dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/30/84)
This article accompanies another on a related topic. In that article, a partial response to Bill Jefferys' comments on the argument from design was given. Further remarks are given below. > [Bill Jefferys] > Indeed, one can argue just as persuasively that life as we see it > on Earth is so kludgy that it could *must* have arisen by chance. > Rather than showing evidence of careful design, it shows instead > incredible (and stupid) complexity, just what one would expect from > opportunistic evolution. This kludgyness is seen both at the molecular > level (where, for example, a very large proportion of the DNA in the > human body codes for *absolutely nothing*), and at the organ level > (remember the Panda's thumb, Ray? How about the human eye, whose > overall design is clearly inferior to that of the octopus?) The comments Bill refers to in the last sentence are from article 663@utastro, excerpted below: > Baloney. Creationists love to point to the complexity of life as > evidence of the superb engineering skills of the Creator, yet when > anyone points out a place where the design is obviously faulty, they > pull themselves up and haughtily say, "Well, who are you to question the > wisdom of the Almighty?" Sorry, Ray, you can't have it both ways. > Omniscience isn't needed, only common sense. Let me counter with > another example: One doesn't have to be omniscient to know that the basic > design of the retina of an octopus eye is considerably better that of > the human eye. We have a "blind spot" where the optic nerve enters the > eye; octopi do not. Pray tell, if we are at the pinnacle of Creation, > how come the Creator got it right with the octopus and then stuck us > with a second-rate design? Here is a set of propositions which may be derived from the above two paragraphs. (a) creationists wish to have it both ways - elegant complexity points to a designer, while suboptimal complexity must not be taken as evidence against a designer, presumably because his thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways than our ways, and so we shall never understand his wisdom. (this derives from statements in the second excerpt) (b) if humans are the pinnacle of creation, there should be no sensory function which a human performs more poorly than any other created organism. (last sentence of second excerpt) (c) a blind spot constitutes a design fault. (last half of excerpt 2) (d) a design fault constitutes inferiority of an organ relative to that same organ in another organism which fails to manifest that fault. (last sentence of first excerpt; two sentences in middle of second excerpt) I will discuss these in order. (a) If it is true that creationists take this position as I have stated it, and I think it may be reasonably maintained that some do, then indeed a self-defeating position has been taken, at least in the absence of proof that we shall *never* understand the function of such complexities. But one need not pull oneself up haughtily when faced with faulty design. One might, for instance, simply suspend judgment in such cases, and await further information which would allow a better evaluation of the situation to be made. If a more positive statement were desirable, one might infer a principle of genetic deterioration in consonance with the tenet of physical degeneration that seems to be a part of the standard creationist model, citing as specific evidence the deleterious or lethal nature of many mutations. (To be sure, without a more specific formulation, one immediately runs into problems. For example, *when* should we expect to find genetic disintegration, and *why* should we expect to find it *then* and not otherwise? Under what specific conditions ought it to occur? This is one analogue of a difficulty in evolutionary theory, viz., stasis: *when* will an organism undergo change and *why*? Under what specific conditions will an organism stay the same for millions of years, while others do not?) (b) Bill asks why the creator "got it right" with the octopus but not with us. First of all, this presumes that we know what the "right" design is. But perhaps we do; so I will pass over that for now. The real difficulty with the comment is the implication that a human, at the pinnacle of creation, ought to be endowed with better sensory capacities than lower organisms. This is a dubious proposition at best, not least because it equates sensory capacity with worth in the eyes of a creator (and how is that ascertained?). A more serious biological objection is that organisms occupy different ecological niches. It is to be expected that they shall be different in certain ways, whether they arose by evolution or by non-evolutionary design. If they arose by evolutionary processes, then the differences between organisms are at least in part what *allows* them to occupy their specific niche. If they were created, presumably they were created with different capacities for the *purpose* of fitting them to their niche (although, who knows?). But unless one can demonstrate that the niche occupied by man *requires* better sensory capacities than all other organisms, the proposition is without premise. It is not simply a question of improving one aspect of a sensory channel while leaving all other aspects intact, either. Consider the cat eye and the human eye. The eye of a cat is more highly sensitive to light in the night than the human eye. By Bill's line of reasoning, this would imply that the creator "got it right" with the cat, but not with us. While better night vision is arguably a desirable characteristic, it is not necessarily so. The cat achieves its higher sensitivity primarily by two means. First, a reflective material located behind the photoreceptors bounces the light back for a second chance at being grabbed. (That is why cat eyes "glow".) Second, there is a higher (than human) degree of convergence of photoreceptors onto the ganglia. A ganglion will not transmit a neural implulse until it reaches threshold; a greater number of photoreceptors converging on the ganglion increases its input and therefore the likelihood of reaching threshold. But the increase in sensitivity is not without its disadvantages. Both of these structural characteristics lead to loss of acuity. Light does not bounce around in the human eye as it does in the cat, because a dark pigment behind the photoreceptors absorbs it. An analogy that the astronomers in this group will easily appreciate is that of an observatory located near to a large city. When a lot of city lights are on, the chance of light *detection* increases but the *resolution* of the optical instrument goes down, because city light bouncing around is noise from the astronomer's viewpoint. The greater degree of convergence in the cat produces somewhat the same effect, though for a different reason. With a larger number of photoreceptors connected to a ganglion, the size of its retinal receptive field is increased. In engineering terms, this receptive field may be considered an aperture, where an increase in aperture size lowers the frequency range that can be passed by it. This is reflected in the fact that the frequency transfer function of the cat retina is shifted downward by an octave or more relative to that of the human. So, do we wish to increase our nighttime sensitivity, given the functional price to be paid? I think not. It can be seen from this that the statement about "getting it right" and "second-rate design" is a bit facile. I find it curious that evolutionists continually raise the point about our inability to predict, *a priori*, any limits on the way in which a creator would create - and then go ahead and make their own suppositions. (c) The contention is that the blind spot constitutes faulty design. Does it? Perhaps. Let us examine the question. A blind spot is an area of the retina from which no visual information may be received. In the vertebrate eye this is a consequence of the fact that photoreceptors are "backward". The receptors are oriented with the photoactive part pointed toward the back of the eye, while the ganglia to which they are (indirectly) connected pass their axons out of the front of the retina. The axons all converge at a point near the fovea (area of greatest acuity) and pass out together through the rear of the ocular globe, forming the optic nerve. At this point of convergence there are no photoreceptors, hence no visual information about the portion of the visual field projecting on that area. Hence the term blind spot. For an *actual* disability to result from this physiological structure, the possessor of the eye must be: (i) Unable to move the eye (for otherwise a visually receptive portion of the retina could be rotated to receive information from the part of the visual field corresponding to that projecting on the blind spot). (ii) Unable to move the head (such movement would allow crude approximation of eye movement). (iii) Unable to move the body (ditto). (iv) Monocular, because the blind spots of binocular organisms do not correspond to the same part of the visual field. Clearly, any sighted organism satisfying all of these criteria may have more serious things to worry about than a lack of visual capacity in a certain portion of its retinae. The argument may be extended in a certain way by observing that we have a rather more serious blind spot. It's called the back of the head. To eliminate this functional disability, we should require 360 degree vision. Perhaps we should have eyes on the bottom of our feet. Maybe the whole body needs to be an eye. This would overcome all possible blind spots. But "if the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?" You see what I'm driving at. The blind spot may *seem* to be a fault of design, but it simply is not important in a functional sense. Ask your friends to find theirs. How many of them can do it? Even those who can must engage in a certain amount of trial and error to locate it. This suggests a minimal or nonexistent incapacity. Certainly point (iv) above provides a partial explanation of why this is so: One of many consequences of binocularity is that the blind spot becomes pretty much irrelevant, since the fields of vision subtended by the two eyes in the areas of the blind spots do not overlap. The brain also, to a certain extent, compensates in curious ways under conditions of monocular viewing. A checkerboard grid may be modified by placing a small circular patch where four squares join. When foveal retina is rotated under the image of the patch (i.e., when you "look at it"), you see the patch, as might be expected. But then the blind spot is rotated under the image, an unmodified checkerboard is perceived: the patch disappears (assuming the visual angle of the patch is less than that subtended by the blind spot, of course). The brain seems to generate a hypothesis about what "ought" to be seen. The regular pattern of the checkboard allows an obvious inference as to the nature of that hypothesis, which in the above case is incorrect. Who know why this should occur? Why should we just not perceive a hole in the visual field? I don't know. It certainly seems an odd thing for a creator to build in; it seems extraordinary that it should arise through evolutionary processes. For my money, I'll bet on a designer. Perhaps that is unsafe: I'm sitting on an invalid philosophical position while "real" scientists gather hard data. Don't they. (d) Bill has discussed one aspect of visual function (ther retinal blind spot), concluding that the evidence implies inferiority of the human eye. My comments in the previous section lead to a different conclusion, but I still have to ask in a more general sense how the human eye is "clearly inferior" to the octopus eye. Bill mentions the overall design ("design" being a poor word given the thrust of his argument), but his comments only discussed the design of the retina. This is certainly artificial; a retina is useless by itself. Let us consider general ocular superiority. This would include consideration of such things as the following: o accommodative ability o chromatic and spherical aberration of the lens o pupillary reflex o vergence and version control for binocular functioning o stereopsis o resolution of extraocular muscle nervous innervation o night/day visual capacity, pattern of neural convergence of the photoreceptors onto the ganglia (already discussed) o color vision o rod/cone demography o response to foreign objects (i.e., defense against) o facilities for distance perception Consider stereopsis. This requires coordination of convergence, version, accommodation, as well as a host of neural machinery capable of performing immense data reduction and blindingly fast autocorrelation functions. For all of this complexity we should perhaps expect some functional benefit. The most obvious observation is that distance information may be computed from the disparity of the images falling on the two retinae. Octupi, though binocular, apparently do not have stereopsis. They bob their heads, evidently for the purpose of obtaining parallax information from which distance may be calculated. Leaving aside the question of how any organism could develop *that* ability through evolutionary processes, consider: does the lack of stereopsis imply that the octopus eye is "clearly inferior"? Some further examples: One might say the the human eye is clearly inferior to that of the hawk or the eagle, since the angular resolution of the human eye is poorer. Or that the human eye is clearly inferior to that of the honeybee, since the human eye cannot perceive infrared. Or that the human eye is clearly inferior to that of the housefly, since the human eye does not have as large an angular subtense. Or that the human eye is clearly inferior to that of any number of flying insects because its ability to resolve visual stimuli under conditions of motion is not as great. Or that the human eye is clearly inferior to that of the Anableps fish, since our eye is not developed in such a way as to allow us to see above and below water simultaneously when the eye is placed at the air-water boundary. Or that the human eye is clearly inferior to that of several other fish since the visible part of the globe is not camouflaged to blend in with the rest of the head. Or that the human eye is clearly inferior to that of the chameleon, since we cannot move the eyes in an independent fashion. What's the point? Simply that it is silly to examine one dimension of an organ subserving multidimensional functionality, compare the organ in two organisms, and then conclude that the organ having poorer functionality (in regard to that single aspect) is inferior. The relative superiority argument, even if it were correct, obscures one basic point: the human eye and the octopus eye *both* are magnificent examples of extraordinary complexity. Call me naive if you wish. I find the eye a thing of beauty, not an example of stupid complexity. --- Well, anyway. Bill referred to overall design, but mentioned only the retina and the blind spot specifically. Perhaps he would like to restate his case, so I will leave off here. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (12/04/84)
At the end of a very long article, Paul DuBois says of my article: >Well, anyway. Bill referred to overall design, but mentioned only >the retina and the blind spot specifically. Perhaps he would like >to restate his case, so I will leave off here. Thank you, Paul. I wanted to concentrate only on these issues because I believe they can be treated in isolation from the multitude of other issues you raise. I had originally said: >> Pray tell, if we are at the pinnacle of Creation, >> how come the Creator got it right with the octopus and then stuck us >> with a second-rate design? From this, Paul derived what he thought was my position, to wit: >(b) if humans are the pinnacle of creation, there should be no > sensory function which a human performs more poorly than any > other created organism. (last sentence of second excerpt) This is not the same as the position I stated in my article, nor do I agree with it. For the record, let me stipulate that I recognize that a creator would take into account the needs of different organisms and design eyes which were appropriate to the ecological niche occupied by each organism. I am quite aware of the need for engineers to make design trade-offs. That is not an issue. Therefore, most of Paul's article (which counters point [b] above) is not relevant to my article. My point is rather simpler. The general design of the cephalopod (e.g., octopus) and vertebrate (e.g., human) eye is the same. The major structural difference is the design of the retina, which in the cephalopod may be said to be in "normal" position, and in the vertebrate in "inverted" position. All other things being equal, I claim that the cephalopod design is superior to the vertebrate design since the latter has a "blind spot". I can think of only a few ways to counter this simple observation. First, it may be claimed that God knows best, and we are not to question His decisions. I reject this. I hope that I am not misreading Paul's article, but it seems that he accepts this as a legitimate position. It is obvious to me that an argument of this kind has no place in science. Secondly it may be argued that the two designs are equally good, so that it doesn't matter which design is picked. Paul addresses this issue: >The contention is that the blind spot constitutes faulty design. >Does it? Perhaps. Let us examine the question. A blind spot is an >area of the retina from which no visual information may be received. >In the vertebrate eye this is a consequence of the fact that >photoreceptors are "backward". The receptors are oriented with the >photoactive part pointed toward the back of the eye, while the >ganglia to which they are (indirectly) connected pass their axons >out of the front of the retina. The axons all converge at a point >near the fovea (area of greatest acuity) and pass out together >through the rear of the ocular globe, forming the optic nerve. At >this point of convergence there are no photoreceptors, hence no >visual information about the portion of the visual field projecting >on that area. Hence the term blind spot. > >For an *actual* disability to result from this physiological >structure, the possessor of the eye must be: > >(i) Unable to move the eye (for otherwise a visually receptive > portion of the retina could be rotated to receive > information from the part of the visual field corresponding > to that projecting on the blind spot). >(ii) Unable to move the head (such movement would allow crude > approximation of eye movement). >(iii) Unable to move the body (ditto). >(iv) Monocular, because the blind spots of binocular organisms do > not correspond to the same part of the visual field. >Clearly, any sighted organism satisfying all of these criteria may >have more serious things to worry about than a lack of visual >capacity in a certain portion of its retinae.... >You see what I'm driving at. The blind spot may *seem* to be a >fault of design, but it simply is not important in a functional >sense. Ask your friends to find theirs. How many of them can do >it? Even those who can must engage in a certain amount of trial and >error to locate it. This suggests a minimal or nonexistent >incapacity. Certainly point (iv) above provides a partial >explanation of why this is so: One of many consequences of >binocularity is that the blind spot becomes pretty much irrelevant, >since the fields of vision subtended by the two eyes in the areas of >the blind spots do not overlap. > >The brain also, to a certain extent, compensates in curious ways >under conditions of monocular viewing. A checkerboard grid may be >modified by placing a small circular patch where four squares join. >When foveal retina is rotated under the image of the patch (i.e., >when you "look at it"), you see the patch, as might be expected. >But then the blind spot is rotated under the image, an unmodified >checkerboard is perceived: the patch disappears (assuming the >visual angle of the patch is less than that subtended by the blind >spot, of course). The brain seems to generate a hypothesis about >what "ought" to be seen. The regular pattern of the checkboard >allows an obvious inference as to the nature of that hypothesis, >which in the above case is incorrect. Who know why this should >occur? Why should we just not perceive a hole in the visual field? >I don't know. It certainly seems an odd thing for a creator to >build in; it seems extraordinary that it should arise through >evolutionary processes. I would say that these points argue for *evolution*, not creation. Paul has shown how "kludging around" with other aspects of the human visual system are able to compensate for the design flaw, which is precisely the point I made more generally. Paul mentioned a third argument that I had not thought of, namely, that the human eye perhaps had degenerated from an originally more perfect design: >If a more positive statement were desirable, one might infer a >principle of genetic deterioration in consonance with the tenet of >physical degeneration that seems to be a part of the standard >creationist model, citing as specific evidence the deleterious or >lethal nature of many mutations. (To be sure, without a more >specific formulation, one immediately runs into problems. For >example, *when* should we expect to find genetic disintegration, and >*why* should we expect to find it *then* and not otherwise? Under >what specific conditions ought it to occur? This is one analogue of >a difficulty in evolutionary theory, viz., stasis: *when* will an >organism undergo change and *why*? Under what specific conditions >will an organism stay the same for millions of years, while others >do not?) I find this an amazing hypothesis to come from a Creationist. To go *from* a normal cephalopod retina *to* an inverted vertebrate one would seem to be much more difficult than evolving either from simpler forms, yet Creationists are always saying that even the latter kind of transition is impossible. It should be pointed out that for this hypothesis ("degeneration from a normal to an inverted retina") to hold water, one would have to explain why it happened universally to all the vertebrates and to none of the cephalopods. If the cephalopod design were original, at least some of the vertebrates ought to have retained it. Finally, it may be argued that there is a genuine design trade-off. That is, perhaps there is something about the inverted retina that makes an important trait such as color vision possible. Paul also alludes to this: >Bill has discussed one aspect of visual function (ther retinal blind >spot), concluding that the evidence implies inferiority of the human >eye. My comments in the previous section lead to a different >conclusion, but I still have to ask in a more general sense how the >human eye is "clearly inferior" to the octopus eye. Bill mentions >the overall design ("design" being a poor word given the thrust of >his argument), but his comments only discussed the design of the >retina. This is certainly artificial; a retina is useless by >itself. Let us consider general ocular superiority. This would >include consideration of such things as the following: > > o accommodative ability > o chromatic and spherical aberration of the lens > o pupillary reflex > o vergence and version control for binocular functioning > o stereopsis > o resolution of extraocular muscle nervous innervation > o night/day visual capacity, pattern of neural convergence > of the photoreceptors onto the ganglia (already discussed) > o color vision > o rod/cone demography > o response to foreign objects (i.e., defense against) > o facilities for distance perception Of this list, only color vision and rod/cone demography, which involve the retina, might be endangered by a different retinal design. The other aspects could equally well exist in conjunction with either the cephalopod or the vertebrate design. To make a case for a design trade-off requiring an inverted retina, one would have to provide evidence to show that a normal retina cannot support these aspects of human sight. No such case has been made, and I would argue that it is unlikely that any such case can be made. >I find it curious that evolutionists continually raise the point >about our inability to predict, *a priori*, any limits on the way in >which a creator would create - and then go ahead and make their own >suppositions. On the contrary, whenever an obvious "prediction" is pointed out that is not observed in fact, Creationists can think of a "reason" why the "prediction" should be ignored. It is Creationism that is malleable in this regard, not evolution. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/19/84)
> [Bill Jefferys] > At the end of a very long article, Paul DuBois says of my article: >>Well, anyway. Bill referred to overall design, but mentioned only >>the retina and the blind spot specifically. Perhaps he would like >>to restate his case, so I will leave off here. > Thank you, Paul. I wanted to concentrate only on these issues because > I believe they can be treated in isolation from the multitude of other > issues you raise. I had originally said: >>> Pray tell, if we are at the pinnacle of Creation, >>> how come the Creator got it right with the octopus and then stuck us >>> with a second-rate design? > From this, Paul derived what he thought was my position, to wit: >>(b) if humans are the pinnacle of creation, there should be no >> sensory function which a human performs more poorly than any >> other created organism. (last sentence of second excerpt) > This is not the same as the position I stated in my article, nor do I > agree with it. For the record, let me stipulate that I recognize that > a creator would take into account the needs of different organisms and > design eyes which were appropriate to the ecological niche occupied by > each organism. I am quite aware of the need for engineers to make design > trade-offs. That is not an issue. Therefore, most of Paul's article > (which counters point [b] above) is not relevant to my article. The obvious implication from the statement that the octopus has the right design while that of humans is second rate is that humans (if they are the pinnacle of creation) ought to have a retinal design at least as good as that of the octopus. The extension to any sensory system is equally obvious; restriction of such a claim to the design of the retina is data-sifting. Hence, I claim that (b) is in fact Bill's position whether acknowledged or not, unless the original remark is withdrawn. >>I find it curious that evolutionists continually raise the point >>about our inability to predict, *a priori*, any limits on the way in >>which a creator would create - and then go ahead and make their own >>suppositions. > On the contrary, whenever an obvious "prediction" is pointed out that > is not observed in fact, Creationists can think of a "reason" why > the "prediction" should be ignored. It is Creationism that is > malleable in this regard, not evolution. That Bill even makes such a "prediction" (i.e., that if humans are the pinnacle of creation, we should not be stuck with a second-rate design) reinforces the conclusion that (b) is in fact his actual position. But I wonder if speculation about relative superiority of eyes isn't fruitless. Whether the human eye is inferior or superior is irrelevant to the question of man as the pinnacle of creation without the additional assumption that sensory capability is a metric of the worth of man. I at least find this a doubtful proposition. On to other things... > My point is rather simpler. The general design of the cephalopod (e.g., > octopus) and vertebrate (e.g., human) eye is the same. The major > structural difference is the design of the retina, which in the > cephalopod may be said to be in "normal" position, and in the > vertebrate in "inverted" position. All other things being equal, > I claim that the cephalopod design is superior to the vertebrate > design since the latter has a "blind spot". I claimed, and demonstrated, that the apparent superiority of the cephalopod retina is illusory since no functional deficit results from possession of a blind spot. Also, as I pointed out, all other things are *not* equal. It may be objected (because Bill specifically stated his discussion to be limited to the design of the retina only) that I say this in an attempt to broaden the domain of consideration by an unreasonable degree. But I showed that this *must* be done. A retina is useless in isolation; indeed, to even begin to investigate Bill's claim one needs to consider other factors such as stereopsis and mobility of the organism. I would go so far as to state that the (erroneous) conclusion that the blind spot is a design fault results *precisely* from a failure to consider the other factors. I'm aware that I appear to be arguing a ridiculous thing, i.e., that a defect is not a defect. But that's exactly the point: you can't tell whether a thing is a defect unless you examine whether it *is* or *not*. > I can think of only a few ways to counter this simple observation. > First, it may be claimed that God knows best, and we are not to question > His decisions. I reject this. I hope that I am not misreading Paul's > article, but it seems that he accepts this as a legitimate position. > It is obvious to me that an argument of this kind has no place in > science. It's a misreading. Actually, I said it was not my position: "If it is true that creationists take this position as I have stated it [that we can't ask questions], and I think it may be reasonably maintained that some do, then indeed a self-defeating position has been taken, at least in the absence of proof that we shall *never* understand the function of such complexities." Needless to say, such proof may be difficult to supply in most cases. > Secondly it may be argued that the two designs are equally good, so > that it doesn't matter which design is picked. Paul addresses this > issue: >>[long discussion why blind spot is irrelevant, omitted -- pd] >>[Bill concludes: ] > I would say that these points argue for *evolution*, not creation. > Paul has shown how "kludging around" with other aspects of the > human visual system are able to compensate for the design flaw, > which is precisely the point I made more generally. This conclusion is valid given the prior assumption of a design flaw. Which is precisely the question! "Kludging" must be assumed. > Paul mentioned a third argument that I had not thought of, namely, > that the human eye perhaps had degenerated from an originally more > perfect design: >>If a more positive statement were desirable, one might infer a >>principle of genetic deterioration in consonance with the tenet of >>physical degeneration that seems to be a part of the standard >>creationist model, citing as specific evidence the deleterious or >>lethal nature of many mutations. ... > I find this an amazing hypothesis to come from a Creationist. To go > *from* a normal cephalopod retina *to* an inverted vertebrate one > would seem to be much more difficult than evolving either from > simpler forms, yet Creationists are always saying that even the latter > kind of transition is impossible. I was surprised to find Bill attributing such a thing to me at first, but after re-reading my article it appears to be inferrable from it. The above isn't what I meant, so I shall explain further. I was thinking of apparent design flaws in general, considering that *some* apparent design flaws could be explained on the basis of degeneration, such as the finding that pig insulin works better in guinea pig that guinea pig insulin. This would (I think) be consistent with the hypothesis of degenerative mutations. I did not consider the issue of retinal characteristics to fall under this explanation, since I discussed that issue from another viewpoint (i.e., that it's not a design flaw at all). Anyway, thank you, Bill, for pointing this out. I suppose this obscurity may have confused other readers as well. > Finally, it may be argued that there is a genuine design trade-off. > That is, perhaps there is something about the inverted retina that > makes an important trait such as color vision possible. Paul also > alludes to this: >>Bill has discussed one aspect of visual function (ther retinal blind >>spot), concluding that the evidence implies inferiority of the human >>eye. My comments in the previous section lead to a different >>conclusion, but I still have to ask in a more general sense how the >>human eye is "clearly inferior" to the octopus eye. Bill mentions >>the overall design ("design" being a poor word given the thrust of >>his argument), but his comments only discussed the design of the >>retina. This is certainly artificial; a retina is useless by >>itself. Let us consider general ocular superiority. This would >>include consideration of such things as the following: >> >> o accommodative ability >> o chromatic and spherical aberration of the lens >> o pupillary reflex >> o vergence and version control for binocular functioning >> o stereopsis >> o resolution of extraocular muscle nervous innervation >> o night/day visual capacity, pattern of neural convergence >> of the photoreceptors onto the ganglia (already discussed) >> o color vision >> o rod/cone demography >> o response to foreign objects (i.e., defense against) >> o facilities for distance perception > Of this list, only color vision and rod/cone demography, which involve > the retina, might be endangered by a different retinal design. The other > aspects could equally well exist in conjunction with either the > cephalopod or the vertebrate design. To make a case for a design trade-off > requiring an inverted retina, one would have to provide evidence to show > that a normal retina cannot support these aspects of human sight. No > such case has been made, and I would argue that it is unlikely that > any such case can be made. It is even more unlikely that I shall try to make such a case, because the argument here is beside the point. I suppose both designs *might* support any visual feature listed above. I was more concerned with what each visual system *actually* does. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (12/21/84)
>> From this, Paul derived what he thought was my position, to wit: > >>>(b) if humans are the pinnacle of creation, there should be no >>> sensory function which a human performs more poorly than any >>> other created organism. (last sentence of second excerpt) > >> This is not the same as the position I stated in my article, nor do I >> agree with it. For the record, let me stipulate that I recognize that >> a creator would take into account the needs of different organisms and >> design eyes which were appropriate to the ecological niche occupied by >> each organism. I am quite aware of the need for engineers to make design >> trade-offs. That is not an issue. Therefore, most of Paul's article >> (which counters point [b] above) is not relevant to my article. >The obvious implication from the statement that the octopus has the >right design while that of humans is second rate is that humans (if >they are the pinnacle of creation) ought to have a retinal design at >least as good as that of the octopus. The extension to any sensory >system is equally obvious; restriction of such a claim to the design >of the retina is data-sifting. Hence, I claim that (b) is in fact >Bill's position whether acknowledged or not, unless the original >remark is withdrawn. I find it particularly annoying to state my position and then be told that it is not my position. I would think that Paul would at least have the courtesy to accept my word as to what I mean. However, mindful of the imperfections of analogies, let me use one to illustrate what I meant. Suppose I bought a BMW; it is a very fine car, and for upwards of $20,000 I would expect to have one of the finest cars on the market, as indeed I would. But I would not expect that it would be superior to every other car in the market with regards to every conceivable attribute. For example, I would not expect its trunk space or passenger capacity to equal that of a Lincoln Continental, nor would I expect that a Lincoln would have the handling characteristics that I expect from a BMW. On the other hand, for this amount of money, I would expect the car to show advanced design in all of its systems and subsystems. In the same way, I would expect that each human system would show equal attention to its design, if (as creationists claim) that design is due to an intelligent Creator. >I claimed, and demonstrated, that the apparent superiority of the >cephalopod retina is illusory since no functional deficit results >from possession of a blind spot. Also, as I pointed out, all other >things are *not* equal. It may be objected (because Bill >specifically stated his discussion to be limited to the design of >the retina only) that I say this in an attempt to broaden the domain >of consideration by an unreasonable degree. But I showed that this >*must* be done. A retina is useless in isolation; indeed, to even >begin to investigate Bill's claim one needs to consider other >factors such as stereopsis and mobility of the organism. I would go >so far as to state that the (erroneous) conclusion that the blind >spot is a design fault results *precisely* from a failure to >consider the other factors. > >I'm aware that I appear to be arguing a ridiculous thing, i.e., that >a defect is not a defect. But that's exactly the point: you can't >tell whether a thing is a defect unless you examine whether it *is* >or *not*. To return to the BMW analogy, suppose that when I got the car home I found out that its radio used vacuum tubes instead of transistors. When I return to the dealer to complain, he tells me that "the apparent superiority of transistorized radios is illusory" since vacuum tube radios are functionally equivalent to them, and the reception of the two types is equally good. Suppose I pointed out the danger of the radio draining the battery if I inadvertently left it on in the parking lot. The dealer might respond that I have to consider the whole system. The engineers solved that problem by adding an interlock to the system so that the radio goes off when the ignition key is removed. The "total system" works just as well, and by Paul's argument I should not complain that my BMW came with obsolete technology. I should not consider my radio to be inferior to the transistorized one in my neighbor's Honda Civic. I would reply that it is self-evident that the technology is obsolete and inferior, and that I want my money back. In the same way, we see that two different retinal structures have been used in Nature in otherwise very similar eyes. One is clearly inferior to the other. Paul argues that we have to consider the whole system, and that when we do, the two are equally good. I claim that this argument is very unconvincing. >> First, it may be claimed that God knows best, and we are not to question >> His decisions. I reject this. I hope that I am not misreading Paul's >> article, but it seems that he accepts this as a legitimate position. >> It is obvious to me that an argument of this kind has no place in >> science. > >It's a misreading. I'm sorry. My phrasing was poor. I meant to say something like the following: "First, it may be claimed that God knows best, and we are not to question His decisions. I reject this. I hope that I am not misreading Paul's article, but it seems that he accepts *my position on* this as legitimate." Is this a correct understanding of your views? >> I would say that these points argue for *evolution*, not creation. >> Paul has shown how "kludging around" with other aspects of the >> human visual system are able to compensate for the design flaw, >> which is precisely the point I made more generally. >This conclusion is valid given the prior assumption of a design >flaw. Which is precisely the question! "Kludging" must be assumed. I argue that nothing need be assumed, the "kludge" is obvious. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (01/12/85)
>>> From this, Paul derived what he thought was my position, to wit: >> >>>>(b) if humans are the pinnacle of creation, there should be no >>>> sensory function which a human performs more poorly than any >>>> other created organism. (last sentence of second excerpt) >> >>> This is not the same as the position I stated in my article, nor do I >>> agree with it. For the record, let me stipulate that I recognize that >>> a creator would take into account the needs of different organisms and >>> design eyes which were appropriate to the ecological niche occupied by >>> each organism. I am quite aware of the need for engineers to make design >>> trade-offs. That is not an issue. Therefore, most of Paul's article >>> (which counters point [b] above) is not relevant to my article. >>The obvious implication from the statement that the octopus has the >>right design while that of humans is second rate is that humans (if >>they are the pinnacle of creation) ought to have a retinal design at >>least as good as that of the octopus. The extension to any sensory >>system is equally obvious; restriction of such a claim to the design >>of the retina is data-sifting. Hence, I claim that (b) is in fact >>Bill's position whether acknowledged or not, unless the original >>remark is withdrawn. > I find it particularly annoying to state my position and then be > told that it is not my position. I would think that Paul would at > least have the courtesy to accept my word as to what I mean. I'm sorry, I do not mean to be irritating or discourteous. However, I did (and still do) wish to point out what seems an inconsistency in your statements. It is not a case of not accepting your word as to what you mean, as much as an inability to accept what seem to me two simultaneous and conflicting positions. First I'd like to discuss other aspects of the parent article, though. > However, > mindful of the imperfections of analogies, let me use one to illustrate > what I meant. > Suppose I bought a BMW; it is a very fine car, and for upwards of > $20,000 I would expect to have one of the finest cars on the market, > as indeed I would. But I would not expect that it would be superior > to every other car in the market with regards to every conceivable > attribute. For example, I would not expect its trunk space or > passenger capacity to equal that of a Lincoln Continental, nor > would I expect that a Lincoln would have the handling characteristics > that I expect from a BMW. On the other hand, for this amount of > money, I would expect the car to show advanced design in all > of its systems and subsystems. In the same way, I would expect > that each human system would show equal attention to its > design, if (as creationists claim) that design is due to an > intelligent Creator. > To return to the BMW analogy, suppose that when I got the car home > I found out that its radio used vacuum tubes instead of transistors. > When I return to the dealer to complain, he tells me > that "the apparent superiority of transistorized radios is > illusory" since vacuum tube radios are functionally equivalent to > them, and the reception of the two types is equally good. Suppose > I pointed out the danger of the radio draining the battery if > I inadvertently left it on in the parking lot. The dealer might > respond that I have to consider the whole system. The engineers solved > that problem by adding an interlock to the system so that the radio > goes off when the ignition key is removed. The "total system" works > just as well, and by Paul's argument I should not complain that my > BMW came with obsolete technology. I should not consider my radio > to be inferior to the transistorized one in my neighbor's Honda > Civic. I would reply that it is self-evident that the technology is > obsolete and inferior, and that I want my money back. That blind spots are flaws remains to be demonstrated. Are they? Bill says yes. I say no. Bill's argument proceeds from structural considerations. Additionally a functional deicit must be implied from this. (If a structure is flawed, the flaw ought to result in a functional deficit. If it is not *used*, then in what respect is it flawed?) No deficit has been demonstrated. I have provided evidence to show that in fact there is none. The analogy of the vacuum tube radio shows that there is indeed a disadvantage in constructing a radio from such tubes as opposed to using transistors: the current-drain differential is considerable. The analogy fails to be analogous, however. What is the functional deficit of the blind spot? Loss of vision in part of the eye? But how does any of us know about our blind spots? Are they "self- evidently" inferior? Obviously not. Does even one in a hundred of us know about them because of visual experience, as opposed to reading about them, or being told of them by someone else (who read about them, or ... etc.)? I doubt it. So the "loss" is minimal or non-existent. It is as well to explain that the retina is flawed because its visual field does not extend another degree more laterally than it does. The analogy additionally asserts that obsolete technology constitutes inferior design. But this requires, again, functional deficiency. If there is *no* difference functionally, there is no inferiority of design. There *is* a functional difference between vacuum tubes and transistors. I assert that there is *no* functional difference between the two retinal designs. My argument may easily and convincingly be refuted, simply by demonstrating the deficit. Bill also raises the issue of compensation for flaws: (i) >>> I would say that these points argue for *evolution*, not creation. >>> Paul has shown how "kludging around" with other aspects of the >>> human visual system are able to compensate for the design flaw, >>> which is precisely the point I made more generally. >>This conclusion is valid given the prior assumption of a design >>flaw. Which is precisely the question! "Kludging" must be assumed. > I argue that nothing need be assumed, the "kludge" is obvious. If no "flaw" is assumed, there is no reason to feel that anything is in need of "compensation", hence no reason to feel that kludges must be identified. (ii) > When I return to the dealer to complain, he tells me > that "the apparent superiority of transistorized radios is > illusory" since vacuum tube radios are functionally equivalent to > them, and the reception of the two types is equally good. Suppose > I pointed out the danger of the radio draining the battery if > I inadvertently left it on in the parking lot. The dealer might > respond that I have to consider the whole system. The engineers solved > that problem by adding an interlock to the system so that the radio > goes off when the ignition key is removed. The "total system" works > just as well, and by Paul's argument I should not complain that my > BMW came with obsolete technology. I should not consider my radio > to be inferior to the transistorized one in my neighbor's Honda > Civic. I would reply that it is self-evident that the technology is > obsolete and inferior, and that I want my money back. Again the analogy fails to be analogous. The interlock has one function: it is an add-on component to compensate for what the designers *recognize* as a design fault. The physiological factors rendering the blind spot irrelevant (e.g., binocularity, stereopsis, organismal mobility) all have functions *unrelated* to the blind spot. They may indeed be "able to compensate" (an oddly teleological phrase), but they do so in a way in which they are integrally related in an extremely harmonious fashion. They do not give the impression of added-on bits and pieces tacked on to fudge over a flaw. It is not even clear that these systems *are* compensating for anything, though I have up to now couched a certain amount of my argument in compensatory terms. Close one eye and hold your head still. This eliminates binocularity (hence stereopsis) and information obtained by movement. Notice your blind spot? Of course not. Moral: it's irrelevant. Why is this? Let's go back to structural considerations. The center of the retina (the fovea) contains mainly cones (giving us color vision there) and the ratio of projection of photoreceptors onto ganglia is very nearly 1:1 (giving us high acuity there). Central retina subserves identification functions. On the other hand, the periphery (in which is located the blind spot) is almost exclusively comprised of rods characterized by a high degree of photoreceptor:gangion convergence. This results in a loss of acuity but a greatly increased sensitivity to light flux. The periphery thus subserves flux detection. It also is used for motion detection and such things as maintenance of posture, acting as a sort of radar system for orientation. Acuity is not necessary for any of these things. The system is highly redundant, so no small part of it is crucial (something not true of foveal vision). If one wishes to say the the blind spot is a defect because that area signals no visual information, then one ought also measure the total angular subtense of the cephalopod and vertebrate retinae and declare the one with a smaller field of vision defective. Conclusion: The vertebrate retina is not worse. Just different. I would now like to return to what I said seemed to me an inconsistency in Bill's position. The argument Bill makes, as I understand it, is as follows. (i) Humans are alleged by creationists to be the pinnacle of creation, the product of a designer. (ii) Given (i), each human system should show advanced design. The designer should devote careful attention to the pinnacle of its creation. (iii) Verification of (ii) fails, since in particular the human retina is of clearly inferior design relative to the cephalopod retina. Since (ii) is an implication of (i), failure of (ii) means that (i) remains undemonstrated. This is the argument as it appears to me. If I have misrepresented it, I apologize and request clarification. Assuming that I have not done so, I would like to make two points. First, I obviously do not believe the blind spot is any big deal. But this is finally inconclusive. Bill (or someone else) can bring up another alledged design flaw, and I (or someone else) can refute the contention, and this may continue _ad infinitum_. So, secondly, it may as well be observed that such contentions involve certain hidden assumptions: (a) One must be willing to state conditions on the ways in which a creator would create, for instance, what sorts of observations one should expect if humans are the pinnacle of creation. This is implied by (ii), above. (b) In particular, it is stipulated that the sensory systems of humans should be obviously well-designed (if humans are the pinnacle of creation). This also is implied by (ii). (c) Since invalidation of (ii) will proceed on the basis of consideration of sensory capacity in relation to that of some other "lower" organism, it follows then that assessment of man's claim to be the pinnacle is measured by means of a metric equating sensory capability with worth in the eyes of a creator. Clearly, assumption (a) must be allowed, for if not, non- creationists could not challenge creationists on their own terms. (Or what are thought to be their own terms, at least. I'm not sure it is necessary to identify man as the pinnacle.) Assumption (b) is arguable, perhaps, but I hardly see why one need assume such a thing. Assumption (c) is clearly unnecessary. I suspect that at least some some creationists might feel man's worth in the eyes of a creator to be founded upon different considerations. Being made in the image of the designer, for instance. But about that I have nothing to say here. The point is that the basis of the argument is flawed. Therefore, even if blind spots *were* shown to be clear design faults (and they have not been), it would prove nothing. Yes, I recognize how unsatisfactory this is from a scientific standpoint. It means that evaluation of whether man is the pinnacle becomes difficult or impossible on scientific grounds. In any case, it seems to me that there is an inconsistency here. Point (c) is the one which has driven me to make the statements that, unfortunately, have angered Bill. It simply cannot be said both that because humans come up short in comparison with another organism that they manifest a design flaw, and that humans need not compare favorably with other organisms. Bill says that this is not his position, yet he argues on that basis, I think. Comments, Bill? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | "And the streets shall be full of boys and girls playing --+-- in the streets thereof..." | Zechariah 8:5 |
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (01/12/85)
Well, golly. Almost 250 lines and Paul hasn't come up with any new
arguments. All he has done is to repeat, AS LOUDLY AS HE CAN,
his contention that an evident design flaw, the "blind spot", isn't
a design flaw at all because under normal circumstances our
brains are fooled into not noticing it. That's like saying that you should
be willing to pay just as much for mahogany veneer as for solid mahogany,
because under normal circumstances you don't notice the difference.
Well, let me tell you how anyone who hasn't found it yet can notice
it easily. Close one eye, say the right. Look fixedly at any convenient
point a few feet away. Hold your finger out at arms length and
move your finger about a point between 6 inches and a foot to the
left of the point you are gazing at. When you find the "blind spot",
POOF! Your finger will (apparently) disappear. Wasn't that fun?
(If you close your left eye, interchange "right" and "left" in the
above instructions).
If Paul really believes that this is just as good, functionally, as having
no blind spot, I would like him to explain this to a very good friend of
mine who lost the sight of one eye in an accident a number of years ago.
I think he will feel rather silly arguing the proposition to him, at least.
How about some other examples? Among the following there must be
at least one that Paul would admit shows the Creator's lack
of foresight: What about the spinal column? Our habit of using it in a
vertical position causes no end of pain (as in "Oh, my aching back!") and
worse, since evolution has given us a basic design that works much better
in a horizontal position, the way it originated. Ask any orthopedist if you
don't believe me. Or maybe God just wanted to be sure that orthopedists
wouldn't starve.
Or how about hernias? A common affliction which can also be blamed in
part on our vertical posture. Or (sorry) hemorrhoids? This afflicts
many women for the first time during childbearing, and many people in
sedentary occupations. To bad God didn't have the foresight to make the
veins in that area just a bit stronger. Or perhaps He also has an
inordinate fondness for proctologists (to misquote Haldane :-).
Paul may think I am being facetious. I am not, but let's consider some
more serious design flaws. I am thinking of hereditary diseases that
condemn innocent children, *from the moment of conception*, with
great pain and suffering and the prospect of an early death.
Were these genes part of our original gene pool? If so, this was indeed a
cruel trick for God to have played on these innocents.
Maybe these are examples of "thermodynamic devolution"! No, wait, there
are problems with that. Almighty God could have designed the genetic
apparatus so that it was much more resistant to mutations than it is. For
Him not to have designed the genetic apparatus with more robustness lays
Him open to charges of incompetence and/or cruelty. After all,
Creationists claim that production of new genetic variations is not part
of God's plan. If this were really the case, then it doesn't make sense to
design the genetic machinery with a redundancy that (coincidentally??)
just happens to be consistent with the rate at which evolution is actually
observed to occur.
There is another problem. The gene for sickle cell anemia confers a
survival advantage on its heterozygous carriers. If it wasn't in the
original gene pool, then this would be an example of the evolutionary
synthesis of a new, useful gene, which Creationists are always claiming to be
highly improbable. On the other hand, if the gene had always been there,
an example of God's beneficence to Mankind, then one may ask why He
made this particular design choice. Remember, the individuals who are
homozygous for sickle cell live a short life full of not inconsiderable pain
and suffering. The more malaria there is, the more such unlucky
individuals there are. A much better design choice would have been not to
have created the malaria parasite in the first place.
Which, of course, brings up the question of why there is evil in the
world. If God designed the good things in the world, He also designed the
bad ones, such as the numerous deadly diseases that have caused untold
suffering through the ages. This is a question that Creationists seldom
face up to. What is the *scientific* explanation for the existence of
disease organisms, according to "Scientific Creationism"? No fair
using religious arguments. To do so defeats your purpose of showing that
Creationism is scientific. No appealing to "the wisdom of the Creator,
which we are unable to fathom". Remember, the evolutionary explanation
of the existence of disease organisms is simple and straightforward.
Let's see if the Creationists can do as well.
My original point in bringing up this subject was to give just one reason
why the Argument from Design has very little following today among
knowledgeable people. I was simply trying to show that the excellence of
design that we would expect in God's most subtle creation (us) is lacking,
and that the kludgy facts are explained just as well, in fact better,
by evolution. I think that I have succeeded rather well in this, as the
stridency of Paul's responses proves. Come on, Paul, all you are doing is
banging your fist on the table! Not very persuasive.
As for the alleged inconsistency of my position, Paul, if you can't
see why perfection of *design* has nothing to do with universality of
*function*, then I can't help you. I've done the best I can.
--
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp)
bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/26/85)
Since SOR #5 is still not completed (to be followed by my replies to your reviews) I thought I'd jump in briefly on a discussion between Bill & Paul. Bill Jefferys writes: >Were these genes [hereditary diseases] part of our original gene pool? As I have often stated, the premise is that all organisms were created in perfect organization & were functionally complete. Any change from that state then, would of necessity be a downward change. Mutations should be harmful, not helpful. Hereditary diseases are a result of genetic damage we have accumulated since said changes began. They were not originally created in the gene pools. This is one of the consequences of deviating from the initial condition in which we were created. In fact, the further we move from that time, the more we should expect to see such problems crop up, e.g., shortly after the "fall" from our initial state, it would be possible for a brother & sister to marry, whereas under current circumstances it creates a rather dangerous situation. >After all, Creationists claim that production of new genetic variations is not >part of God's plan. Any mutation can be said to be a "production of new genetic variations". The question up for debate is whether or not those random variations are sufficient to produce the complex life forms we see around us. Bill is far from demon- strating that. >There is another problem. The gene for sickle cell anemia confers a >survival advantage on its heterozygous carriers. If it wasn't in the >original gene pool, then this would be an example of the evolutionary >synthesis of a new, useful gene, which Creationists are always claiming to be >highly improbable. On the other hand, if the gene had always been there, >an example of God's beneficence to Mankind, then one may ask why He >made this particular design choice. Remember, the individuals who are >homozygous for sickle cell live a short life full of not inconsiderable pain >and suffering. This demonstrates the poverty of the evolutionists' positions when they have to use sickle cell anemia as an example of a helpful mutation. Helpful? Then perhaps everyone should have it? In fact, sickle cell anemia represents a harmful mutation, as Bill conceeds when he describes the short & painful life of homozygous individuals. Why are we doing research into the thing if it's such a great thing to have in fighting malaria? Hey, let's spread it around a little more ... >Which, of course, brings up the question of why there is evil in the >world. This is a theological question. Evil implies morality. Since Bill claims the bottom line of everything, ultimately, is physics, is there then any such thing as evil? Do self replicating chemical reactions (life) have such things as purpose/morals/evil/good? Does the chemical reaction in a burning candle have those things? No? Why then should other chemical reactions have them? After all, it's simply a matter of complexity, not substance. >This is a question that Creationists seldom face up to. Wrong. It's been discussed. Perhaps you seldom read the published literature? >What is the *scientific* explanation for the existence of disease organisms, >according to "Scientific Creationism"? No fair using religious arguments. >To do so defeats your purpose of showing that Creationism is scientific. The ultimate root cause is that it is a direct consequence of our fall from our initial condition in which we were created. I expect most of the diseases are a mutation which proved to be quite harmful to us, directly or indirectly. This ties in with my comments about hereditary diseases, above. Here, however, I must cry foul. You ask a theological question (what is the purpose behind evil & diseases) & then restrict answers to nontheological territory. Dubious debate tactics to be sure, but I hope I have nevertheless provided a satisfac- tory answer given those restrictions. >No appealing to "the wisdom of the Creator, which we are unable to fathom". Over & over & over & over evolutionists charge that creationists use this quote. They have, of course, never demonstrated any of the serious creation- ists on the net using it as an explanation for anything. Despite repeated corrections, the straw man is dusted off & used again. I must conclude, there- fore, that some evolutionists deliberately distort our position, at least some of the time, and therefore are not at all honest. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/29/85)
In article <32500020@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes: >>What is the *scientific* explanation for the existence of disease organisms, >>according to "Scientific Creationism"? No fair using religious arguments. >>To do so defeats your purpose of showing that Creationism is scientific. > >This ties in with my comments about hereditary diseases, above. Here, however, >I must cry foul. You ask a theological question (what is the purpose behind >evil & diseases) & then restrict answers to nontheological territory. Dubious >debate tactics to be sure, but I hope I have nevertheless provided a satisfac- >tory answer given those restrictions. > No, No, No, you have misunderstood the question! He was *not* asking for the *purpose* of disease, he was asking for a *scientific explanation* of disease. That is he wants a set of causational events which led to the existance of disease, *not* a theological explanation of the *reason* why they exist. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen