Metaphors, Design Recognition, and the Design Matrix
| March 23, 2009 | Posted by scordova under Intelligent Design |
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)
124 Responses to Metaphors, Design Recognition, and the Design Matrix
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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.
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.
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”
Paglacci
Pagliacci