Miller’s “Evolutionary Design” – an oxymoron or Trojan horse?
| February 21, 2008 | Posted by DLH under Intelligent Design |
“Evolution” is defined so broadly as to prevent refutation. That requires that the whale of “macroevolution” (simple organism to human beings) must be swallowed along with the gnat of “microevolution” – any mutation or change = “evolution”.
Now Kenneth Miller is attempting to transform the Design vs Evolution argument, by claiming nature reveals “evolutionary design” – purely based on “nature” – without an intelligent cause.
Will the public recognize this as an oxymoron?
OR
Will it welcomed as the Trojan horse that undermines Intelligent Design?
————————
There Is ‘Design’ In Nature, Biologist Argues
“ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2008) — Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller has to hand one victory to the “intelligent design” crowd. They know how to frame an issue. “The idea that there is ‘design’ in nature is very appealing,” Miller said. “People want to believe that life isn’t purposeless and random. That’s why the intelligent design movement wins the emotional battle for adherents despite its utter lack of scientific support.”
“To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design’ and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature,” he said.
In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,* Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of “design” — the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life. . . “
“Miller will use arguments from his new book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul to be published by Viking Press in May, for his AAAS talk. Miller will argue that the scientific community must address the attractiveness of the “design” concept and make the case that science itself is based on the idea of design — or the regularity of organization, function, and natural law that gives rise to the world in which we live.
“He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.
“There is, indeed, a design to life — an evolutionary design,” Miller said. “The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions. Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”“In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,* Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of “design” — the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life.”
See full article: Brown University (2008, February 18). There Is ‘Design’ In Nature, Biologist Argues. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm
74 Responses to Miller’s “Evolutionary Design” – an oxymoron or Trojan horse?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
DLH: Thanks for the fraternal reminder. I think I must have transposed letters. What I should have written, had I been sufficiently alert was MET to mean modern evolutionary theory. I use that term as a tribute to Jerry’s concerns, because from my vantage point, neoDarwinist will do nicely.
gpuccio,
Lions and tigers can apparently breed. So are the different species? Would they not have similar genomes?
gpuccio,
A lot of what is called speciation is just devolution of a common gene pool. I gave you several examples, wolves, dogs; lions, tigers, other wild cats; cows, American bison or what we call buffalo; polar bears and grizzly bears. I am sure there are hundreds/thousands more.
These are all referred to as species but can inter breed. So what is a species. The average person would say that a tiger and lion were separate species but according to the breeding definition they are not. They come from a common gene pool.
This is the best argument for design I know of.
Jerry
Compare the usage #2 of evolution:
with the NAS definition:
Technically, I do not see how a “change in frequencies of alleles” would require any mutations or change in or addition to / removal of the alleles themselves.
Thus the cyclic El Nino/La Nina drought/rain in the Galapagos Islands can result in cyclic shifts in the Darwin Finches to larger / smaller beaks. By the rapidity and cyclic nature of these changes indicates that they are “variations in frequency of alleles”, – that are already there. This rapid cyclic variation suggests there are not any actual mutations causing the changes, though it is often touted as evidence for evolution.
Thus I hold the NAS definition is actually closer to the common expectation of “evolution”.
Though I found both definitions fit the predictions and consequences of Intelligent Design as noted above in #51.
Jerry, you wrote:
Jerry, I take your point here. I am “an average person.” Before reading Darwin’s Black Box, I was a TE. I am a clergyperson in a mainline Christian denomination, and my training is in theology, not biology. Theologically, I find a non-literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis to be replete with crucial existential themes about our human situation and our relationship with our creator. My training taught me (and I believe) that Genesis is not meant to be a scientific treatise, and reading it that way misses its point. I was taught to defer to scientists regarding scientific matters, and since “all truth is God’s truth,” science and theology can ultimately be reconciled. As a clergyperson, my unique contribution to unpacking the creation narrative in Genesis is to attend to the fundamental theological themes which are outlined there (very insightfully, I might add!). I have had little training in biology, and have deferred to biologists, just as I would defer to physicists and chemists regarding their disciplines.
Ultimately, the issues are going to have to be fought out on the biologists’ turf.
This is not an unusual position for Catholic and mainline Protestant clergypersons. I am one of the more than 10,000 signers of “The Clergy Letter.” (I now regard that as a credential when detractors label my ID leanings “fundamentalist.”) I am not a fundamentalist, and I am not a creationist.
I believe mainline Protestant denominations could do a better job than they are doing of understanding the basic issues here, and conveying them to our membership. My own denomination is often guilty of buying the popular press’ conflation of ID and creationism. Our denomination’s position with regard to Genesis has never been creationist, so our own internal publications have had TE leanings. To me, this is regrettable. Someone like Denyse O’Leary could do a valuable service by connecting with denominational journalists and ensuring that the issues are properly understood and represented, to the extent that is possible. Most of the time, we don’t get them right in our official publications. People like Miller and Collins are presented as our models and heroes.
My hope is that at some point the issues can be openly processed in academia. Right now, they can’t. That’s why I’m counting on a film like “Expelled” to identify the disparities in the discussion, and help to level the playing field.
Jerry, I think it a bit stretchy to suggest that “change in allele frequency” includes change from 0 to non-zero. Further, as you point out, there is DNA stuff, (possibly non-DNA genetic stuff) that is not “genes”, not “alleles” yet may affect heredity. I find the NAS definition, “Change in the hereditary characteristics of groups of organisms over the course of generations” to be much more effective.
However, both of these definitions absolutely skirt the point! There is nothing in Behe-style ID that is outside of the NAS definition, yet the NAS and other scientific communities absolutely reject Behe’s message. The only definition of evolution that is not compatible with Behe’s message is the blind watchmaker’s thesis. The latter, therefore, is the definition of evolution that the scientific community is using when they are rejecting Behe’s message.
DLH,
you said
“Technically, I do not see how a “change in frequencies of alleles” would require any mutations or change in or addition to / removal of the alleles themselves.”
Neither do I. It could involve new alleles or the lost of alleles but it doesn’t have to.
The finch beak cycle is technically evolution according to the definition of evolution but it is a meaningless one. The fact that the textbooks use it and it is touted undermines the Darwinist case for meaningful evolution which would be the creation of real complexity or novelty.
Essentially is this the best they have. It is like admitting defeat to even use it.
Lutepisc,
I feel uncomfortable talking about theology. I am a Christian, believe in the traditional God of the bible but prefer Galileo’s quote about the bible telling us “How to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
My interest is science and I have an educational background in mathematics and physics. My biology is self taught and was mainly due to my interest in evolution. Until 9 years ago I happily accepted Darwinian ideas till I started reading something about the growing dissent. I went to a meeting here in New York City where Dembski and Behe and others were presenting and was impressed. The main thing that impressed me was that there was not one mention of religion. If there was I would have been out of there immediately.
That is why I continually harp here on getting the religious aspects out of ID. I was hesitant about it and I know the typical person is too. I believe that ID would be more effective on the religious life of the country if there were no religion associated with it. But religious people glom onto ID and want to express their religious views about it which I then view as counterproductive to what they wish for.
I also believe that ID has a lot of baggage in addition to its religious associations. And one of them is what I have been arguing on in this thread. Namely, that Darwinian methods can explain a lot of what happens in life but that does not go down very well here where the attitude of many is that anything Darwinian is evil. To me that is not good science and as such it is a mill stone when trying to convince others of the value of ID.
So I believe we have a paradox. To get to a religiously positive outcome, one has to prevent any association with religion in what you are doing. If one makes a religious association, one may be prevented from reaching a religiously positive outcome. Seems strange, but I happen to think it is true.
bfast,
Suppose a gene pool of bears does not have an allele that would lead to white fur. If a mutation happened to one of the alleles to create a new allele that produced white fur then the frequency of this allele would go from 0% to some positive number. Every new allele created by a mutation would be an example of going from 0% to a positive number and every allele eliminated would be going from a positive number to 0%.
Jerry, I well understand what you mean — how one gets from a frequency of zero to a frequency > zero. It remains to be a weak definition at this point; not insurmountable, but weak. The NAS definition is much stronger.
What remains however, is that neither of these definitions challenges Behe’s message, yet the scientific community would prefer to blacklist Behe as a creationist rather than recognize him as a theistic evolutionist. Why? Because this is not the definition of evolution that the scientific community is using, they are using the Blind Watchmaker Thesis! What good is a definition when the definition is abandoned by those who made it at every turn.
bfast,
you said
“What good is a definition when the definition is abandoned by those who made it at every turn.”
You can disagree but I believe using a correct definition has several advantages. You can call them on it every time they do not use it. Then they look like the persons who are being unscientific.
Darwinists are the ones who insist there is no direction in evolution so when one uses direction as part of their argument then they should be called on it. Every time someone mentions that there is universal common descent then they should be told that is something to be proved and as of today there is no proof. All they will offer is homology and some common DNA sequences but the latter is only evidence for a limited common descent. I just used this reasoning on another thread and the objector has yet to come back. It will be interesting to see where it will go if he does come back.
Using correct definitions will force the ID people to be more focused with their arguments. I do not see this now. The discussions here are all over the lot. We should call out our own when bogus arguments are used. But out of politeness most here do not. So we get a mish mash.
I do not see any big differences between the NAS definition and the accepted definition of genetics etc. The NAS definition is
“Change in the hereditary characteristics of groups of organisms over the course of generations.”
Both use the word “change.” “Hereditary characteristics” are the same thing as alleles. “Groups of organisms” are a population. And “over the course of generations? means over time.
So as far as I am concerned they are the same. You could argue that “hereditary characteristics” refers to more than just alleles but I bet the NAS was just trying to simplify the definition for the lay man or the beginning student who would not have a clue about alleles. If you take the point of view that “hereditary characteristics” is expansive and meant to include elements in the non coding regions then change the definition to
Evolution is “a change in the frequency distribution of hereditary characteristics in a population over time.” Go with this and I won’t have any problem. But as of the moment the only hereditary characteristics we are sure of are alleles.
Mapou: Thank you for your kind words.
bfast:
You have made a telling point. The biological community has established its “official” scientific definition for modern evolutionary theory. Therefore, [A] If Behe’s approach harmonizes with this definition, then [B] eiher Behe is a modern evolutionary theorist in good standing or [C] The biological community neither believes in nor will honor its own definition.
From your proposition, we can take it to the next step. [A] Since the biological community has ostracized Behe from its roster of bona fide evolutionary theorists, [B} the biological community neither believes in nor conform its practices to its own definition of evolution. Therefore, [C] the conflict between the ID community and the MET community is less about a misunderstanding between two parties and more about a dishonest gambit coming from one party.
What is the point, then, of entering into a good faith dialogue with those who do not exhibit good faith?
StephenB
Keep pointing out the materialistic presupposition of excluding any possibility of an intelligent cause to biology.