, and a few selected biochemical pathways.
To reiterate, Behe concedes virtually of the arguments against evolution raised by creationists: an "old Earth," common descent with modification from common ancestors (including the origin and evolution of humans), purely naturalistic natural selection as the explanation for all except a very few biochemical pathways, and the necessity of any intelligent designer to intervene via naturalistic means (i.e. by altering the probabilities of otherwise entirely naturalistic events).
In other words, "intelligent design theory" is indistinguishable from Asa Grey's "theistic evolutionism" and fundamentally violates virtually all of the basic assumptions of creationism. It represents, in other words, the almost complete capitulation of scientifically trained opponents of evolutionary theory to Darwin's original theory (which, of course, did not mention either the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, nor the origin of any biochemical pathways).
By his own admission therefore, Behe's theory would be entirely compatible with the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution as taught in the major's evolution course at Cornell, with the exception of the one lecture on the origin of life (actually, part of one lecture).
Rather than spelling the overthrow of "Darwinism," intelligent design theory as promoted by Behe et al concedes virtually all of its basic premises and inferences, except for the very beginnings of life. This is, of course, indistinguishable from classical deism, which theologians have long since concluded is indistinguishable from atheism.
In sum: Behe accepts all of classical Darwinisn evolutionary theory, and supports only a slightly altered theory of the origin of life and the genetic code, a theory that is indistinguisable in virtually all of its premises to atheism.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 9:40 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:41 am
What are the moral and philosophical implications of Darwinism?
Darwin's theories did not address ethical issues. He was primarily interested in explaining the origin of species and not offering advice on how to live a good life.
You will find very little ethical speculation in science texts (medicine is a notable exception). My own field (computer-science) is utterly amoral. That does not mean computer-scientists are bad people… just that computers do not directly teach us much about human life.
Perhaps you should be asking about "Secular Humanism" which many people believe is the ethical position most compatible with naturalism or strict materialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Comment by salimfadhley — June 8, 2007 @ 9:41 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:47 am
In sum: Behe accepts all of classical Darwinisn evolutionary theory, and supports only a slightly altered theory of the origin of life and the genetic code, a theory that is indistinguisable in virtually all of its premises to atheism.
Dont you mean "a theory that is indistinguisable in virtually all of its premises to deism."
I do not think that atheism is a theory or even a negation of a theistic theory; It's really just a lack of a theistic theory, so to equate somebody's opinion on evolution with atheism means precisely nothing!
Comment by salimfadhley — June 8, 2007 @ 9:47 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
"but rather with the source of the variations upon which selection operates."
The whole _point_ of calling it natural selection is that it is natural selection doing the work. No one in the history of the entire debate has had a problem with the idea that dead things don't reproduce or that sick things don't reproduce as much. The question is whether or not natural selection is the primary causitive force of innovation. In fact, a Creationist actually proposed natural selection as a purification mechanism decades before Darwin. What makes it Darwinism is that natural selection _is_ the generative force.
Common descent was accepted by a wide range of people before Darwin, and natural selection as a purifying mechanism has never been controversial. What Darwin proposed was that _natural selection_ was the acting agent of biological change. Behe's point (and in fact one of the main points of the whole ID movement) is that this is only true in extremely limited circumstances.
Comment by johnnyb — June 8, 2007 @ 9:51 am
June 8th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Evolutionary adaptation requires both natural selection and a source of variation. In rough Information Theory terms, variation adds information to the gene pool, natural selection culls that information for adaptable characteristics.
Comment by Zachriel — June 8, 2007 @ 9:55 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Bradford asks:
"What are the moral and philosophical implications of Darwinism?"
If by "Darwinism" you mean the scientific theory of descent with modification and the origin of adaptations by means of natural selection, it has absolutely no moral implications at all. What are the moral and philosophical implications of Newton's theory of universal gravitation or Mendeleev's theory of the elements? None, of course. A century ago, G. E. Moore conclusively showed that "ought" statements (i.e. moral and ethical prescriptions) cannot be derived from "is" statements (i.e. scientific descriptions and explanations). To do so is to commit what is known among ethicists as the "naturalistic fallacy."
History has abundantly shown that people who commit this fallacy are prone to perpetrating the most heinous of crimes against humanity. Are you commmitting yourself (and by implication IDers in general) to committing such a fallacy by assuming that ID theory has moral implications?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 10:01 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Johnnyb wrote:
"The question is whether or not natural selection is the primary causitive force of innovation."
As John Endler pointed out in "Natural Selection in the Wild" (1986), natural selection is NOT a causitive force of innovation at all. Rather, it is an outcome brought about by four processes: variation, inheritance, fecundity, and differential reproductive success. The problem is the word "selection," a problem that Darwin himself noted in a letter to Charles Lyell in 1860. He preferred the term "natural preservation," but used "selection" instead because of the analogy between natural selection and artificial selection.
In other words, the source of all innovation in biological evolution is NOT natural selection, but rather the "engines of variation," which include all forms of genetic mutation, recombination (including sexual recombination), and genome fusion (including symbiosis). These produce the variations, some of which natural selection preserves as adaptations.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 10:09 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:14 am
salimfadhley wrote:
"Dont you mean "a theory that is indistinguisable in virtually all of its premises to deism."
No; as I was careful to outline in my post, deism is indistinguisable in virtually all of its premises to atheism. In other words, Behe's "front-loaded intelligent design" = deism = atheism.
The deity of classical deism creates a universe that has sufficient natural law to produce all of what we see around us, and then lets it run without further intervention. How is this different from "front-loaded intelligent design?" And how are we to derive moral guidance from this?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 10:14 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Don't even try this. You were the one who introduced metaphysical side issues into the thread.
and
If there are no moral implications then what is the point of these comments?
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 10:16 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Allen MacNeill wrote:
and
What do you think are the moral implications of ID
(if we don't know, who was/were the designer(s)?
Comment by Analyysi — June 8, 2007 @ 10:19 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Bradford's question about the moral implications of Darwinism points to what is in my opinion the greatest threat posed by "intelligent design theory." Not that it will undermine evolutionary biology (indeed, it is apparently compatible with virtually all of evolutionary theory since the early Archaean), but rather that it fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between science and ethics, a misunderstanding with the potential to produce no end of maliciousness.
The problem of ultimate foundations for ethics and morals fatally undermines the concept of a supernatural "law giver" in essentially the same way that the problem of origins undermines the concept of a supernatural creator-God. All peoples and cultures have systems of rules to govern their behavior. Such rules constitute ethical and moral codes, which are consulted whenever there are disputes or questions about the ethical or moral quality of people's behavior. All ethical and moral statements "“ phrases like "do this" or "don't do that" "“ are subject to the same qualification, which can be formulated as the simple question: "Why?" Using magical or supernatural reasoning, the answer to this question is, of course, "God (or some other deity or deities) says so." In other words, actions are right or wrong because God (or some other deity or deities) says so, and not because of some intrinsic quality of those actions themselves.
To base a system of ethics and morals on the requirements and prohibitions of a supernatural entity (or "God") is possible so long as people believe in and accept such a basis. But if peoples' belief in the existence of such a God is undermined by the adoption of science and scientific explanations, then the basis for any moral code handed down by such a God is also undermined, leaving no foundation for ethical or moral standards of behavior.
Since, as noted earlier, "intelligent design theory" accepts almost all of the theory of evolution (with the exception of random processes as the source of variation), the only way in which the "Intelligent Designer" (i.e. God) can alter reality is to intentionally manipulate the variations upon which evolution is based. This means that the Intelligent Designer postulated by "intelligent design theorists" must conform to almost all of the conditions for evolution by natural selection, including the "intelligent" (i.e. deliberate) creation of individuals that, according to the principles of natural selection, necessarily die or fail to reproduce. This conclusion is fundamentally antithetical to the generally recognized basis of Judeo-Christian-Muslim morality.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 10:25 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Following the links to this:
This is pompous rubbish. Any value system is predicated on an initial assumption that will be linked to no small amount of emotions and feelings. Reason is also not the exclusive preserve of secular humanism.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 10:29 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I understand the connection between science and ethics and it is that understanding that leads me to believe there is something amiss with your alarm.
Or by the same logic a confidence in the moral values associated with God can undermine the ethical and moral influence of alternative ethical systems.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 10:36 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Bradford asks:
"What do you think are the moral implications of ID?"
I think I've answered this question in my previous post. However, it may be illuminating to take specific case: that of the evolution of antibiotic resistance in Plasmodium falciparum, the protist that causes malaria, the most devastating disease currently afflicting the human population worldwide.
In The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe presents a mathematical argument that the evolution of such resistance is statistically implausible, and can only be explained by the intervention of an "intelligent designer." If, like the theory of evolution, ID theory has moral implications, what are the moral implications of Behe's observation?
To paraphrase Darwin, I would prefer to assume that there is no "intelligent designer" to assuming that there is one, and that He intends to cause the agonizing death of millions of innocent human beings. Indeed, I would go further and take Huxley's position: that rather than adopt the observable patterns exhibited by natural processes (i.e. to commit the "naturalistic fallacy"), I am forced to the conclusion that morality is, if anything, predisposed to contravening those natural processes, rather than elevating them to some form of moral justification.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 10:37 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Allen,
I think you've come pretty close to hitting the nail on the head. Like you say, what is missed is the extend of the retreat and it's implications. By the way, here's Dembski's theodicy. I think you will find it interesting.
http://www.designinference.com...
To say that societal transformation of belief takes time is an understatement. But, in time I do believe that the realities that you observe and mention regarding the implications of accepting the grinding, wonderful, bizarre nature of life's development will takes it's toll on traditional theologies and religions. Dembski's theodicy is an example of the contortions one must engage in to try and reconcile the two. In this matter-trying to reconcile the nature of life's development with traditional conceptions of God, I can't recommend anyone more helpful and honest than Darwin. That's why he will perservere thru the years.
Yet, the need for comfort and meaning will support the notions of benevolenece and personal relationship. And I still have to keep in play the presence of "something other" to account for religious experience.
Comment by bj — June 8, 2007 @ 10:39 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Bradford did not ask:
"What do you think are the moral implications of ID?"
That question was interposed by another commenter.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 10:41 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Bradford says:
"Any value system is predicated on an initial assumption that will be linked to no small amount of emotions and feelings."
This is essentially the position on ethics taken by A. J. Ayer, who asserted that moral and ethical judgements are no more that statements of personal or social preference, similar to "I like ice cream."
Are you therefore saying that moral and ethical judgements are essentially reducible to statements of personal or social preference, and can therefore be derived directly or indirectly from emotions and feelings, rather than from dispassionate reason.?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 10:41 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:44 am
That's an incredibly stupid position. Moral standards incorporate both reason and human emotions and feelings.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 10:44 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Here's what I said about this in an essay ["Natural Selection, Sparrows, and a Stochastic God"] posted at my blog:
"…[t]hose who devise and promulgate theories of "intelligent design," (ID) are believers in the same underlying idea: that an "intelligent designer"…guides the evolution of groups all living organisms via some (also unspecified) quasi-magical means. Natural selection is also integral to their ID theories, but again it is resolutely not the source of "specified complexity" - the exquisite adaptations of living organisms to the contingencies of their environments. In ID theory, as in the older (and perhaps more intellectually honest) theories of "creation science," the only genuine function of natural selection is to "fix" the various characteristics of organisms within an "adaptive landscape" whose topography is specified essentially by an intelligent designer….
But there's the rub: to believe the foregoing is perforce to believe that God "misses:" that He specifies the characteristics of organisms within an intentional boundary, but allows individuals to deviate sufficiently from that boundary that they…die (or fail to reproduce, which is effectively the same thing). This is the essence of stabilizing selection: although there are deviations from the population mean, such deviants are eliminated, thereby maintaining the population mean in perpetuity. To paraphrase Darwin, out of "suffering and death," the creationist/ID "kinds" are specified and maintained.
That would be scanned: God kills the deviants, and for that, He does the survivors maintain in perpetuity? Surely not impossible for…God, but just as surely a fundamental contradiction in terms. To operate in such a fashion, God must be a utilitarian, whose intention (yes, intentions are essential to the argument) is to specify the ideal "kind" by first creating (or at least "specifying") a range of no-so-ideal individuals, and then mercilessly (even mindlessly?) eliminating all but the few that conform to the intended ideal. True, a lot of sparrows thereby "fall," and in the creationist/ID version of this explanation…God is indeed "mindful" of them, at least insofar as He creates them in order to destroy all but a few of them.
And not just sparrows; most if not all intelligent design theorists (such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, et al) willingly embrace the idea that natural selection operates upon humans. They just don't believe that it can possibly specify all of the complex attributes of humans. So, by the logic heretofore developed, ID theorists willingly embrace a utilitarian, stochastic deity who intentionally designs humans with sufficient genetic and developmental plasticity that some (the exact proportion is irrelevant) deviate from the population mean, and then causes them (indirectly or directly, it matters not) to suffer and die, in order to bring about and maintain that paragon of animals - ourselves.
Fundamentalists, creation scientists, intelligent design theorists, and their fellow travelers are therefore stuck. If they accept the operation of natural selection at any level, they must perforce accept that God (or the unidentified "Intelligent Designer") is a fundamentally stochastic entity, who of necessity obliterates the occasional [innocent human]…, an entity who is manifestly not omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnipresent, but is a utilitarian whose ends justify His means. Or, they must deny the operation of natural selection at any level; in other words, they must stare reality in the face and deny it. Either those individuals who deviate from the specified population mean are created in order to die, or they die by accident…and while He may be mindful, He just doesn't give a damn.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 10:51 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:57 am
MacNeil, is that your means of posing the age old question of why God allows suffering?
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 10:57 am
June 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I have reluctantly and sadly come to the same conclusion.
Comment by bj — June 8, 2007 @ 10:59 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Bradford says:
"That's an incredibly stupid position. Moral standards incorporate both reason and human emotions and feelings."
Precisely my point; it's not my position, but rather than of A. J. Ayer. However, I would go further than you and state that while human emotions and feelings are undeniable, they are unreliable guides for moral and ethical behavior. Rather, reason (and the experience upon which it is predicated) is the most reliable basis for moral and ethical judgements.
Indeed, one of the most characteristic things about moral and ethical judgements is that they often require us to do what is "right" rather than what we "want" to do (i.e. what our emotions and feelings predispose us to doing). This is precisely how we inculcate moral and ethical behavior in our children; by training them to do what is "right" instead of what they "want."
The relevence of all this to evolutionary theory is clear, and was stated most eloquently by T. H. Huxley in a letter to his friend Charles Kingsley, dated 23 September 1860 (full text available at http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxle...):
"Surely it must be plain that an ingenious man could speculate without end on both sides, and find analogies for all his dreams. Nor does it help me to tell me that the aspirations of mankind"“that my own highest aspirations even"“lead me towards the doctrine of immortality. I doubt the fact, to begin with, but if it be so even, what is this but in grand words asking me to believe a thing because I like it.
Science has taught to me the opposite lesson. She warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief than for one to which I was previously hostile.
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonise with my aspirations.
Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian conception of entire surrender to the will of God. Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this."
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 11:01 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Reason allows for the operation of logic. That does not ensure reliability. Reliability is based on human motives. The Nazis, Pol Pot and Mao's Red Guard had moral values too. They were the wrong ones.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 11:08 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Bradford asks:
"MacNeil, is that your means of posing the age old question of why God allows suffering?"
On the contrary, I am trying to point out that evolutionary theory is, as Darwin so clearly saw, entirely indifferent to suffering, as it is to happiness, freedom, joy, sorrow, and any of the other emotions and feelings that so illuminate our lives. And, since Behe accepts virtually all of evolutionary theory (except its explanation for the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, and the origin of selected biochemical pathways, including the origin of antibiotic resistance in Plasmodium falciparum), he is accepting that same monumental indifference on the part of the "intelligent designer."
Once again, it is logically fallacious and morally and ethically pernicious to conflate science (including intelligent design theory) and ethics. The "intelligent designer" of ID theory is, in other words, an amoral and apparently occasionally vicious entity that cares not a whit for individual organisms, including individual people.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 11:09 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Those are major league exceptions. Your indifference view is a product of your own subjectivity, not intelligent design.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 11:12 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I have not read the book and I will withhold comments until doing so. But I noticed that Thechristiancynic wrote, "I haven't read it yet, but man, the reviews so far from ID critics are scathing." That's entirely expected, regardless of the merits of Behe's new book. Did anyone actually believe the ID critics would offer anything other than a scathing "review"?
My experience with non-fiction books is that they usually have good/strong arguments and bad/weak arguments. If the major thesis of the book depends on the bad/weak arguments, I don't go along with the major thesis. If the major thesis of the book depends on the strong/good arguments, I go along with the major thesis. If the major thesis depends on both strong/good and weak/bad arguments, it becomes a judgment call and may usually involve a more tentative agreement or disagreement. But none of this means the good/strong arguments should be brushed aside. They can be used/embraced as part of a different thesis of my own.
Comment by MikeGene — June 8, 2007 @ 11:20 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Bradford says:
"Reason allows for the operation of logic. That does not ensure reliability. Reliability is based on human motives. The Nazis, Pol Pot and Mao's Red Guard had moral values too. They were the wrong ones."
Help me to understand the point you are trying to make, here. Let's go through your sentences one at a time:
"Reason allows for the operation of logic."
By this, do you refer to induction, deduction, abduction, or some combination of the three (or to some other form of logic)?
"That does not ensure reliability."
Indeed; as I point out in my second lecture in introductory biology, none of the classical forms of logic "ensures" anything at all. Induction is only as good as the number of similar cases upon which it is based. Deduction is only as good as its major premises, which for several centuries we have generally agreed are arrived at by induction. And abduction is, like deduction, limited in its validity to the degree of confidence we have in the overarching generalization(s) to which our premises have been abducted.
I believe that the only objective standard of "reliability" is "confidence," in the same sense of that term as used by R. A. Fisher and other statisticians. "Reliability" in other words, is a stochastic, rather than an absolute quality, and depends fundamentally on experience.
"Reliability is based on human motives."
This statement is completely opaque to me. Are you saying that I must know what your motives are to reliably determine what is right or wrong vis-a-vis my behavior toward you? I thought motives were completely outside the purview of science (especially ID theory, in which the motives of the "intelligent designer" are asserted to be completely irrelevant)?
"The Nazis, Pol Pot and Mao's Red Guard had moral values too."
Godwin's law aside for the moment, what precisely are you trying to say here? That because some people have perpetrated immoral acts that morality itself is therefore invalid?
"They were the wrong ones."
Agreed, but how do you know? I would tend to lean toward experience again as the criterion by which one might judge the validity of a moral prescription. "By their actions shalt thou judge them," right? So a system of morality that results in the death of millions of innocent people is, by that criterion, manifestly immoral, right?
So how are the actions of the purported "intelligent designer," who has intentionally created trillions of "innocent" living organisms, only to destroy them mindlessly through the operation of natural selection, in any way "moral?"
Just curious…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 11:24 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Mike Gene,
this is probably off topic, but I need URGENT HELP
I am in the middle of a debate at Beliefnet.com where, among other thing (see the thread of "Catholicism Debate", where my screen mane is Miguel_de_Servet: "HELLO! HELLO!", post #232 "“ click for link) I have affirmed that while micro-evolution is observed, we have no evidence of instances of Macro-Evolution, neither in Nature nor in the Lab.
One of the debaters has provided a link to "The TalkOrigin Archive", 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, Part 5: Change and Mutability (click for link).
Could you please be so kind as to let me know if the arguments and examples provided at the above link of "The TalkOrigin Archive" do (or don't) provide substantive evidence for Speciation, and consequently for Macro-Evolution?
Thank you for your kind attention, and thank you in advance for your kind reply.
Comment by Servetus — June 8, 2007 @ 11:32 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Of course not. I'm pointing out the fallacy of the proposition that reason best ensures reliable moral values. Reason can be used to formulate and promote some very immoral value systems.
All organisms meet the same fate- both the fit and the unfit. It is not NS that leads to their demise but their fragile biological systems in the face of inevitable death. The unfit get there sooner. Why are mainstream evolutionists so absorbed with theological side issues?
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 11:34 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Allen MacNeill wrote:
Hmm. Interesting point.
I see two possibilities:
a) superdeterminism: there are no alternatives to any actions (in our world).
b) non-determinism: there are at least some alternatives
If a) is true, then there is not any really stochastic processes. And stochastic processes are (only) illusions.
If b) is true (and if there is an omnipotent God), then God may have decided to limit his power (temporarily). If he is omnipotent, he is able to allow (some) stochastic processes (if he wants) - and yet to be omniscient (and know everything he wants to know). If it is so, they must NOT deny the operation of natural selection at any level.
Comment by Analyysi — June 8, 2007 @ 11:37 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:38 am
As for Behe's assertion that selection cannot move a population off of an adaptive optimum in an adaptive landscape, Sewall Wright realized that same point more than seventy years ago. Indeed, this was the basis for the long-running feud between Wright and R. A. Fisher. Wright realized (on the basis of the mathematics) that Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection entailed precisely this conclusion: that natural selection in a static adaptive landscape would inevitably lead to the elimination of all genetic variation and therefore bring itself crashing to a halt.
Wright proposed the "Sewall Wright effect" (now more often referred to as genetic drift) as one way of shifting a population off of an adaptive optimum. Behe has either not heard of this solution to the problem of adaptive fixation, or doesn't understand its implications.
Furthermore, Wright (who, by the way, invented the concept of adaptive landscapes in the first place) developed his "shifting balance" theory of evolution, which is based on the realization that adaptive landscapes are not static. Rather, they are constantly changing, as genetic and phenotypic variation, genetic drift, natural selection, and environmental conditions constantly change.
Behe's use of static adaptive landscapes to show that intentional intervention by an intelligent designer is necessary to shift population characteristics is therefore based on a false premise, and is therefore both mistaken and misleading…not ot mention seven decades out of date.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 11:38 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Bradford asks:
"Why are mainstream evolutionists so absorbed with theological side issues?"
I don't know about other "evolutionists," but in the context of this discussion, I am simply pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the moral and scientific positions of the majority of ID theorists. For my own part, I don't think that either morals or religion can be derived from science - indeed, they are completely separate logical categories. Furthermore, I am convinced by my understanding of history that conflating "is" and "ought" statements has resulted in more individual and collective human misery than any other logical fallacy.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 11:42 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Perhaps. I have not yet read the book. But Behe is correct in pointing out that before selection becomes an operable factor life must exist. His past critiques of life's origin are on target.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 11:43 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am
You've set up a strawman. Morals are not derived from science. No IDist has made that claim.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2007 @ 11:45 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Hi Allen,
You write, "Rather, reason (and the experience upon which it is predicated) is the most reliable basis for moral and ethical judgements."
From my experience, moral and ethical judgments based on applied reason tend to be examples where the end is used to justify the means. Instead of talking about abstract ideals or sensational historical examples, let's deal with a mundane, real world example (that just happens to get us close to topic of this thread) where reason-as-guide is needed.
Here is one critic in an ethical dilemma:
Another critic answers:
Leading the original critic to respond:
Yet another critic agrees:
Comment by MikeGene — June 8, 2007 @ 11:47 am
June 8th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Bradford says:
"I'm pointing out the fallacy of the proposition that reason best ensures reliable moral values. Reason can be used to formulate and promote some very immoral value systems."
And I agree, if by reason you mean logical analylsis unilluminated by experience. Indeed, reason not only can be used to formulate and promote some very immoral value systems, it has been so used, repeatedly. To be specific, deductive reasoning based on false premises (e.g. the Aryans are the master race) has resulted in immense human misery, as has inductive reasoning based on insufficient or skewed data (e.g. blacks are intellectually inferior to whites).
However, this does not entail that reasoning is necessarily fallacious as a basis for morality, only that one must ground one's reasoning in an objective analysis of experience (i.e. history, both personal and collective).
If the the proposition that reason best ensures reliable moral values is false, what alternative would you propose, and how can your alternative be validated?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 11:51 am
June 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Hi Mike Gene,
Could you please let me know how long is the average awaiting moderation time? Or if my query is so off topic (or otherwise responsa non grata) that I am not going to get any consideration at all?
Thank you
Comment by Servetus — June 8, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
June 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
"These produce the variations, some of which natural selection preserves as adaptations."
But in this case it is not evolution by natural selection, but evolution by some other process. The point of calling it "evolution by natural selection" is that the other forces are haphazard, with natural selection pulling something good out of the chaotic mess. In straight Darwinism it was happenstance happenings to a creature that were culled from a Lamarckian inheritance, and in neo-Darwinism it is happenstance changes to a genome that are culled from a Mendelian inheritance. What makes them both Darwinism is that the changes were happenstance — they didn't act according to a system or plan for an organism. That is why it is "evolution by natural selection" — without natural selection it would _just_ be chaos, and natural selection pulls the large-scale, coherent variation out of a mess of happenstance occurrences.
Instead, many ID'ers believe that broad-scale change happens based on information already present in the genome. Is natural selection active? Certainly — no one proposes that dead things are reproducing
But in this case the primary cause for coherent, large-scale variation is not natural selection but information. This is not "evolution by natural selection" because natural selection is not doing much. It's there, it may have some impact, but its relationship to the overall mutational system is secondary, not primary. What primarily makes the system coherent is the information already present.
Comment by johnnyb — June 8, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
June 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
The "selection" part of natural selection has always been secondary in the theory of evolution, if by that one means "descent with modification" (Darwin's phrase for "evolution"). Natural selection wasn't intended as an explanation of novelty; rather it has always been proposed as the explanation for adaptation.
"Novelty" "“ that is, the new forms upon which selection operates "“ is produced by the "engines of variation" about which Darwin said that naturalists of his time were "entirely ignorant." That situation has changed over the past century and a half, so that today we can identify dozens (perhaps hundreds) of sources of variation in populations. Many of these variations are "invisible" to selection; that is, they do not result in any net non-random increase or decrease in reproductive success. Those that do result in the preservation of what we refer to as "adaptations" "“ that is, characteristics that are present in relatively high frequencies in populations as the result of differential survival and reproduction (i.e. selection).
Clearly, therefore, ID theory is focussed on the source(s) of variation, not on what happens once the variations are already present (i.e. selection). The difference between ID evolutionary theory and classical Darwinian evolutionary theory is the difference between "you can't get there from here" and "you can get there from here. That is, the amount of variation that is the result of natural, undirected processes is either sufficient or insufficient to produce some or all evolutionary adaptations.
By the way, it is important to note that there is no necessary difference between the rate of ID evolution and Darwinian evolution by natural selection. What controls the rate, as first shown conclusively by R. A. Fisher in his Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, is the rate of production of new variations, not the rate of selection per se.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 8, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
June 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Instead, many ID'ers believe that broad-scale change happens based on information already present in the genome.
Is this Mike Gene's front-loading idea?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 8, 2007 @ 12:32 pm