[net.origins] the real case against Falwell et al

root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (07/03/85)

In article <356@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>
>     I believe  that a  world forged  entirely by chance
> mutations  and  Darwinian  laws  would  be  a  world of
> unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the  law of survival
> of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality,
> but never  perfection.

Exactly!  Many of the "advanced" lifeforms are such total
kludges, but then so what?  The system works.  If nature
DID appear perfect in our eyes then we might well call this
proof of creation.

> Such  a world  would resemble a world created  by the Federal
> Government.  Consider the honeycomb, which represents  a  perfect
> solution  to a multi-dimentional optimization  problem.  The hexagonal
> shape  gives  maximum  strength  for  minimal   use  of material  with
> no  left-over  pockets,  and  the  ends dove-tail perfectly;  nothing
> is  wasted.  Bees would need  engineering  degrees  with  math through
> advanced calculus to  build such  a structure  by design.

Not necessarily.  It doesn't take an engineering degree to build
optimal structures.  It takes an engineering degree to UNDERSTAND
optimal structures, and then only using a method provided by those
degrees.  Simply because the honeycomb is an optimal structure we
cannot conclude that it was therefore designed.  You must first show
that such structures may be built ONLY through design.

> Since they  could  obviously  get  by with much less, Darwins laws
> would seem to imply  that  the  bees  who  put the extra time and
> effort into perfection would be the ones to perish, while other bees
> ate and pro-created more or became better at warfare.

The bees didn't put any effort or time into understanding or creating
the honeycomb.  If they did then that would give the bees intelligence
and that would certainly be a non-creationist concept.

>      Indeed,  everywhere  you  look on this planet, you
> see craftsmanship;  it  is in  no wise  "scientific" to
> ignore something  so obvious.   And yet, believing that
> this planet was "created" doesn't necessitate believing
> in a  being who  is omnipotent;   we seem omnipotent to
> ants, that is  relative.

Craftsmanship?  If you wish to see such craftsmanship then you
will see it.... in everything.  Yet an explanation that explains
EVERYTHING.... explains nothing.
-- 

UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root	- Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO

"Money for you from the Buddah"

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/06/85)

In article <356@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>
>     Evolution seems  to me to be a fact of life and is
>supported  by   all   geological   evidence.   However,
>evolution as  we observe  it now, runs only downhill in
>accordance with the second  law of  thermodynamics.  In
>reality,  chance  mutations,  which  Darwinists like to
>regard as the driving force behind evolution, take only
>such  forms  as  Down's syndrome and Tay-Sachs disease.

	This is an incorrect statement about evolutionary theorists.
We like to regard *natural selection* as the driving force of
evolution, not mutation. Mutation is best viewed as a source of
raw material on which N.S. can act.

>    I believe  that a  world forged  entirely by chance
>mutations  and  Darwinian  laws  would  be  a  world of
>unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the  law of survival
>of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality,
>but never  perfection.  Such  a world  would resemble a
>world created  by the Federal Government.  Consider the

	Actually, this *is* essentially what we see.
With a very few exceptions(mostly simple in nature),
living things do not achieve perfection, only competence.

>honeycomb, which represents  a  perfect  solution  to a
>multi-dimentional optimization  problem.  The hexagonal
>shape  gives  maximum  strength  for  minimal   use  of
>material  with  no  left-over  pockets,  and  the  ends
>dove-tail perfectly;  nothing  is  wasted.   Bees would
>need  engineering  degrees  with  math through advanced
>calculus to  build such  a structure  by design.

Or they could use trial and error, the solution si in fact
quite simple, and may be easily arrived at in this way.
Lesser solutions may be usable(in fact some bee relatives use
such lesser solutions), but in competition with the better
solution under conitions of high poulation density, as in
a bee hive, the small advantage of optimal efficiency would
be prefered once it became available.

>     Indeed,  everywhere  you  look on this planet, you
>see craftsmanship;  it  is in  no wise  "scientific" to
>ignore something  so obvious.   And yet, believing that
>this planet was "created" doesn't necessitate believing
>in a  being who  is omnipotent;   we seem omnipotent to
>ants, that is  relative.
>
	This is in fact a return to the argument from design.
In order to be valid you demonstrate several more points.
First you must provide an objective definition of design,
not just the gut feeling, "this looks sophisticated therefore 
it must be designed". Secondly you must show how this proposed
definition of design *intrinsically* *implies* a designer.
And pleas remember, avoid circularity and begging the question,
simply saying "this fits my definition of design and the dictionary
defines design in such a way as to imply a designer" is *not*
sufficient since you are not using the dictionary definition.

-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen

dsr@uvacs.UUCP (Dana S. Richards) (07/09/85)

[Evolution is best explained..]
> in  Immanual  Velikovsky's  book  "Earth  in Upheaval",
> still  available  from  DoubleDay.
 ... 
>      Logically, belief in such a thing  should mark the
> believer as  an idiot and yet, such is the power of the
> "scientific"  establishment  in   this   country,  that
> they've managed  to mark  everybody who doesn't believe
> in this possibility as  idiots and  most people believe
> them.   In  particular,  they've temporarily managed to
> brand the one man, Velikovsky,  who  ever  did  come up
> with some  of the  right answers regarding our origins,
> as a pseudo-scientist.  It's a funny world.
> 
...
> being a Christian.  My message to all of you scientists
> out there is this:  don't try to attack Christianity on
> scientific  or  historical  grounds;    you are on much
> shakier scientific and historical ground than you would
> like to  imagine.  And if you haven't read Velikovsky's
> books and  David  Talbott's  "The  Saturn  Myth", you'd
> better.  Uniformitarianism is dead.  The alternative to
 
Is there (should there be) a net.pseudoscience where it would be
appropriate to respond to these comments?  There are many
serious articles and books that debunk V, though it is hard
to understand why so much energy has been expended considering
the unsoundness of the claims.  There are those that think
V has been treated unfairly (see a new book reviewed by Martin
Gardner in the new Skeptical Inquirer) but I feel his views
have been treated with incredible serious (all things considered).
It is a credit that scientists bother to refute pseudoscientists
when it is clear that there views are becoming persuasive.
As a rule they would prefer to not debunk; the return on the time
invested is minimal.
Similar comments pertain to rebuttals on this newsgroup.  Obviously
the majority of the creationist liteature/tactics are indistinguishable
from the pseudoscientist's.  However there is the added emotional
dimension that makes this newsgroup different.  And it is always
good to hear thoughtful critiques of Science.

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/09/85)

>> [Ted Holden]
>>    I believe  that a  world forged  entirely by chance
>> mutations  and  Darwinian  laws  would  be  a  world of
>> unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the  law of survival
>> of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality,
>> but never  perfection.  Such  a world  would resemble a
>> world created  by the Federal Government.  Consider the

> [Stanley Friesen]
>	Actually, this *is* essentially what we see.
> With a very few exceptions(mostly simple in nature),
> living things do not achieve perfection, only competence.

It may be observed here that Messrs. Holden and Friesen are both rather
subjective in their comments.  Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask:  what is
perfection?  Or competence?

Presumably competence could be defined for starters as the ability to
survive.  But that doesn't mean much; we get the same problems as when
trying to arrive at an independent criterion of 'fitness'.

----

What is really odd about Stanley's reply is that he makes the above
statement, and then later in the same article challenges Ted to
provide some addition criteria for evaluation of 'design'.

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"More agonizing, less organizing."                                  |

dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (07/10/85)

[]
Paul Dubois writes:
> Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask:  what is perfection?  Or competence?

I think a reasonable working definition of perfection might be:
Something is perfect if there is no straightforward way to improve it.

Isaac Dimitrovsky
allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov   (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1)
251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012

Just because it's a preconceived notion doesn't mean it's wrong!

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/13/85)

> Paul Dubois writes:
> > Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask:  what is perfection?  Or competence?
> 
> [Isaac Dimitrovsky]
> I think a reasonable working definition of perfection might be:
> Something is perfect if there is no straightforward way to improve it.

It seems to me that this simply rephrases the problem in different
words without getting us any closer to solving it.  I suppose, for
example, that an adaptation may be said to be an "improvement", so that
the organism possessing the adaptation may be said to be more
"perfected" than the one not possessing it.  But given the difficulty
of assessing whether a given trait is "adaptive" or not, this is a
non-trivial exercise.  Some of Gould's stuff about the Irish Elk horns
being adaptive comes to mind.  (To be fair, he seems more recently to
have lost some of his enthusiasm for the idea that all structures must
be adaptive and therefore useful.  Once one reaches this stage, one
becomes less subject to the generation of paradigmatic artifacts, less
subject to the notion, for instance, that one *must* find a use for a
structure because it *must* be a useful adaptation.  I am glad to see
that Gould has reached that stage, at least partially.)

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"More agonizing, less organizing."                                  |

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/16/85)

In article <1266@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
>
>>> [Ted Holden]
>>>    I believe  that a  world forged  entirely by chance
>>> mutations  and  Darwinian  laws  would  be  a  world of
>>> unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the  law of survival
>>> of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality,
>>> but never  perfection.  Such  a world  would resemble a
>>> world created  by the Federal Government.  Consider the
>
>> [Stanley Friesen]
>>	Actually, this *is* essentially what we see.
>> With a very few exceptions(mostly simple in nature),
>> living things do not achieve perfection, only competence.
>
>It may be observed here that Messrs. Holden and Friesen are both rather
>subjective in their comments.  Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask:  what is
>perfection?  Or competence?
>
>Presumably competence could be defined for starters as the ability to
>survive.  But that doesn't mean much; we get the same problems as when
>trying to arrive at an independent criterion of 'fitness'.
>
>----
>
>What is really odd about Stanley's reply is that he makes the above
>statement, and then later in the same article challenges Ted to
>provide some addition criteria for evaluation of 'design'.
>
	I admit this phraseology is rather subject, but I was just
responding using Mr Holden's choice of concepts. I will try to make
the matter somewhat less subjective. I would start by noting that Mr
Holden's concept of "perfection" would imply that the structure/behavior
of an organism would be optimal(i.e unimprovable) for its lifestyle
and situation. This, then, reduces to simple engineering analysis.
My observation above was basically that if you look carefully at the
living world you will find suboptimal "design" quite regularly. For
instance, a supension style support structure which is excellent for
a *horizontal* support being used as a *vertical* support(the Human
vertebral column - with all of its "back-problems"). Or look at the
*failure* rate among top carnivores, most capture only a small percent
of the prey they attempt, far less than any competent Human hunter.
Then there is the incredible kludge that is the circuit design of the
mammalian brain! It *works*, but it only by dint of what in a human
designed system would be considered an incredible series of makeshifts
and patches! In the higher mammals the brain is composed of at least
three more of less complete sub-"brains" each operating by inhibiting
some of the function of the next lower brain. Then there is the side
brain(called the cerebellum or little brain) which provides
synchronization and stabilization of output signal by *splining* the
ouytput of higher centers! Imagine a computer in which the output of
the main CPU was only approximately correct and the results are
filtered through an output processor which checks the results and
corrects "errors", this is essentially what the Cerebellum does!
Such examples go no and on, and I hardly think that the idea of
"perfection" in the living world can be maintained in the face of
such evidence.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen