Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Metaphors, Design Recognition, and the Design Matrix

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here are excerpts from The Design Matrix by Mike Gene:

Metaphors such as “fear”, “cost”, “abhor” and “angry”, commonly share the projection of consciousness onto the world. Metaphors such as these represent the human tendency to view the world through anthropomorphic glasses. However, the metaphors employed by molecular biologists are not of this type.
….
Metaphors typically break down when we begin to take them literally.

[but] The design terminology that is used in the language of molecular biology does not break down when interpreted literally
….

there is a basic and literal truth to the use of design terminology in molecular biology–these technological concepts are just too useful. Metaphors are certainly useful when explaining concepts to other human beings, yet the design terminology often goes beyond pedagogy–it provides true insight into the molecular and cellular processes. An understanding of our own designed artifacts, along with the principles required to make them, can guide the practice of molecular biology.

Why is it that some metaphors are no where near as effective for describing biology as well other metaphors, especially design metaphors?

Mike Gene recognizes qualitatively the enigma that others recognize quantitatively. There is an improbable coincidence between the architecture of human-made systems and the architecture of biological systems. Recognition of these coincidences is the recognition of specified complexity, and recognition of specified complexity is the recognition of design. Outside of biotic reality, there are no other assemblages of matter in the universe which fit design metaphors more exactly than those found in biology.

I liked Mike’s book, but I especially liked Chapter 3. Chapter 3 suggests the fact that biology is well described by design metaphors is a clue that biological systems (like birds, plants, and bunnies) are intelligently designed. UD readers are invited to read about the other clues which Mike outlines in his book, and the consilience of these clues constitutes The Design Matrix.

Notes:

From wiki:

Metaphor (from the from Latin metaphora; see the Greek origin below) is language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. It is a figure of speech that compares two or more things without using the words “like” or “as.” More generally, a metaphor describes a first subject as being or equal to a second object in some way. This device is known for usage in literature, especially in poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context are associated with objects and entities in a different context. A simpler definition is the comparison of two unrelated things without using the words “like” or “as”, the use of these words would create a simile. For example,she is a button.(as cute as a button)

Comments
PagliacciJohnADavison
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
I was referring to the most recent thread at Allen's weblog. It is pure neoDarwinian pablum, none of which ever had anything to do with creative evolution. MacNeill is a "true believer" in the atheist Darwinian hoax and there is absolutely nothing that can be done for him. The sad part is the influence that zealots like Dawkins, Myers and MacNeill have had over the thousands of students that have passed through the portals of their curricula and their "groupthink" protectionist forums. The reality is that there is absolutely nothing in the selection/gradual/mutation model that ever played a role in speciation or in any other aspect of progressive evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past. The Darwinian fantasy has never had any validity as a working hypothesis and has now joined the Ether of Physics and the Phlogiston of Chemistry in the scrap heap of pseudoscience. Unlike the Salem witch trials which lasted only a few months, the Darwinian fantasy has persisted for 150 years. I am delighted to pronounce it dead and buried. It was always a monumental joke. "La commedia e finita" PaglacciJohnADavison
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
ab, I am not sure what John means but on his blog he referred to Allen MacNeill's write up on the Modern Synthesis which I read.jerry
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Thanks to all for commenting. I regret to inform you all that UD has just been subjected to a very large SPAM attack since this moring. The volume of the attack is so large that it is possible some of your comments might get deleted accidentally as we try to deal with the problem. At this point, I'm afraid I'm going to have to sign off monitoring the SPAM and moderation queues for the time being. As a result, you can keep trying to comment, but I cannot guarantee that the comments will get through. Thanks again to everyone who participated in this discussion.scordova
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Hi Jerry, I think John was specifically referring to this thread.ab
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
John, You have to understand that all the Darwinists or anti ID people who come here and probably any where cannot defend Darwinism. So they never try. There has been sort of a UD Challenge to anyone who could be the first to provide a coherent defense of Darwinism. No one has stepped up to the plate. So your statements asking for a dialogue will go unanswered since a dialogue requires two or more and the anti ID people never come forward. They are experts at deflection, nit picking, sniping from afar and changing the subject. Sorry to see you go. I have just read Allen's long description of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and so far what Allen has written represents nothing ID can't live with. I like what he has written but it just seems like genetics and micro evolution. Nothing controversial. I doubt Haldane's observation about brothers and cousins. I can't imagine a Darwinist dying for anything in this world. They are generally atheists and after dying, well there just isn't anything there for them so why would they. They will become an extinct species because someone once said to me that if you are not willing to die for something then you will be eliminated by those who are willing. Come back when you can.jerry
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
As a parting shot - http://jadavison.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/why-banishment/#comment-1729 #422 Enjoy!JohnADavison
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
jerry, I have abandoned this thread to Allen MacNeill for greener pastures, some right here at Uncommon Descent! Look around.JohnADavison
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
John, Since I too think that natural selection is effete in terms of evolution, it is hard to ask any pertinent questions. Obviously I do not have your experience which is why I hope you will give the more salient reasons that NS is worthless for the long haul. It makes it easier when we get someone new hear and rather than rehash the usual, it would be nice to point to a comprehensive analysis and tell them to come back when they are finished. The thread is open on my computer and all I have to do is press cmd R on my Mac and it updates. That is how I picked up your last comment. So you are not out of sight or out of mind.jerry
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
This thread is now on page 2 and as I predicted - "Out of sight, out of mind." I love it so!JohnADavison
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
The 2005 PEH paper is available on the opening page of my weblog along with all of the rest of my published papers under the title of Evolutionary Works. It requires no further clarification. You can also find it under John A. Davison right here at Uncommon Descent. Check the sidebar.JohnADavison
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
John, maybe you could share with us a summary of your Perscribed Evolutionary Hypothesis?crater
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Meanwhile, this thread is headed for the bottom of the page where it will disappear into oblivion as threads here always do. MacNeill has decided I do not exist and so I find myself once again lecturing in an empty auditorium. This is not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last. I remain open to any form of constructive dialogue here or anywhere else where I am permitted to speak. Let the record show that Allen MacNeill, like every other Darwinian I have ever encountered, is unwilling to respond to any challenge to the Darwinian fairy tale. He has deleted my benign comments at his blog and decided that I do not exist here. I see no reason to continue here. I have achieved my purpose which was to expose the Darwinian fantasy for what it always was, an obligatory ideology required by a congenital mentality unable to respond to the real world, a world every aspect of which was designed by one or more designers whose existence is no longer evident but whose past must never be denied. So I now return this thread to Allen MacNeill to do with what he has always done, which is to promote the most failed hypothesis in the history of science.JohnADavison
March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
Of course phylogeny is a mystery. So is ontogeny, the development of the individual. They are closely related phenomena which show many similarities. Both are predetermined, both are irreversible and both terminate never to be resumed. Death is the terminus of the individual and extinction the end of each species. I believe with Robert Broom that the entire sequence was planned millions of years ago and there is little we can do to modify the Plan, a word Broom capitalized. I also agree with Albert Einstein - "Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control." I wish he had used the past tense as I see no evidence for the supernatural at present even as I remain convinced that it must have played a role in the distant past. If we are planning on continuing to exist as a species we had better change our ways as we are on the road to extinction right along with all our fellow creatures and we are the primary cause. I hate being pessimistic and I hate being right.JohnADavison
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
David Kellogg, Maybe someone will surprise me some day. Remember they did find the black swan.jerry
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
"I may have it wrong, but doesn’t Dr Davison see design at the level of species? How near is that to your view?" I do not think so but you should ask him. I am far from an expert on his beliefs except for our concurrence on the limitations of natural selection. The most over hyped concept in the history of science. I believe he thinks the design happened a long time ago. The birds could be descendant from an original gene pool from 60-80 million years ago but I have no idea what John thinks which is why I asked. The birds obviously contain a lot of variation. Where did that variation come from? That is the $million question. As for me, the issue is a mystery. I think that is the only honest answer there is. The one thing I believe is that design is very probable as some point because of the inadequacy of natural processes. What I think it is written all over this blog the last 3 1/2 years. I am not shy about saying what I believe.jerry
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
jerry [104],
No I am laughing too at the ineptness of the Darwinist[s] who come here. The[y']re a pretty inept group.
Oh, I don't know.David Kellogg
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Jerry, by "issue", I meant the issue of whether or not debate ever resolved anything. I was laughing because John, who says he's not here to debate, seems to be the only one who wants to debate debate. As for what you're talking about, and being of the "naturalist" tendency, I've never known anyone present convincing evidence of the existence of the non-natural. What have you got against people who look for natural explanations for natural phenomena? Surely you look for a material mechanical fault when your car breaks down, not gremlins? The question is how was the design instantiated and when. A very good question. We eagerly await the research and the results. And this will certainly involve debate amongst I.D.ers. In this case, I'll certainly go with John. I predict no resolution. I may have it wrong, but doesn't Dr Davison see design at the level of species? How near is that to your view?iconofid
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Dr. JAD, thanks for clarifying you position.Pendulum
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
I agree with John, the issue isn't worth debating because it is too one sided. For the 3 1/2 years I have been on this site I haven't seen one coherent defense of the naturalist position on evolution. So John is right. The question is how was the design instantiated and when. No I am laughing too at the ineptness of the Darwinist who come here. There a pretty inept group.jerry
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Thank you for clarifying the species concept you are using.Pendulum
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
JohnADavison "Since there seems to be a lull here, I remind the participants that in message #74 I challenged all to provide a single example in which “debate” served to resolve any issue scientific or otherwise. For the record, there has been no response." It seems that you're the only one who thinks the issue worth debating. Am I the only one laughing?iconofid
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Since there seems to be a lull here, I remind the participants that in message #74 I challenged all to provide a single example in which "debate" served to resolve any issue scientific or otherwise. For the record, there has been no response. Actually, "debate" prevents resolution because it honors your opponent's position even when that position is patently ridiculous as is the Godless, aimless model which still defines the basis of neoDarwinian gradualism, the only hypothesis in all of science which assumes that it is immune to the judgement of the experimental laboratory and the undeniable testimony of a largely discontinuous fossil record. "Any system that purports to account for evolution must involve a mechanism not mutational and aleatory." Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245, the sentence in his italics for emphasis. At present there are two such systems available, my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and the closely related Universal Genome Hypothesis (UGH), neither of which can ever be reconciled with the Darwinian fairy tale. So don't expect me to "debate." It is waste of time. I am a physiologist who is interested in how things work. I return to Uncommon Descent in the same spirit I have entered all forums, to challenge all positions that I deem to be without foundation and to promote all that I feel is well founded science.JohnADavison
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Evolution has been in large part a progressive loss of potential until today it is questionable if even natural speciation is still in progress. Theodosius Dobzhanky gave us an unambiguous definition of species. Two forms will be considered to be separate species when their progeny prove to be sterile. This definition may require an experimental test. While the two forms may not choose to interbreed, that certainly does not mean they should be regarded as distinct species. There are humans who might not choose to interbreed. Dobzhansky's criterion requires, when necessary, artificial insemination. Darwinians are loathe to experiment for reasons I already stated. Quite independently, even natural speciation seems to have ceased. The important related point is that there is no reason to believe that any taxonomic category ever appeared gradually. If you examine the "transitional" forms you will discover that the paleontologists are forced to put each new discovery in a separate genus. That is especially evident in the horse series which terminated with the genus Equus. I know of not a single fossil or extant form that ever gradually assumed its final form. In a very real sense the genus, or kind, has been the most significant element in creative evolution. Both Julian Huxley and Robert Broom claimed that a new genus has not appeared in the last two million years. I have extended that conclusion to include experimentally verifiable species that satisfy Dobzhansky's physiological criterion. I see no evidence that they are any longer being produced. I realize that my position is not popular with the establishment but that does not mean that it is not valid. Dobzhansky, a lifelong Darwinian, provided us with a sensible, physiologiocal criterion for speciation. All I am suggesting is that if we apply it, we might have to conclude, as I already have, that creative evolution is finished and that only extinction remains. Incidentally, as a young man, before leaving Russia for the New World, Dobzhansky was a student of Leo Berg. I believe that if Dobzhansky had remained in Russia, Darwinism would have died that much sooner. Whatever others may think and no matter how they may react here or elsewhere, the Darwinian scheme for evolution is a dismal failure. It, by its own assumptions, fails to qualify even as a working hypothesis.JohnADavison
March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
Dr. JAD @ 96, What species definition are you using here? Mayr's definition only considers natural interbreeding, so what these multiple species would do in domestication is irrelevant.Pendulum
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
John, Since birds have been brought up, I have a question or a couple of related questions. There are about 10,000 so called species of birds including the various varieties of finches you mentioned. Which means that this 10,000 is probably far less as other species may just be variations of each other. You also mention that a canary is a finch and our good friends cardinals and blue jays are in the same order. Now in canidae there are wolves and dogs and they can interbreed so essentially the various dog breeds and wolves are the same species. Would this be true for a lot of bird species such as the various finch type birds. Are they really just variants of each other? Or are they truly different species? I know they do not interbreed but could they be bred artificially. And if whatever number of species of birds there really are, how did they originate. Now traditional evolutionary biology will say by separation and natural selection within the separated gene pool. My general impression of most evolution is that a lot of it is what I call devolution or a narrowing of the gene pool over time within various sub populations along with an occasional mutation with the resulting array that we see today. Also finches seem to be within the order Passeriformes or song birds while wolves and dogs are within the family canidae. These are different classes but is the level on the taxonomy scale just reflect that there are more varieties of birds than mammals and thus have to be fit into different levels and that the levels do not really mean the same thing from class to class. Any thoughts on this. This is a lot but if you have time to answer some of these, I would be interested.jerry
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Please delete my duplicated message.JohnADavison
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
[duplicate deleted per John A Davison's request. Sal]JohnADavison
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
It is now apparent based on field observations (by the Grants) of natural hybridizations that all of Darwin's precious finches are a single species. The real mystery is why didn't Darwin or someone since domesticate the finches and test Darwin's assumption that they were separate species? Finches are among the easiest birds to domesticate. The canary is a finch! I will tell you why the Darwinians refuse to test the hypothesis that Darwin's finches are separate species. They are terrified of what their experiments might disclose. That is why and the only reason why. That is why they refuse to test any of their silly assumptions. In short they are not scientists. They are congenital mystics. They can't help it. They were "born that way" just as William Wright's book by that title clearly documents. Ernst Mayr, a hero to the Darwinian flock, actually described himself as a "dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian." The Growth of Biolgical Thought, page 132. Isn't "dyed-in-the-wool" synonymous with "born that way"? Of course it is! All enlightened Darwinians, if there are such, must realize that that "natural selection" is a total failure. That is why Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins have completely abandoned science to dedicate all their energies to the denigration of the only conceivable alternative to the aimless Darwinian model which is a creative role for some kind of higher power or powers. They don't even mention the doctrine they silently defend because they realize it is undefensible. It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. It has been going on for a century and a half. It is the biggest and most enduring hoax in the history of science. I love it so!JohnADavison
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Other specialists in the evolutionary biology of speciation have specialized in insects, which are also notable for having adaptations for flight. Such specialists would include: Darwin again (an obsessive collector of beetles and other insects), Wallace again (ditto), Charles Michener, Tom Seeley, Robert Trivers, Karl von Frisch (1973 Nobel Prize), William Wheeler, and Edward O. Wilson. The latter is also famous for having developed the theory of island biogeography (along with mathematician and theoretical biologist, Robert MacArthur) and synthesizing the emerging science of sociobiology.Allen_MacNeill
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply