Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Steven Novella takes on the creationists

Steven Novella has a post criticizing a recent video that challenges Darwinian orthodoxy and presents evidence for intelligent agency in nature.

As you may know I'm not a young earth creationist. The evidence is good that the universe is 15 billion or so years old, the earth is 5 billion years old, and life has evolved (changed) over time. I'm open to other evidence, but I have no good reasons to doubt these basic views.

I do assert that the universe is created by God, and that there is obvious evidence for intelligent agency in nature. My understanding of this evidence hews more to a Thomist approach than it does to a specific intelligent design approach. ID is clearly true, but I believe that ID in nature is a subset of teleology in nature, and teleology is irrefutable evidence for God's existence (Aquinas' Fifth Way).

I have no truck with Darwinism. Random variation and natural selection explains nothing. "Things change and survivors survive" is banality and tautology, and not real science. Darwin's idiot "theory" is a philosophical scam that has been successful merely because it was proposed in a culture duped by atheism and panting for a creation myth. Atheists are easy to please (c.f. Dawkins is considered a 'public intellectual') and largely innocent of even rudimentary philosophical rigor.

I'll not address the video specifically (it's a good video worth a look), but Novella's arguments are worth some commentary.

Novella:
Genesis Weak
Published by Steven Novella under Creationism/ID 
I advise you to please turn off your irony meters before reading further or clicking the link to the video I will be discussing today. You may also want to take a couple of deep relaxing breaths to help preserve your neurons from the irrational assault they are about to suffer.

I was recently asked to take a look at Genesis Week with Ian Juby (Wazooloo), a slick YouTube series in which Juby takes us on a mystical journey through the looking glass of creationist nonsense. In his world science and reason are flipped completely upside down. It is, as they say, a “target rich environment” – too rich for any one blog post, so I will pick out a few gems.

The title of this episode is “I’m hooked on a feeling,” referring to new research showing that acceptance of evolution is strongly influenced by a gut “feeling of certainty” that people have about the theory. Juby makes much of this study (without, of course, putting it into any context) concluding that people believe in evolution despite the evidence (what he describes as overwhelming evidence for creation) rather than because of it.

The study itself reviews prior research on this question, summarizing it:


Despite the variety of studies that have been reported, there are no convincingly clear findings about the relationships among knowledge level, beliefs, and acceptance level regarding the theory of evolution. While some studies have provided evidence for a robust relationship between knowledge level and level of acceptance (Paz-y-Miño & Espinosa, 2009; Rutledge & Warden, 1999), others found no evidence of a straightforward relationship (Sinatra et al., 2003), and little evidence that instructional treatments affect acceptance levels (Chinsamy & Plagányi, 2007), even when learning gains have been substantiated (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007). It has also been suggested that the nature of relationships change when acceptance of evolutionary theory is framed in the context of macroevolution rather than microevolution (Nadelson & Southerland, 2010).

So – it’s complicated. Results of research seem to depend upon how the study was conducted, meaning that confounding variables have not adequately been controlled for so they determine the outcome of individual studies, which therefore have conflicting results.

However, at least so far there does not appear to be a clear relationship between teaching students about evolutionary theory and their acceptance of it. This is actually not surprising and in line with the consensus of psychological research, which shows that people form opinions largely for emotional and ideological reasons, and then cherry pick the facts they need to support those opinions.

The findings of the current study are therefore nothing new, and there is no reason to think that this phenomenon is unique to belief in evolution.

But to put this study into its proper context – this is about affecting the opinions of students by confronting their emotional reactions to evolution. It is not about how scientists form their opinions about evolutionary theory.
Of course it is. Darwinism is a cesspool of ideologically-driven propaganda posing as dispassionate science.
This is a common logical error that creationists make – confusing public opinion with expert scientific opinion. Juby tries to make it seem that this study shows that acceptance of evolution in general (including among scientists and educators) is about feeling rather than evidence.
It is clear that the public approaches questions of origins much more rationally than the little coterie of atheists inhabiting departments of evolutionary biology.

Ordinary people aren't stupid, and evolutionary biologists are a hopelessly ideological clump of sheep stuck in a branch of science not known for perspicuity.

Ordinary people know propaganda when they see it, and their unwillingness to be duped drives atheists nuts.
He then goes on to another common claim of creationists that reflects their astounding intellectual dishonesty.

intellectual dishonesty (noun): the ability to distinguish atheist propaganda from science.
He lists a few biologists who are creationists – as if their opinions are evidence based, and contrasting them with the emotion-based acceptance of evolution. 
Among scientists, however, >99% accept evolutionary theory
Notice that atheists never define "evolution" in a way in which their assertions can be tested. All scientists accept that organisms have changed over time. Most scientists don't accept Darwin's assertion that RM + NS can account for all of it. Only a subset of all scientists (although a near unanimity of evolutionary biologists) accept the atheist framework on which Darwin's theory hangs.

The meaning of "evolution" constantly changes, in accordance with rhetorical needs.
– a relevant fact that Juby failed to mention. This is also in line with other research, showing that only at the highest levels of science education do facts trump emotion in forming our beliefs about controversial or emotional topics.
Yea. Only students at the pinnacle of their scientific training are really rational. What b.s.
Among the experts there is a strong consensus – the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that all life on earth is related through an evolutionary process.
Living thing change. No one doubts that.

Does the fossil and molecular record support universal common ancestry? The evidence is mixed.
Juby, however, rattles off a couple of creationist exceptions as if they are the rule.
It is the exceptions in science that lead to genuine new insight.
It is hard to imagine that Juby is not aware of these facts. We are left to conclude that he is either living in a creationist bubble or is flagrantly dishonest in dealing with the question of scientific acceptance of evolution...
... whatever atheists mean by "evolution" at a given moment.

Eventually Juby gets around to listing some of the alleged overwhelming evidence for creation, including irreducible complexity and lack of a mechanism for increasing genetic information. He lists a bunch of old long-discredited creationist canards, and that is his “overwhelming evidence.”
Irreducible complexity and the enormous difficulty in explaining complex biological systems using known rates of heritable change are profound problems for atheism. Teleology explains such observations naturally, but teleology presupposes intelligent agency.

Teleology has been under a code of Omerta in natural science for several centuries for just that reason.

Creationists proposed the notion of irreducible complexity over a decade ago, and really it was just a reformulation of arguments they have been putting forward for a century and a half – since Darwin proposed his version of evolutionary theory.
IC is an old idea, asserted recently by Mike Behe based on modern biochemical evidence. It is obviously true, and a very important observation that is devastating to Darwin's theory.
It has been debated and discussed among scientists, and found to be a fatally flawed idea.
fatally flawed idea (noun); any idea inconsistent with atheism.
It’s flat out wrong – disproved by numerous counter examples.
Just-so stories aren't examples. There is vanishing little actual scientific evidence that complex biological systems can evolve step-by-step through IC roadblocks.
I first wrote about it myself in 1999, and the arguments haven’t changed.
The arguments haven't changed because they are valid, and there's no reason to change them.
The alleged lack of a mechanism for generating new genetic information is nonsense – not a serious scientific or even philosophical argument.
I challenge Dr. Novella to write one paragraph of his blog post using randomly generated variations of letters "selected" by an algorithm that lacks the endpoint of a syntactically correct and semantically coherent paragraph.

Generating Dr. Novella himself without intelligent agency is an even more difficult matter, as you might imagine.

Generating Dr. Novella's ideas without intelligent agency has already been done.
(I first debunked this one in 2002.) The combination of random mutations and selective pressures, combined with gene duplication and other genetic mechanisms, are fully capable of increasing overall genetic information and creating new information.
Scrambling information without forethought creates no "new" information. Tearing up newspapers into tiny bits and flinging the bits in the air does not generate new newspapers.
Creationists like Juby have no counterarguments to the scientific consensus clearly demonstrating that irreducible complexity and creationist abuses of information theory are false. They simply trot out the same discarded claims over and over again with arrogance and casual dismissiveness of the scientific consensus – a consensus slowly built on a mountain of evidence.
IC remains fatal to atheism and to Darwinism.
I’m not bothered by the fact the people like Juby can promote their nonsense on an open forum like YouTube.
Why would Novella even think to question Juby's right to free speech?
He is unlikely to change anyone’s opinion.
He doesn't have to. Creationists are the majority, Steven.
He also provides yet another opportunity to point out the terrible logic and questionable honesty of the creationists. They do make it easy in that they have nothing new to say.
We tell the obvious truth, which is not new.
Science changes and new ideas and new evidence are brought to bare.
... brought to bear. Maybe Novella is writing his post using random letters...
Creationism is stuck in its prescientific conclusion, and continue to rely upon long discredited arguments – even when dressed up in a slick YouTube video.
Creationism terrifies atheists, because atheism can't explain design in nature. Atheists have known since the mid-19th century that their only hope to prevail is if they can silence debate.

That's getting harder to do.

68 comments:

  1. Michael,

    Well, you don't have any evidence that teleology actually is a mechanism in speciation. You don't have a clue what the mechanism is. It just reduces to 'survivors survive' because unless God wills into existence a novel function or structure to cope with conditions not yet existing but soon to happen, the species goes extinct (like 99.9% of previous species).

    Irreducible complexity was discussed by Herman Muller decades before Michael Behe. Muller has won a Nobel Prize for his work in genetics (Behe is still waiting for his - the judges in Stockholm must have overlooked his claim that his discovery of irreducible complexity is one of the greatest discoveries in science).

    Muller realized that irreducible complexity isn't a problem for evolutionary biology.

    Tearing up a newspaper and putting the pieces together randomly isn't the right analogy for evolution. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the immediately preceding quote of Steven Novella.

    You still don't have any evidence that intelligent design occurs. The mid nineteenth century was the death knell of intelligent design. Paley published his 'Natural Theology' in 1802, and it impressed the young Darwin. With the increasing discoveries in science, it progressively became realized that it wasn't a good argument. So in 1857, the creationist Edmund Gosse published 'Omphalos' (later renamed 'Creation') proposing that God created the world within the last 10,000 years, with the appearance of age and a history (including Adam with a navel 'omphalos' despite not having a mother). It sank like a stone, because it made God into a deceiver.

    Then 2 years later, Darwin published 'On the Origin of Species'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bach:

      [Tearing up a newspaper and putting the pieces together randomly isn't the right analogy for evolution.]

      What is the right analogy?

      Delete
    2. A random walk is a wrong analogy for evolution. A random walk with a positive feedback (from a fitness landscape) is the right analogy.

      I would be willing to discuss this further, but first Dr. Egnor needs to show some familiarity with these terms.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. What's this, Hoo, a pre-test? Like the written test you take before you can take the road test at the DMV?

      I's quite familiar with random walks and fitness landscapes.

      Fitness landscape is an excellent example of teleology-- a directedness imparted to change that occurs via a random walk.

      Delete
    4. Yes, Dr. Egnor, these are prerequisites, if you know what I mean.

      Let's see how familiar you are with random walks and fitness landscapes. Surely you can answer a couple of simple questions.

      Let's begin with random walks.

      1. Consider a random walk in one dimension. Equal probabilities for stepping left and right (0.5). If a random walker makes N steps, how far, on average, will he be away from the origin?

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. Michael,

      Do I really have to explain sexual reproduction to you. I know you're a surgeon, but surely you've done some genetics?

      OK, humans have 46 chromosomes. 23 pairs. One of each pair comes from the mother. One comes from the father. The chromosomes aren't torn up and put randomly together. During meiosis, the process of forming sex gametes, one of each pair goes into the gamete, so a cell with 23 chromosomes is formed. It's as if you have a newspaper with 46 pages, but actually with 2 page 1s, 2 page 2s, ..., 2 page 23s, and you divide 2 newspapers into half with each one having a single page 1, 2, ..., 23 and then combine 2 halves from each newspaper so you have a new one with 46 pages again, and 2 page 1s, 2 page 2s,..., 2 page 23s again.

      There's also a process of meiotic crossover - for example in chromosome 1, part is transferred to the other pair in exchange for exactly the same part of the other pair. It's an equal exchange. It's like tearing the two page 1s in half and taping the top half of one to the bottom half of the other. It's definitely not like tearing up a newspaper and putting part of page 23 next to page 1.

      Gene duplication is like photocopying part of page 1, and taping it to an intact page 1, which then has several copies of the same news article. The original giving one account of the story. The copied article being free to be edited giving a completely different account. Which is what happens in gene duplication. The duplicated genes are free to mutate to form a new gene because the original gene is still there doing its original function.

      It's taken me some effort writing this, trying to simplify it down to your level of understanding. I hope this helps.

      Delete
    6. @Hoo:

      The average distance from the origin will be the square root of N.

      Fitness landscapes are superb analogies to teleology-- the tendency for natural processes to hew to goals.

      Now my questions:

      Do you agree or disagree that fitness landscapes are analogous to teleology?

      Delete
    7. Q: 'Do you agree or disagree that fitness landscapes are analogous to teleology?'

      A: Disagree. Fitness landscapes indicate that with changing conditions, new combinations of genes with some new mutations, both occurring in a random non-directed fashion, are better able to survive longer and produce more offspring.

      For teleology, a directed process, you have to have a process making it possible, and be able to confirm that it's happening. You don't have either.

      Delete
    8. Very good, Dr. Egnor! (I am assuming you did not look up the answer on Wikipedia.)

      To answer your question, a landscape may be a result of teleology or it may not be. An example of the former would be a golf course. An example of the later would be a mountain range. One is pre-specified, the other is not. So no, a fitness landscape does not indicate teleology.

      Now my next question (or two) for you. You have passed the qualifying exam, so these are for real.

      Consider binary strings of length N and some smooth fitness function.

      1. How long, roughly, will it take a random walk to find the most fit string?

      2. How long, roughly, will it take a search that follows the local gradient uphill of the fitness function to find the most fit string?

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. The second question has been somewhat garbled during edited. Here is what it should read:

      2. How long, roughly, will it take a search that follows the local gradient of the fitness function uphill to find the most fit string?

      Hoo

      Delete
    10. @Hoo:

      I only play Jepoardy for money. Go play math games with yourself.

      All landscapes are teleological, because they represent potential values for fitness, on which an organism or trait hews to a path.

      Because the values are potential, they are not all actual. Thus, as they are not actual, they represent a pre-determined set of possible values of fitness, constrained by the topography of the landscape.

      A predetermined set of constrained possible outcomes is a fine definition of teleology.

      Your definition of evolution as random walks on a fitness landscape is a beautiful model for teleological evolution.

      You don't even understand the implications of your own models.

      Delete
    11. Dr. Egnor,

      It is certainly not beneath William Dembski to play these "math games." They go to the heart of the problem, you see. Since you are unable to do even elementary math, let me do it for you.

      A pure random walk will take an exponentially long time, of the order exp(N), to maximize fitness. In contrast, a gradient search will find it in a time polynomial in N. (Dembski, by the way, understands that.)

      As to your gibberish about landscapes being teleological, I am not interested in your mental masturbation. It matters not one whit whether a landscape was designed (a golf course) or arose naturally (a mountain range). A random walk or a walk using feedback from the landscape can climb them in the times described above. So all this talk about teleology is just an architectural detail that adds nothing to the structure of the theory.

      Hoo

      Delete
    12. @Hoo:

      Any other models of evolution, besides the teleological ones?

      Delete
    13. Not sure what you mean by that, Dr. Egnor. Teleology is irrelevant to evolutionary models. Asking whether an evolutionary model is teleological or not is about as useful as asking whether it is written in longhand or typed.

      A landscape is a landscape; the same physics laws apply to natural landscapes as to artificial ones. A random walk with feedback climbs to higher fitness regardless of whether the fitness landscape was designed or just happened to be there.

      All your talk about teleology is about as meaningful as the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.

      Hoo

      Delete
    14. @Hoo the human math machine:

      A landscape is a map of possible evolutionary fitness outcomes-- i.e. a map of evolutionary teleology. If evolution were not teleological, you couldn't construct a map of constrained potential outcomes, because "constrained potential outcomes" is what teleology is.

      To argue against teleology in evolution, you invoke a model of evolution-- a fitness landscape-- which is wholly teleological.

      Debating you guys is pure fun. It's almost not fair.

      Delete
    15. Your musings add nothing to the outcome, Dr. Egnor. A map can be that of a golf course (designed) or that of a mountain range (natural). It works all the same. A search works all the same. Saying "Teleology!" adds nothing of value to the analysis.

      That's how creationism is: irrelevant.

      Hoo

      Delete
    16. @Hoo the Human Math Machine:

      [Saying "Teleology!" adds nothing of value to the analysis.]

      The teleology is inherent to the process, and you inevitably incorporate it in your models, whether you "say" it or not.

      The value it adds to the process is that it is the truth.

      The reason you evade teleology in evolution like a cat evades a bath is that you understand that natural teleology presupposes God, and you'll do anything to evade that.

      Delete
    17. Perception of age is not deception when:
      . God has clearly warned He will send a great delusion (the deep desire to believe what is wrong) to those who are committed to rejecting His existence,
      . He has placed the correct explanation with corresponding confirming evindence directly in front of us.

      Delete
    18. Michael,

      And you still haven't explained why teleology doesn't just reduce to 'survivors survive'.

      That is:

      Survivors (if God wills some new structure or function or some modified structure or function, by unknown mechanisms and for unknown reasons, in a species, to meet future changed conditions, not yet existing)

      survive (unless God, again for unknown reasons, decides not to favor them with teleology, in which case the species goes extinct. Like 99.9% of previous species).

      A tautology.

      Delete
    19. Egnor: The teleology is inherent to the process, and you inevitably incorporate it in your models, whether you "say" it or not. The value it adds to the process is that it is the truth.

      It is also inherent to a golf course that it is green. That does not mean, however, that I must take the color into account when I search for the highest point of this landscape. The search proceeds in the exact same way on a green landscape (a golf course) as it does on a brown one (a mountain range). It does not matter that one is green and the other is brown. The color information may be true, but it is irrelevant.

      Likewise, it is irrelevant whether a landscape has been designed or formed naturally. A search for its highest point proceeds in the exact same way. Your protestations sound really silly, Dr. Egnor. It is like saying that addition rules for apples are different from addition rules for oranges because they are different fruits. The difference is irrelevant to the task at hand—counting.

      Teleology may be present in nature. Planets may be guided by angels in their orbs. It does not matter, however, because we have a good natural model that does not require the intervention of angels. So angels are irrelevant to the description of planetary motion. This does not disprove angels, it only makes them irrelevant to this particular problem.

      Same with teleology and landscapes. Teleology is not ruled out. It is merely irrelevant.

      Hoo

      Delete
    20. @Hoo the Human Calculator:

      [Your musings add nothing to the outcome, Dr. Egnor. A map can be that of a golf course (designed) or that of a mountain range (natural). It works all the same. A search works all the same. Saying "Teleology!" adds nothing of value to the analysis.]

      You entirely miss the point (how surprising).

      Whether the fitness landscape is itself designed or not is irrelevant to the fact that the fitness landscape is itself a superb model of a teleological process.

      Evolution of a lineage traces a path through the fitness landscape, driven by random genetic variation. The landscape itself of course is not random, from the perspective of evolution. There are regions, hills, valleys, plains etc. that represent "directionality" of evolutionary change that occurs if the evolutionary path crosses that region.

      The landscape itself is a representation of the constraints imposed on change-- which is what teleology is.

      The landscape is the model of teleology.

      Whether the landscape itself is designed by intelligence or not is a separate question-- Aristotle thought not necessarily, Aquinas thought yes (the Fifth Way).

      If you sweep aside all of your arrogance, you can't even conjure a model of evolution that isn't teleological.

      Delete
    21. Dr. Egnor,

      Take a mountain range as an example of a landscape. Suppose it has been formed in a natural process. Is this landscape teleological? What goal does it realize?

      Hoo

      Delete
    22. Egnor seems to think that whenever a future state of a system can be predicted from a current state, by means of some model, then teleology is somehow in play. Because the future state is the 'goal' the system tends to. Is that a fair summary, Dr Egnor?

      Delete
    23. @Hoo:

      [Take a mountain range as an example of a landscape. Suppose it has been formed in a natural process. Is this landscape teleological? What goal does it realize?]

      A fitness landscape is a model, of teleology and formal cause, to be exact. The topography is teleology, and the label for each feature is the formal cause of the evolutionary path that comes to rest there.

      A mountain is an actual landscape, and is not a model. Some aspects of the mountain arose teleologically-- the chemical processes that produced the rocks, the gravity, plate tectonics, etc. Some aspects of the mountain arose accidentally-- the conjunction of stones that rolled down, etc. This distinction between teleological cause and coincidence was emphasized by Aristotle. Not all change is teleological. Accidents happen.

      Sewall Wright's concept of fitness landscape and path analysis would have been welcomed by Aristotle and Aquinas. It's an elegant model of formal and final causation. It's worth noting that Wright was a close friend and philosophical student of Charles Hartshorne, who was a leading process theologian and who developed his own proofs of God's existence.

      Unlike most evolutionary biologists, Wright wasn't a philosophical or theological illiterate.

      Delete
    24. Michael,

      Since you continue to refuse to explain why teleology doesn't reduce to 'survivors survive', I am entitled to assume that you agree, and hence it's a tautology.

      Another explanation of the fitness landscape: it's not a real landscape. It's a representation of all of the possible combinations of all of the genes a species could have. As a mental picture, consider it to be represented by a tight rubber sheet. The present conditions, the environment, including the climate, competitors (including predators), etc limit the possible combination of genes. It's as if you poke your finger from beneath the sheet to cause a peak. At the apex of the peak, the best combination of genes occurs, and the lucky members of the species are more likely to survive longer and have more offspring.

      But away from the peak on the slopes, the combination of genes isn't quite optimal. The less fortunate members of the species don't survive as long and don't have as many offspring. And the ones with a bad combination of genes on the plain just die immediately.

      Changing conditions can be represented by moving you figure slightly in one direction. The previous peak is now on a slope and is now less favored. Part of the previous slope with its combination of genes is now the peak and is now favored and that combination now becomes more common.

      This is evolution by natural selection, not teleology. Nothing is being directed. Not the change of conditions or the possible combination of genes.

      Extinction occurs when the conditions change radically. The eruption of a supervolcano. The impact of a very large meteorite. The arrival of a new predator, such as human sailors on Mauritius in the 17th century. The peak now disappears as the finger is removed and positioned elsewhere beneath the sheet giving a new peak in a completely new position with no overlap with the slopes of the old peak, not even its foothills. The old combination of genes now occur on the plains are no longer favored and die out.

      If there was a mechanism for teleology it would be happening all the time. Like the dodo on Mauritius in the 17th century redeveloping the power of flight.

      Doesn't happen.

      Delete
    25. If a fitness landscape creates a warm and fuzzy feeling in your Aristotelean–Thomistic stomach, that's great. You should then welcome evolutionary biology as it relies on this concept quite a bit. What (or who) has created the fitness landscape is not particularly important. It results in differential reproduction whether the selection is natural or artificial.

      Hoo

      Delete
    26. @Hoo:

      I do welcome evolutionary biology. It's a fascinating science, when you wipe off all of the atheist theology.

      The tragedy is that this intriguing discipline of biology got hijacked a century and a half ago by a coterie of ideologues who expropriated the silly "theory" of a second-rate recluse part-time scientist and used it as an engine to spread atheist ideology.

      Evolution is beautiful example of the dynamics of nature. The atheist garbage hitched to it is beginning to fall off, as more and more scientists, philosophers and laypeople are coming to understand that evolution reveals deep and fascinating principles of nature that have nothing to do with atheism and materialism.

      Delete
    27. @bach:

      [Since you continue to refuse to explain why teleology doesn't reduce to 'survivors survive', I am entitled to assume that you agree, and hence it's a tautology.]

      I refuse to answer because your "argument" is too inane to warrant a response.

      That said, I'l be brief:

      Defining adaptation as reproductive success, and attributing adaptation to reproductive success, is tautological.

      Pointing out that natural change is best understood by invoking four kinds of cause, one of which (the most important) is a telos to which natural things tend, is a metaphysical argument, and is not teleological in the least.

      Delete
    28. Michael,

      You've previously defined metaphysical as being not empirical, and hence you don't require evidence for it. Teleology still reduces to 'survivors survive', and you haven't produced any argument, rational or not, why it doesn't.

      You don't have a mechanism for teleology. Nor do you have any way of determining that it has occurred. Unlike differential reproductive success, with its well known and understood mechanism of natural selection. And it can be detected, as in the case of the Darwin finches on the Galápagos Islands which develop larger and more robust beaks to crack the larger and harder seeds occurring during a drought as the individuals with smaller and weaker beaks fail to be able to crack the seeds and die out.

      Differential reproductive success has a mechanism and a way of detecting it. Teleology has nothing.

      How does my representation of the fitness landscape fit with teleology, a directed process? It doesn't.

      Teleology is still tautological ('and is not teleological in the least' was one of your brain farts). Species have a particular form because that form was the aim, and we know that that form was the aim because that's the one it's got. Pure tautology.

      Delete
    29. Egnor: I do welcome evolutionary biology. It's a fascinating science, when you wipe off all of the atheist theology.

      Dr. Egnor,

      Could you briefly summarize what you mean by "evolutionary biology?"

      Hoo

      Delete
    30. The causes and manifestations of changes in living populations over time.

      Delete
    31. Could you be a little more specific?

      Hoo

      Delete
    32. [Species have a particular form because that form was the aim, and we know that that form was the aim because that's the one it's got. Pure tautology.]

      Teleology (Final Cause) is a is a metaphysical concept, invoked to make sense of natural change. It is a generalization of the observation that change tends to a direction. The form a substance takes when a change is completed was not present prior to the change. Thus, how did the process of change arrive at the final form, if the final form did not exist prior to the change? Teleology is the metaphysical concept invoked to explain the dilemma-- natural change hews to certain forms, and not to others. Efficient causes link to final causes, and final cause organizes the process of change.

      That is a metaphysical theory, not a tautology. It might not be true-- after all, materialists have been arguing for centuries that teleology is not true.

      A tautology cannot not be true.

      Get your story straight, bach. Either teleology is not true, in which case it isn't a tautology, or it is a true.

      You have argued for a couple of years that teleology isn't true. Are you changing your mind?

      Delete
    33. @Hoo:

      [Could you be a little more specific?]

      Nope.

      Delete
    34. mregnor: It is a generalization of the observation that change tends to a direction.
      Could you present evidence for a direction for changes to DNA (ie. mutations which are directed)?
      If not, then your "observation" seems irrelevant to biology.

      Delete
    35. Dr. Egnor,

      If Newton outlined his theory of gravity as "The causes and manifestations of motion of heavenly bodies" and refused to provide specifics, I don't think we would teach that today in high school and college.

      You gotta do better than that.

      Hoo

      Delete
    36. @Havok:

      [Could you present evidence for a direction for changes to DNA (ie. mutations which are directed)? If not, then your "observation" seems irrelevant to biology.]

      When a photon hits an adenosine base, it causes a change in base pairs. It does not cause the base to change into a 1959 Camero convertible or into the planet Neptune.

      Teleology does not mean that every aspect of the change can be predicted, or that every process of change has a "purpose" that we can discern.

      It means that certain natural efficient causes (photons hitting things, viruses infecting things, etc) have a certain limited range of results.

      If you think about, the fact that natural efficient causes tend to produce results over a limited range is not self-explanatory. It is not actually obvious why a mutation in a nucleotide doesn't cause Elvis Presley to appear, or any one of countless outcomes one could conger.

      The directedness of nature- the limited kind of outcome from changes-- is so commonplace that we are unaware of the need to explain it, but there is a need to explain it, because limited ranges of outcomes is how nature works.

      That's what teleology is invoked to explain. It is a fundamental natural principle , more fundamental than gravity, etc.

      We Thomists propose that it is evident in evolution.

      Delete
    37. Which is to say that you can't actually demonstrate any directedness of the sort you need within biology.

      We Thomists propose that it is evident in evolution.
      Which is a mere assertion on your part, Mr. Egnor.

      If your teleology is simply that there are regularities in reality, then it seems fairly uninteresting.

      Delete
    38. [If Newton outlined his theory of gravity as "The causes and manifestations of motion of heavenly bodies" and refused to provide specifics, I don't think we would teach that today in high school and college.]

      Metaphysics is the study of existence qua existence, of the basic fabric of reality.

      Physics is the study of the interactions of substances in nature.

      Metaphysics is prior to physics, and provides a framework on which physics is done.

      Teleology is a theory in metaphysics. Newton's theory of gravitation is a theory in physics.

      You really need to broaden your horizons. There's more to knowledge than experimental science.

      Delete
    39. Havok:

      [If your teleology is simply that there are regularities in reality, then it seems fairly uninteresting.]

      That says more about you than it does about teleology.

      The reasons that there are regularities in nature fascinate me, and have fascinated countless people for thousands of years.

      If you are uninterested, that's your business, but you have no explanation for the regularities, and make no attempt to discern one, so don't expect to be taken seriously on such matters by people who do care about it.

      Delete
    40. Michael,

      'A tautology cannot be true'.

      No. A tautogy is a unconditioned universal truth, always valid. It depends on the conclusion just being a rewording of the initial premise, and as a result, can never be disproved, because it's trivial.

      Teleology in biology is not true, because there's no mechanism and no way of telling that it has occurred, and also a tautology, because it's such a nebulous concept, it's impossible to disprove. Anything and everything is consistent with it. Species have their present form because that was the aim, and if species change, then the aim had changed.

      Meaningless.

      Delete
    41. Egnor: Defining adaptation as reproductive success, and attributing adaptation to reproductive success, is tautological.

      Let us take a specific example of adaptation observed in Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiment. Some of his E. coli underwent mutations that enabled them to digest citrate.

      The adaptation in this case is an ability to digest citrate. It is defined independently of reproductive success. An E. coli bacterium either cannot digest citrate (as usual) or it can (the mutant strain). The latter is better adapted to a glucose-poor and citrate-rich medium.

      As a result of this adaptation, the Cit+ mutant were more successful at reproduction. They simply did not die as fast as their Cit– counterparts.

      So reproductive success of Cit+ bacteria can be traced to a specific adaptation. The adaptation, however was not due to reproductive success. Rather, it was caused by a mutation, or more precisely a series of mutations. The logical chain, simplified to the basics, was mutation -> adaptation -> reproductive success. Nothing circular.

      Hoo

      Delete
    42. Egnor: Teleology is a theory in metaphysics. Newton's theory of gravitation is a theory in physics. You really need to broaden your horizons. There's more to knowledge than experimental science.

      Dr. Egnor,

      I did not ask you to explain the difference between physics and metaphysics. I asked you to define evolutionary biology as you see it. You said it was science. So don't wax poetic about metaphysics. Define how you understand evolutionary biology as science.

      Hoo

      Delete
    43. bach:

      I wrote:

      "A tautology cannot not be true. "

      Delete
    44. That says more about you than it does about teleology.
      Id' rather think it says more about what you're willing to rationalise.
      If teleology simply means regularity then why not say regularity, and avoid using a term which has additional baggage?

      The reasons that there are regularities in nature fascinate me, and have fascinated countless people for thousands of years.
      It is indeed fascinating. To assert teleology, however, when none has been demonstrated (above simple regularities) seems to be ad-hoc.

      If you are uninterested, that's your business, but you have no explanation for the regularities,
      Thanks for telling me what I think Mr. Egnor. Perhaps now you could tell me what I'd like to eat?
      You have no idea whether I have an explanation for the regularities.

      so don't expect to be taken seriously on such matters by people who do care about it.
      You wouldn't be counted as a person who does care about it, since you've simply hand waved it away by pronouncing it as teleology, without anything further.

      Oh, you still haven't provided any evidence of teleology in biology above simple regularities. I'm asking for a directness in evolution, which you have claimed exists (and you've cited convergent evolution in support, but have failed to explain how this is support).

      Delete
    45. @Hoo:

      I did.

      The study of the causes and manifestations of changes in living populations over time.

      Delete
    46. Egnor: The study of the causes and manifestations of changes in living populations over time.

      This is too vague. If you asked me what was theory of gravity and I answered "the study of the causes and manifestations of motion of heavenly bodies," you would have no idea what that theory entails.

      Try again, please. You can do it!

      Hoo

      Delete
    47. @Havok:

      [If teleology simply means regularity then why not say regularity, and avoid using a term which has additional baggage?]

      That's all teleology means. You have made yourself paranoid that by admitting teleology/regularity you will have to start reading the Bible or something.

      Teleology merely means that there is a tendency to constrained outcomes during natural change. Some philosophers have made further arguments linking teleology/regularities to proof of God's existence. That is another matter.

      But the regularities are everywhere, and they are not self-explanatory, and I am fascinated by them. I think that they are evident in evolution as well- in body plans, in convergent evolution, in the genetic code, etc.


      [It is indeed fascinating. To assert teleology, however, when none has been demonstrated (above simple regularities) seems to be ad-hoc.]

      Teleology merely refers to the regularities. That is how it is defined by both Aristotle and Aquinas. It does not necessarily mean a "master plan".

      [Thanks for telling me what I think Mr. Egnor. Perhaps now you could tell me what I'd like to eat?]

      You've been eating crow.

      [You have no idea whether I have an explanation for the regularities.]

      I have a suspicion.

      [You wouldn't be counted as a person who does care about it, since you've simply hand waved it away by pronouncing it as teleology, without anything further.]

      Pointing out teleological aspects of evolution is not "waving it away". It is observing that evolution has regularities, as do many things in nature. That's fascinating.

      Delete
    48. @Hoo:

      [This is too vague. If you asked me what was theory of gravity and I answered "the study of the causes and manifestations of motion of heavenly bodies," you would have no idea what that theory entails. ]

      Evolutionary biology not a theory. It's a field of study. I defined the field of study quite nicely.

      As for my "theory" of evolution, I don't really have one. I think that yours (the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis) sucks, for reasons I've elaborated at length.

      I don't think we have a good "theory" of evolution. That's ok. We don't have a good "theory" of paleontology or of oceanography, but they are fine sciences and worth a lot of study.



      Delete
    49. That's all teleology means.
      The term "teloeology" has more meaning that just "regularities". A "final cause" in thomism, speaks of purposes, which is either fairly uninteresting, or presumes some kind of goal which is not in evidence.

      You have made yourself paranoid that by admitting teleology/regularity you will have to start reading the Bible or something.
      No, I'm simply pointing out that teleology is not used to simply mean regularity.

      I think that they are evident in evolution as well- in body plans, in convergent evolution, in the genetic code, etc.
      I asked you for evidence that there is some plan or purpose to evolution, which would support these assertions. So far you've not presented any.

      I have a suspicion.
      Of course you do.

      It is observing that evolution has regularities, as do many things in nature. That's fascinating.
      But you're not pointing out mere regularities. You're pointing out purpose or design. If you were only using teleology to refer to regularities, then the evolutionary explanation for convergent evolution would be sufficient for you, since it relies upon regularities.
      But you claim that teleology is a better explanation than that provided by evolutionary theory, and so you must mean something else when you use the term.

      Delete
    50. Dr. Egnor,

      If a field of study lacks any theory (as you suggest), how can it be "fascinating science?" Science, according to an accepted definition, "is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." If there is no theory, there are no predictions to be tested.

      You are not making any sense.

      Hoo

      Delete
    51. @Havok:


      [The term "teloeology" has more meaning that just "regularities". A "final cause" in thomism, speaks of purposes, which is either fairly uninteresting, or presumes some kind of goal which is not in evidence.]

      Aquinas' theological study of teleology led him to ascribe Divine purpose to teleology. That's theology. Aristotle had a different view, and did not use teleology to argue for God.

      Teleology as a metaphysical concept does not invoke purpose. Taken as a theological concept, it may. We're talking metaphysics here.

      [I'm simply pointing out that teleology is not used to simply mean regularity.]

      In theology it may mean purpose. In metaphysics it does not. We're talking metaphysics.

      [I asked you for evidence that there is some plan or purpose to evolution, which would support these assertions. So far you've not presented any.]

      I think the regularity is obvious, and very well documented. You don't. Different strokes.

      [But you're not pointing out mere regularities. You're pointing out purpose or design. If you were only using teleology to refer to regularities, then the evolutionary explanation for convergent evolution would be sufficient for you, since it relies upon regularities.]

      Convergent evolution is a particularly clear example of regularities/teleology.

      [But you claim that teleology is a better explanation than that provided by evolutionary theory, and so you must mean something else when you use the term.]

      There is no such thing as "evolutionary theory", any more than there is "paleontological theory" or "meteorological theory". Evolutionary biology is a discipline of science, not a theory. Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Mendelism, Lamarkism are theories.

      I don't know if I would call teleology a "theory" in evolutionary biology, on a par with Mendelism, etc. I think that a teleological understanding of nature-- which is a metaphysical theory-- makes a lot of evolutionary data easier to understand.

      As I've repeatedly said, I think Darwinism is a crap theory in biology that really explains nothing. Studying changes in allele frequency with different conditions, adaptations,etc is fine, and is good science. But you don't need Darwinian pretenses for that.

      Darwinism is really metaphysics, and crap metaphysics as well. It's atheism's creation myth, nothing more.

      Delete
    52. @Hoo:

      [If a field of study lacks any theory (as you suggest), how can it be "fascinating science?" ]

      Evolutionary biology is not a theory. It encompasses quite a few theories, from population biology, molecular genetics, palentology, etc.

      You make the huge mistake of conflating Darwinism with evolutionary biology, which are not even the same category. I think that Darwinism is shot through with logical and metaphysical errors.

      But the field of evolutionary biology is fascinating science. I think that astronomy is fascinating science, although I think that astrology is junk science and junk metaphysics. The parallel with Darwinism is close.

      Delete
    53. Egnor: Teleology as a metaphysical concept does not invoke purpose. Taken as a theological concept, it may. We're talking metaphysics here.

      Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: In thinking about the four causes, we have come to understand that Aristotle offers a teleological explanation of the production of a bronze statue; that is to say, an explanation that makes a reference to the telos or end of the process.

      I think I will take the Stanford Encyclopedia any day over an armchair philosopher.

      The Greek word τέλος, by the way, means end, goal, purpose.

      Hoo

      Delete
    54. Egnor: Evolutionary biology is not a theory. It encompasses quite a few theories, from population biology, molecular genetics, palentology, etc.

      Evolutionary biology a scientific field, all right, but in order to be one it must have a theoretical basis. You have still not explained what it is.

      And, by the way, paleontology isn't a theory. It is a field of study that helps to inform evolutionary biology. But it certainly isn't part of evolutionary biology.

      So what is the theory (or theories) that informs that fascinating science?

      Hoo

      Delete
    55. Teleology as a metaphysical concept does not invoke purpose
      Teleology in a Thomistic metaphysics does indeed invoke purpose.

      In metaphysics it does not. We're talking metaphysics.
      As I pointed out above, it depends on your metaphysics. Your Thomistic view does indeed ascribe purpose to teleology.

      I think the regularity is obvious, and very well documented. You don't. Different strokes.
      The regularity is obvious, in that biology is organic chemistry, the purpose or goal, which is the sense in which you're using the term teleology, is not obvious nor well documented.

      I think that a teleological understanding of nature-- which is a metaphysical theory-- makes a lot of evolutionary data easier to understand.
      Yet you have asserted that the teleological explanation for convergent evolution is superior to the explanation provided by modern evolutionary biology.
      You've provided zero details of the teleological explanation.

      As I've repeatedly said, I think Darwinism is a crap theory in biology that really explains nothing.
      You've also demonstrated ignorance regarding what the modern synthesis actually is, so your thoughts regarding biology can't be taken at face value.

      Studying changes in allele frequency with different conditions, adaptations,etc is fine, and is good science. But you don't need Darwinian pretenses for that.
      Which Darwinian pretenses, Michael?

      Darwinism is really metaphysics, and crap metaphysics as well.
      Any chance you'll actually back up this claim?

      It's atheism's creation myth, nothing more.
      Which is accepted by people of all faiths. That fact would be strange if you were actually correct.

      Delete
    56. @Hoo:

      Aristotle drew a sharp distinction between art (man-made change) and nature.

      In man-made things, teleology (final cause) is in the mind of the artist, and clearly invokes purpose.

      Aristotle emphasized that teleology in nature was without purpose, and in that way it differed from teleology in man-made things. Aristotle notoriously did not use teleology to argue for the existence of God, although he did use potency and act to argue for God's existence (the Prime Mover). Aristotle almost certainly (there has been some debate about this) did not think that natural teleology meant purpose at all.

      He only ascribed purpose to man-made teleology.

      The question as to whether teleology/regularity in nature necessarily invokes purpose is an old debate.

      The Stanford Encyclopedia is referring to Aristotle's invocation of teleology in man-made artifacts. He did not ascribe purpose to natural teleology. Just regularity/directedness.

      Delete
    57. No, Dr. Egnor, Aristotle's teleology of natural processes did not boil down to regularity. He argued that final causes were the best explanation for regularity. So, teleology even in that case means purpose.

      See Aristotle on Causality: Final Causes Defended.

      Hoo

      Delete
    58. Michael, you're a Thomist not a plain Aristotlian. As a Thomist, when you use the term teleology in your metaphysics, are you not following Aquinas and intending to describe purpose or end or goal?

      Why are you now trying to argue for a different meaning of teleology than the one you actually hold?

      Delete
    59. I do think there is purpose in teleology, but that is a theological inference. It is not inherent to teleology.

      You don't think there is purpose in natural change, but lack of purpose is not inherent either.

      Natural change is best understood using Aristotle's four causes, which includes teleology.

      Purpose is another discussion.

      Delete
    60. Purpose may not be inherent to teleology, but as a Thomist, when you say teleology you are referring to purpose, are you not?

      Delete
    61. @Hoo:

      [No, Dr. Egnor, Aristotle's teleology of natural processes did not boil down to regularity. He argued that final causes were the best explanation for regularity. So, teleology even in that case means purpose.]

      Aristotle's cosmology included the concept that regularity/teleology was directed to the good of the organism. He did not apparently see that as conscious manifestation of purpose, as he did not use teleology to argue for God's existence.

      Delete
    62. Michael,

      OK, I missed the double negative 'a tautology cannot not be true'. It would have been better to have expressed it as a positive 'a tautology must be true'. But, it's also trivial. The conclusion is just a rewording of the initial premise, which assuming the initial premise is true, means the conclusion must be also true. But only if the initial premise is true. 'All swans are birds' is a tautology, because a swan is a bird. 'All swans are white feathered birds' is also a tautology, if you define a swan as being a white feathered bird. Which isn't true, because swans in Australia are black feathered.

      You still haven't put forward an argument against my assertion that teleology in biology reduces to 'survivors survive'. A tautology.

      Convergent evolution isn't evidence of teleology in biology. Dolphins and sharks have a similar streamlined shape, because there's only one shape that minimizes water drag in swimming. But sharks and dolphins differ in a lot of ways concerned with swimming. Dolphins move their tails up and down, so at the surface, their tails come out of the water, losing energy. Sharks have a more efficient mechanism, with side to side tail movements. Sharks also have skin denticules cutting down water resistance and allowing them to swim faster. Dolphins don't. Sharks have gills. Dolphins don't, so they have to come to the surface often, even when asleep.

      'It is not actually obvious why a mutation in a nucleotide doesn't cause Elvis Pressley, or any one of countless outcomes one could conger'. Yes it is obvious. Elvis Pressley differs from all other people in much more than one gene. His upbringing was also different to almost all other people, allowing him to develop a liking for 'rock and roll' music.

      You did do genetics at some point in your training, didn't you?

      A single mutation in a single nucleotide probably won't have an effect if it occurs in the huge amounts of junk DNA between the functional genes. Including the tens of thousands of pseudogenes - broken non-functional genes, such as the 500 or so broken olfactory receptor genes in humans (or all 1000 in whales). Or in one of the 800,000 or so SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) which mutate frequently enough to have a lot of variation between human populations but not so frequently that they don't get passed down in families.

      One man's junk is another man's treasure. Junk DNA is a treasure for geneticists. Certain SNPs occur regularly close to alternative disease associated genes, such as BRCA1 in breast and ovarian cancer, and if the particular SNP is present, then it's a marker for the gene, which is probably present too (but then you have to sequence the gene to be sure).

      And a SNP can undergo mutation, so the association is lost. Or a different SNP might undergo a different mutation and become identical to the marker for the alternate gene, but with no effect (one of the reasons the gene still needs to be sequenced).

      SNPs aren't functional and can mutate without effect.

      Delete
    63. Havok:

      [Purpose may not be inherent to teleology, but as a Thomist, when you say teleology you are referring to purpose, are you not?]

      Ultimately, I believe that teleology is a manifestation of God's purpose.

      The study of ultimate purpose in nature is properly theology, not biology. Teleology can be applied to biology without invoking theology.

      I do point out that it is impossible to discuss biology without using "purpose" language-- what DNA is for, what the pumping of the heart is for, what mitochondria is for, etc.

      Many materialist biologists have noted this, and some have even encourage students and other biologists to avoid inferences to purpose in discussing biology.

      Good luck with that.

      Even though teleology does not necessarily invoke purpose, it is impossible to discuss biology without discussing purpose.

      Delete
    64. Ultimately, I believe that teleology is a manifestation of God's purpose.
      Which is a part of your metaphysics. Claiming that this is properly theology, when it is an explicit claim of your metaphysical position is disingenuous.

      I do point out that it is impossible to discuss biology without using "purpose" language
      Because we all know that human language actually shapes reality around us.
      Just because we simplify things by using "purpose" langauge, doesn't mean there is actually any "purpose" there in the sense that you require.

      Many materialist biologists have noted this, and some have even encourage students and other biologists to avoid inferences to purpose in discussing biology.
      The encouragement to do this is because people like yourself will read the language and assume that the purpose is real (and of god).

      Even though teleology does not necessarily invoke purpose,
      As a Thomist, for you it does - everytime you mention teleology you're invoking purpose, since that is your metaphysical position.

      it is impossible to discuss biology without discussing purpose.
      That's rubbish Michael (unless you'd care to demonstrate that impossibility).

      Still waiting for your demonstration of goal directedness/purpose/final causality/Thomistic teleology in biology :-)

      Delete
    65. The heart is a hollow muscular organ which rhythmically contracts and pumps blood into relatively high pressure arteries, and rhythmically relaxes and receives blood from relatively low pressure veins.

      There. I've defined the heart without mentioning 'purpose'.

      Teleology assumes a distant or future aim. Like Aquinas' archer shooting an arrow at a distant target.

      Teleology in biology means that an organ is more complex than it needs to be to meet present circumstances. Hearts vary in complexity ranging from simple hollow tubes in earthworms to complex 4 chamber organs in mammals and birds. Teleology would be proved if an earthworm ever developed a complex 4 chamber heart.

      Never happens.

      Teleology in biology reduces to 'survivors survive'. You still haven't put any argument against it.

      Delete
    66. @Havok:

      [Still waiting for your demonstration of goal directedness/purpose/final causality/Thomistic teleology in biology :-)]

      Tomorrow's post.

      Delete
  2. Teleology is a load of crap which has zero explanatory power.

    Consider sickle cell anemia (SCA). How do you explain that with teleology? From a Darwinian point of view, easy peasy. The hemoglobin allele that causes the disease in homozygous condition provides protection against malaria in heterozygous condition. This survival advantage outweighs the cost of two heterozygous parents having 25% of their offspring suffering from debilitating CSA. Thus, the SCA allele has a net selective advantage and has reached high frequencies in areas where malaria is endemic.

    What most people don't know is that there is a third allele (the C allele), which provides protection against malaria in homozygous condition. Why didn't the great Teleologist in the sky provide people in malarial areas with 2 copies? Hard to understand, isn't it? But again easy peasy for Darwinists: the C allele has a disadvantage when paired with the normal allele. While the C allele is rare, it will nearly always be paired with a normal allele. Hence natural selection prevents it from spreading.

    ReplyDelete