I'm almost done reviewing Darwin's Proof. It's been slow going, because I have been doing it chapter by chapter and haven't had much time to post. The reading is easy. I should have time to get this done soon. This time, I will review the second to last chapter, chapter 10.
Things are getting repetitive by this point. Hunter relies heavily on having made the case that evolution is a religion, but I have thoroughly refuted that in previous posts. This chapter introduces the intelligent design theory. Kind of. If by introducing a theory you expect to find detailed analysis of data that are explained by it and mechanisms by which it works, you will be disappointed.
Hunter first tries to counter the criticism that ID is not a real theory. He avoids almost all direct criticism and fails to show simple ways that ID is like a theory, like showing its predictions or ways to falsify it. Instead, he brings up two philosophers of science. He mentions Popper's idea of falsifiability. Rather than showing how ID is falsifiable, he simply mentions that the criterion of falsifiability has problems, so we can ignore it. Yes, falsifiability is a slippery idea. It is naive to believe that one observation can falsify a theory, for example. That doesn't mean it is a useless idea. Scientific theories must be capable of refutation by some empirical means, and Hunter makes no attempt to show that ID fits the bill.
Next Hunter brings up Kuhn's concept of paradigm shifts, as a means of refuting the overwhelming consensus for evolution. He points out that consensus have been overturned in the past. While this is true, it is not an argument for ID. If it were, then every fringe idea would be given legitimacy. I agree that we must be careful when we use the scientific consensus as an argument for evolution. It is ultimately an argument from authority. But it is referring to the relevant authority in this matter, and it does mean the burden is on ID to show why this consensus is wrong or to give us reason to believe there might be a paradigm shift.
He counters the claim that ID is just religion by his claim that evolution is a religion as well, which I have already refuted. He also fails to note that ID starts with religious conclusions, and fits the evidence to the already determined conclusions. He uses his usual dismissive tone towards the evidence for evolution, for example claiming that we have little idea how complexity could arise, but we are sure it wasn't by design. There are textbooks written about how it could arise, and detailed studies of how particular structures have arisen. It is not taken on faith.
Next, Hunter veers off on a tangent about the privatization of God. He points out that in modern society, religious belief is considered a private matter, rather than public. He somehow blames this on evolution. He seems completely ignorant of the history of tolerance. The idea that religion should be private arose after hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe, and became popular in the 18th century, 100 years before Darwin. He thinks that in America, this separation of church and state is a new idea, resulting from the secularization of America, rather than one of the most important concepts for the founding fathers.
And again, he claims that we aren't really separating church and state, because evolution is in fact a religion. His entire thesis depends on this poorly supported conclusion.
Now it is time to tell us what ID really is and is not. He introduces the concept of irreducible complexity in a few sentences, without actually using the term, and without even trying to address the criticism of the concept. It is a given for Hunter. He tells us, again, that ID does not require absolutely perfect design (he is sure that evolution depends entirely on countering a perfect designer). Hunter tells us that evolution does account for some things, but we just need a designer for bigger things. In other words he uses the standard micro/macroevolution, god of the gaps argument. Evolution is fine except for the places where there is a bigger gap, then bring in the designer.
And he tells us that the criticism that ID makes no predictions is simply a mischaracterization of ID. Since that has been one of my main criticisms in these posts, I looked forward to being shown some predictions. However, I have just given his entire refutation of this claim. Rather than actually listing a few predictions, he simply says it is a mischaracterization. He also claims, again, that evolution predicts anything and everything, which I have refuted in many of the previous chapters.
Now we get into the ID research program. Hunter points out that design is used in areas such as archeology. However, whenever scientists use the concept of design, it is with knowledge of the designers, or inferences into the nature of the designer. Even when we study adaptations, it is with knowledge of the designer--in this case, evolution. We know that things are designed to maximize offspring. ID doesn't even tell us what things are desinged for. Hunter uses an example of the possible sequences for various hemoglobin molecules, but never bothers to show how it follows from a particular view of design.
Hunter mischaracterizes evolution, claiming that biologists believe that differences between proteins are the result of random changes or neutral evolution. In fact, we recognize many changes are the result of selection, and most importantly have ways to determine if change is neutral or adaptive. This is where Hunter gets dangerously close to making a prediction. Hunter is taking the position that all differences between proteins and all structures will have a function. This is a breakthrough, if they stick with it, and I have seen other ID proponents take this position as well. They claim that ID leads to the hypothesis that all DNA will be functional. The case that some DNA is in fact functionless, such as many pseudogenes, is very strong. It would seem ID has been falsified. You would at least think there would be legions of ID scientists trying to find the functional purpose of silent subsitutions, pseudogenes, and other oddities.
Hunter continues his confusion regarding convergent evolution. He thinks evolution fails to explain the similarities between marsupials and placentals, for example, and that ID explains them as a result of common design. I think Hunter is completely unaware of the vast structural differences between marsupials and placentals that hide beneath the superficially similarity. Evolution can explain why the marsupial mole is so different from the placental mole. If their similarities are the result of common design, then what is Hunter's explanation for their differences?
Hunter admits that evolution dominates the study of designed structures, but claims this is simply because it is the dominant paradigm. He then states: "Where evolution will accept and even look for nonfunction, ID will look for function. Where evolution will explain away the obvious designes in nature as chance products of natural selection, ID will simply model the design as design". There are so many problems in those sentences. First, evolution looks for function as well, as the default hypothesis for anatomical structures. Second, "chance products of natural selection" doesn't make sense, since natural selection is not chance. Third, I have no idea what "model the design as design" means. The simple answer to Hunter's claims is "show me the money." Show some examples of the use of ID as a driving force in research, and how it is more succesful than evolution. Then I will gladly accept your claim. Again, Hunter is claiming that everything has a fucntion. It seems this is the closest Hunter will come to making a prediction, so this would be the way to disprove ID.
Finally, Hunter goes through the different possible interpretations of ID, from creation ex nihilio to front loaded creation to design through natural laws. In other words, everything from young earth creationists to theistic evolution. He counts a theistic evolution that would not offend many active evolutionary biologists as ID. Clearly, if ID works entirely through natural laws, then we should study those laws, which is what biology does. He defines ID so widely that almost anything is ID. What he fails to do is to tell us how to distinguish between these. If ID were a real science, then the YECs, front loaders, theistic evolutionists, and progressive evolutionist would all be debating each other and coming up with observations to support one view over another. In fact, these groups do disagree with each other, but the debate is bassed entirely on scriptural exegesis, and not science. Hunter does tell us at that he supports creation ex nihilio (consistent with other YEC leanings in the book), but doesn't explain why.
Yet again, we get a chapter that promises to provide the substance but fails to deliver. Hunter has again failed to give a single prediction of ID, a single result arising from it, or a framework for a research program. He does occasionally claim that such things exist, but never gives an example. We have further comfirmation that ID is a vaccuous concept, based entirely on negative arguments.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
SGU skepticism
I love The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, the podcast by the New England Skeptical Society. I've listened to it every week for over 2 years. It is a great way to keep up on the latest science and pseudoscience, and it is entertaining as well.
I do have one problem with it however. This is just a friendly criticism. It in no way takes away from the enjoyment of the podcast. There will be things to disagree with in any program. It doesn't succeed if it doesn't make us think and occasionally challenge it. My particular criticism is also found in many other skeptical and pro science groups.
My most common problem with SGU is the unfounded technological optimism. In the SGU universe, science and technology can fix anything. The future is bright. All of our problems can be solved by science. I want to be fair. They do sometimes inject some caution. Steve Novella is more likely to hold back on the implications while his brother Bob is most likely to see nothing but potential.
One podcast in which this was seen was an interview with someone trying to create immortality. He believes that all of the things that kill us can be dealt with by medical science. There was very little skepticism of the claims, or acknowledgment of the limits we have seen.
I was a kid when Nixon announced the war on cancer. I read about how terrible cancer was and thought that at least it will be cured by the time I get old enough to get it. In fact, cancer is as much of a killer now as before. We often hear about the latest possible cure for cancer. Maybe something worked great in mice. The translation to human therapy is always messier. We get tiny increments. The same could be said about cures for malaria or the common cold.
The same could be said about gene therapy. Twenty years ago there was talk of curing numerous illnesses and making designer humans. Today there is still no unequivocal success with gene therapy. That doesn't mean we wont' succeed in some cases (and fail in others). But biological systems are complicated. Any manipulation alters the whole system, and simple extrapolations almost never work with living things.
The hope of medical immortality ignores all of this. Even something as long established as organ transplants have complications and limitations as serious today as decades ago.
We see this in the popular press as well. Stem cells have tremendous potential. But a reader of the popular press might believe that breakthroughs are only years away. The reality is probably more like decades, and it will work with some diseases and not others, and there will be complications and limits on its success.
Other places of misplaced optimism in the SGU are space travel and nanotechnology. The reality of space travel should give anyone with visions of a science fiction future pause. We haven't been back to the moon in 35 years. The energy and resources for any extended stay in space are tremendous. I do not know if we will ever be able to overcome them. Certainly, energy is a major limit. We have yet to find a good source of energy without major economic and ecological problems. Even wind energy affects birds and bats. Anyone with a skeptical background should know that hopes for limitless energy are almost always unfounded.
I believe science can solve many problems. But it also has limits. The 20th century should show us the limits of technology, and the unexpected side effects of it. We should pursue all of the leads we have, and find ways to make the world better. But I would encourage people not to exaggerate the benefits or ignore the limitations. We have to be skeptical of science as well as pseudoscience.
I do have one problem with it however. This is just a friendly criticism. It in no way takes away from the enjoyment of the podcast. There will be things to disagree with in any program. It doesn't succeed if it doesn't make us think and occasionally challenge it. My particular criticism is also found in many other skeptical and pro science groups.
My most common problem with SGU is the unfounded technological optimism. In the SGU universe, science and technology can fix anything. The future is bright. All of our problems can be solved by science. I want to be fair. They do sometimes inject some caution. Steve Novella is more likely to hold back on the implications while his brother Bob is most likely to see nothing but potential.
One podcast in which this was seen was an interview with someone trying to create immortality. He believes that all of the things that kill us can be dealt with by medical science. There was very little skepticism of the claims, or acknowledgment of the limits we have seen.
I was a kid when Nixon announced the war on cancer. I read about how terrible cancer was and thought that at least it will be cured by the time I get old enough to get it. In fact, cancer is as much of a killer now as before. We often hear about the latest possible cure for cancer. Maybe something worked great in mice. The translation to human therapy is always messier. We get tiny increments. The same could be said about cures for malaria or the common cold.
The same could be said about gene therapy. Twenty years ago there was talk of curing numerous illnesses and making designer humans. Today there is still no unequivocal success with gene therapy. That doesn't mean we wont' succeed in some cases (and fail in others). But biological systems are complicated. Any manipulation alters the whole system, and simple extrapolations almost never work with living things.
The hope of medical immortality ignores all of this. Even something as long established as organ transplants have complications and limitations as serious today as decades ago.
We see this in the popular press as well. Stem cells have tremendous potential. But a reader of the popular press might believe that breakthroughs are only years away. The reality is probably more like decades, and it will work with some diseases and not others, and there will be complications and limits on its success.
Other places of misplaced optimism in the SGU are space travel and nanotechnology. The reality of space travel should give anyone with visions of a science fiction future pause. We haven't been back to the moon in 35 years. The energy and resources for any extended stay in space are tremendous. I do not know if we will ever be able to overcome them. Certainly, energy is a major limit. We have yet to find a good source of energy without major economic and ecological problems. Even wind energy affects birds and bats. Anyone with a skeptical background should know that hopes for limitless energy are almost always unfounded.
I believe science can solve many problems. But it also has limits. The 20th century should show us the limits of technology, and the unexpected side effects of it. We should pursue all of the leads we have, and find ways to make the world better. But I would encourage people not to exaggerate the benefits or ignore the limitations. We have to be skeptical of science as well as pseudoscience.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The SETI lottery
A question that occasionally comes up in skeptical circles is the scientific status of SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Some claim that it is a pseudoscience while others defend it as sound science. Although I do not believe it is pseudoscience, I think that it sometimes can be very weak science.
SETI does not have the approach to evidence that pseudoscience has. It does not reject criticism like pseudoscience. It does change it's approach in response to evidence or criticism. It is not based on theories that contradict known theories. Falsifiability is a little trickier. It is not clear how much negative evidence is required to reject the search. At best we can put a limit on the number of stars that might contain intelligence. Even that is weak, because intelligence may be communicating with us in ways that we are not searching. But SETI does not have the built in barriers to falsifiability of many pseudosciences. More importantly, SETI has been objective in it's criteria for acceptance.
I think the most important question for it's legitimacy is how it would react to a positive signal. If we got a putative signal, I believe the scientific and SETI community would rigorously dissect the evidence. Althernative explanations would be sought out, and if better explanations were found, then the case would be rejected. I say that based on how the community has behaved so far. If however, the SETI community grabbed on to some possible signal and clung to it with layers of excuses even as evidence against it mounts, the same way that PSI researchers cling to weak evidence for ESP, then it would be a pseudoscience.
Although SETI is not a pseudoscience, that doesn't mean it is necessarily good science. SETI is unusual as a science because it has no actual data. There is no theory. It is just a search. The biggest problem is that the search is based on nothing but speculations, largely based on our knowledge of one society, 20th century scientific humans.
There is no reason to believe that any other intelligence would care to communicate with other intelligences, just because we would. There is no reason to think they would put rescources into sending out a strong signal. We haven't, why should they? In the 20th century, we used radio communication a lot, so the search has focused on radio signals. However, it is likely that we will replace radio signals with fiber optic or other means of communicating before too long. Our period of radio communication may only exist for a century or two.
SETI searches particular frequencies of the spectrum because those frequencies would make the most sense for an intelligence to communicate with. Again, this assumes they want to communicate and that they think in a manner similar to us and that they have the rescources available to devote to sending out a beacon.
Some speculations are pure science fiction. There was a recent study that looked for so called "Dyson spheres". These are theoretical massive solar energy collecting panels encircling a sun. There is no reason other than imagination to think any civilization would ever make these. Even if they are made, the study relied on assumptions about the infrared signal they would produce. There are reasons to believe Dyson spheres would never be made. The massive amount of material needed to make a significant number of these is way beyond our technology. There have been proposals to collect solar energy just from earth orbit, and we haven't managed to do it. It wouldn't be economically feasible for a long time. Maybe in a century we could have a few orbitin the earth. And yet people envision millions of square miles of these orbiting a sun.
Often, as in the case above, we assume that an advanced civilization would have massive capabilities. We envision a future like the Jetsons. Do we forget that we were supposed to be living in the sky by now, if you asked people 60 years ago? Humans left near earth orbit between the years 1969-1972. We have not returned, and won't for at least a few more decades. Much as I wish it were otherwise, I doubt humans will ever leave our own near vicinity. There is a strain of technological utopianism in much of science and SETI. It ignores economics and social forces. It ignores the limits of technology, or the unpleasant side effects.
The usual argument given for SETI, in the face of the long odds and large amounts of speculation, is that the pay off would be so enormous that we should go for it, even with long odds. Kind of a Pascal's wager of science. I agree that a postive outcome would be one of the most thrilling results we could have. If it can be done with minimal investment of resources, and there are people willing to devote their lives to it, I have no objection. However, I would object to any significant investment of resources, and I myself could not spend my life on SETI. It seems very much like buying lottery tickets and hoping for a pay off.
SETI does not have the approach to evidence that pseudoscience has. It does not reject criticism like pseudoscience. It does change it's approach in response to evidence or criticism. It is not based on theories that contradict known theories. Falsifiability is a little trickier. It is not clear how much negative evidence is required to reject the search. At best we can put a limit on the number of stars that might contain intelligence. Even that is weak, because intelligence may be communicating with us in ways that we are not searching. But SETI does not have the built in barriers to falsifiability of many pseudosciences. More importantly, SETI has been objective in it's criteria for acceptance.
I think the most important question for it's legitimacy is how it would react to a positive signal. If we got a putative signal, I believe the scientific and SETI community would rigorously dissect the evidence. Althernative explanations would be sought out, and if better explanations were found, then the case would be rejected. I say that based on how the community has behaved so far. If however, the SETI community grabbed on to some possible signal and clung to it with layers of excuses even as evidence against it mounts, the same way that PSI researchers cling to weak evidence for ESP, then it would be a pseudoscience.
Although SETI is not a pseudoscience, that doesn't mean it is necessarily good science. SETI is unusual as a science because it has no actual data. There is no theory. It is just a search. The biggest problem is that the search is based on nothing but speculations, largely based on our knowledge of one society, 20th century scientific humans.
There is no reason to believe that any other intelligence would care to communicate with other intelligences, just because we would. There is no reason to think they would put rescources into sending out a strong signal. We haven't, why should they? In the 20th century, we used radio communication a lot, so the search has focused on radio signals. However, it is likely that we will replace radio signals with fiber optic or other means of communicating before too long. Our period of radio communication may only exist for a century or two.
SETI searches particular frequencies of the spectrum because those frequencies would make the most sense for an intelligence to communicate with. Again, this assumes they want to communicate and that they think in a manner similar to us and that they have the rescources available to devote to sending out a beacon.
Some speculations are pure science fiction. There was a recent study that looked for so called "Dyson spheres". These are theoretical massive solar energy collecting panels encircling a sun. There is no reason other than imagination to think any civilization would ever make these. Even if they are made, the study relied on assumptions about the infrared signal they would produce. There are reasons to believe Dyson spheres would never be made. The massive amount of material needed to make a significant number of these is way beyond our technology. There have been proposals to collect solar energy just from earth orbit, and we haven't managed to do it. It wouldn't be economically feasible for a long time. Maybe in a century we could have a few orbitin the earth. And yet people envision millions of square miles of these orbiting a sun.
Often, as in the case above, we assume that an advanced civilization would have massive capabilities. We envision a future like the Jetsons. Do we forget that we were supposed to be living in the sky by now, if you asked people 60 years ago? Humans left near earth orbit between the years 1969-1972. We have not returned, and won't for at least a few more decades. Much as I wish it were otherwise, I doubt humans will ever leave our own near vicinity. There is a strain of technological utopianism in much of science and SETI. It ignores economics and social forces. It ignores the limits of technology, or the unpleasant side effects.
The usual argument given for SETI, in the face of the long odds and large amounts of speculation, is that the pay off would be so enormous that we should go for it, even with long odds. Kind of a Pascal's wager of science. I agree that a postive outcome would be one of the most thrilling results we could have. If it can be done with minimal investment of resources, and there are people willing to devote their lives to it, I have no objection. However, I would object to any significant investment of resources, and I myself could not spend my life on SETI. It seems very much like buying lottery tickets and hoping for a pay off.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Darwin's Proof, chapter 9
I am now on Chapter 9 of my review of Darwin's Proof. This will be a short review. The book stopped dealing with science about half way through. It is now purely a religious apologetic.
Hunter begins by explaining how when Jesus was crucified, people expected more from him, miracles or signs or to save himself. Likewise, we expect more from creation, some kind of perfection. Hunter tells us again, as in chapter 8, that creation is very imperfect, because of the fall. He openly rebukes 18th century philosophy, as well as the design arguments of William Paley. He calls this the "paradigm of perfection". He seems to recognize that creation isn't that perfect. He continues to insist that evolution depends on a view of perfect designing God. He continues with his idiosyncratic view that all evidence for evolution is really just an argument against the paradigm of perfection. Hunter never explains why evolution is very convincing to people from non Western religions, such as those in Asia, even though those religions generally do not view God as a perfect designer.
Of course, Hunter can't do away entirely with the idea that creation is somehow the expression of God's handiwork, so he explains that creation is a general revelation. God reveals himself in creation. Scripture is the more specific revelation. Many people would look at creation and think that this reveals a God of cruelty and poor design, but again, that is because of the fall. All of the good things in the world are the revelation of God, the bad things are the fall.
I found some of his views of general revelation to be amusing. Hunter explains how scriptures uses analogies to explain things. For example, the kingdom of heaven is like a little bit of yeast that works through a large amount of dough. False teachers are like a brood of vipers, etc. Hunter then asks if it was serendipity that creation just happened to be full of analogies to spiritual truths, or if God created the world to have these analogies. In other words, he is suggesting that vipers were created to give us an analogy for false teachers or yeast created to give us an analogy for small things producing a large effect. Does he really have that little confidence in the human imagination to suggest that analogies can't be found in almost anything? Does he really believe that everything around us, all of the creatures we see, are there just as Sunday school lessons for us?
Hunter suggests that a caterpillar in its cocoon is a symbol of the crucified Christ, to be resurrected soon. So metamorphosis, found in millions of arthropods, not just butterlies, a process with clear ecological benefits to the organism, a process on which other species and ecosystems depend, is nothing more than a Sunday school lesson. I could find such Sunday school lessons in anything I want, including fictional stories. I could use the butterfly as an analogy for a Hindu myth of death and rebirth. Even as theology, this is hopeless, leave alone as science.
Hunter says creation's purpose is to communicate truths and contribute to our salvation. He doesn't explain why an evolved world couldn't do the same thing. Hunter contradicts himself at the end of the chapter, stating the perfections in nature reveal the glory of God. Even he can't get away from the paradigm of perfection.
Hunter returns to his point that patterns in the world could be the product of an underlying purpose, rather than evolution. He points to the pentadactyl limb as such an exmaple. Perhaps it is part of God's design to have this pattern in separate creations. He ignores the most famous example of a deviation from that pattern--The panda's thumb. It has an extra digit that doesn't follow this underlying theme. Why would God make an exception to his pattern in just this one case? Hunter must be familiar with Gould's famous essay, and must know it was aimed at exactly the argument he made, that patterns reflect an underlying design element. Gould argued that both evolution and creation can explain well designed or universal patterns, but only evolution can explain the odd exceptions or poorly designed elements.
And Hunter yet again says that no matter what we we in nature, we would explain it by evolution. When I teach evolution, I challenge my students to think of things that could not be explained by evolution. I offer Pegasus, the flying horse, as such a creature. Evolution modifies pre-existing structures, it does not create things like wings from scratch. That's why all flying vertebrates have wings from modified limbs. If we regularly saw creatures such as Pegasus, we would disprove evolution. Hunter thinks we would explain it away. I am willing to openly say numerous observations that would falsify evolution, from Pegasus to a rabbit in the Cambrian. They would not be explained away. Evolution would be falsified. I'm willing to put the theory of evolution on the block like that. Is Hunter willing to do the same with his views?
Hunter begins by explaining how when Jesus was crucified, people expected more from him, miracles or signs or to save himself. Likewise, we expect more from creation, some kind of perfection. Hunter tells us again, as in chapter 8, that creation is very imperfect, because of the fall. He openly rebukes 18th century philosophy, as well as the design arguments of William Paley. He calls this the "paradigm of perfection". He seems to recognize that creation isn't that perfect. He continues to insist that evolution depends on a view of perfect designing God. He continues with his idiosyncratic view that all evidence for evolution is really just an argument against the paradigm of perfection. Hunter never explains why evolution is very convincing to people from non Western religions, such as those in Asia, even though those religions generally do not view God as a perfect designer.
Of course, Hunter can't do away entirely with the idea that creation is somehow the expression of God's handiwork, so he explains that creation is a general revelation. God reveals himself in creation. Scripture is the more specific revelation. Many people would look at creation and think that this reveals a God of cruelty and poor design, but again, that is because of the fall. All of the good things in the world are the revelation of God, the bad things are the fall.
I found some of his views of general revelation to be amusing. Hunter explains how scriptures uses analogies to explain things. For example, the kingdom of heaven is like a little bit of yeast that works through a large amount of dough. False teachers are like a brood of vipers, etc. Hunter then asks if it was serendipity that creation just happened to be full of analogies to spiritual truths, or if God created the world to have these analogies. In other words, he is suggesting that vipers were created to give us an analogy for false teachers or yeast created to give us an analogy for small things producing a large effect. Does he really have that little confidence in the human imagination to suggest that analogies can't be found in almost anything? Does he really believe that everything around us, all of the creatures we see, are there just as Sunday school lessons for us?
Hunter suggests that a caterpillar in its cocoon is a symbol of the crucified Christ, to be resurrected soon. So metamorphosis, found in millions of arthropods, not just butterlies, a process with clear ecological benefits to the organism, a process on which other species and ecosystems depend, is nothing more than a Sunday school lesson. I could find such Sunday school lessons in anything I want, including fictional stories. I could use the butterfly as an analogy for a Hindu myth of death and rebirth. Even as theology, this is hopeless, leave alone as science.
Hunter says creation's purpose is to communicate truths and contribute to our salvation. He doesn't explain why an evolved world couldn't do the same thing. Hunter contradicts himself at the end of the chapter, stating the perfections in nature reveal the glory of God. Even he can't get away from the paradigm of perfection.
Hunter returns to his point that patterns in the world could be the product of an underlying purpose, rather than evolution. He points to the pentadactyl limb as such an exmaple. Perhaps it is part of God's design to have this pattern in separate creations. He ignores the most famous example of a deviation from that pattern--The panda's thumb. It has an extra digit that doesn't follow this underlying theme. Why would God make an exception to his pattern in just this one case? Hunter must be familiar with Gould's famous essay, and must know it was aimed at exactly the argument he made, that patterns reflect an underlying design element. Gould argued that both evolution and creation can explain well designed or universal patterns, but only evolution can explain the odd exceptions or poorly designed elements.
And Hunter yet again says that no matter what we we in nature, we would explain it by evolution. When I teach evolution, I challenge my students to think of things that could not be explained by evolution. I offer Pegasus, the flying horse, as such a creature. Evolution modifies pre-existing structures, it does not create things like wings from scratch. That's why all flying vertebrates have wings from modified limbs. If we regularly saw creatures such as Pegasus, we would disprove evolution. Hunter thinks we would explain it away. I am willing to openly say numerous observations that would falsify evolution, from Pegasus to a rabbit in the Cambrian. They would not be explained away. Evolution would be falsified. I'm willing to put the theory of evolution on the block like that. Is Hunter willing to do the same with his views?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
