The Blind Watchmaker?

Asking me, a mortal man, what motivation God had for designing anything is an eternally difficult question. I could only begin to speculate.I suppose it may be like wondering what "need" is fulfilled in painting. Aside from deriving pleasure through the creation of his/her painting, what need has just been fulfilled? Thoughts spilled out on a canvas is what art is, and even that description falls painfully short. How much more would I suppose of God if He is also the Artist? The problem is that we see zero evidence of nature tinkering around with penises and vaginas. Indeed, how would a species have perpetuated by trial and error? Besides there not being any physical evidence of nature playing around with design, we see that everything must have been in an operable order from the start in order for said specie to have even had the chance to evolve.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

If you recall, this question was posed to Buzsaw in response to his reply that the Biblical model of intelligent design was the result of as much painstaking research and hard work as the scientific models favoured by some. So, given that the Biblical model seeks to draw parallels between design intelligence as used by humankind and design intelligence it supposes is responsible for complexity in natural structures, it seems an entirely reasonable question to ask what is has learned about the design intelligence processes involved, including what it has learned about the designer/s and their motives. The scientific model is able to understand a great deal about humanity as a result of diligent research into its design intelligence, so if there are parallels between the two alleged instances of design intelligence, we might expect them to produce similar amounts of information regarding the underlying processes and nature of the intelligences involved.However, if you are telling me that our understanding of the supposed design intelligence behind natural complexity, despite all the painstaking research and years of hard work carried out by those who favour the Biblical model is diddly squit, then I’m happy to accept your conclusion.There is one thing that does puzzle me though.In speaking with Christians and reading some of the posts on here, I am frequently reminded of the deeply personal and intimate relationship some of them claim to have with their god. Now as a filthy piece of atheist scum, I am wholly unable to share those experiences, but if this were not the case, I think I’d have a few questions I'd want to be asking the god.Before I get accused of being impertinent or even irreverent, there is some basis within theist belief structures to suggest this may not be as glib as it sounds.If my understanding of the Biblical model is correct, there is a belief that humankind was created in the image of its maker. The Biblical model also uses terms like we are all god’s children, etc. I’d have thought if I were a believer of this sort of thing, it might offer me some clues regarding what might be deemed suitable behaviour on my part.So if we look at the alleged intelligent design at play within the human race, we must suppose that much of human behaviour is a matter of design. i.e we behave in the way we were designed to behave.One of the most universal of human behavioural traits is the tendency of children to ask of their parents, “where did I come from?”, “why is this the way it is?” or “how does this work?”If this isn’t an almighty (pardon the pun) clue from the supernatural father to his children, then what exactly is it? Doesn’t the maker want his children to ask the very questions of their parent that it would have our children ask of us?So come on guys, get your heads together, formulate the questions that need to be asked, put them to your maker, get the answers, post them on here and we’ll all be a lot better informed at the end of it.How much easier could it be?

I've been very vocal about it here. I do not favor creationist models, not that they don't have some good models, because I think they do, but that creationists tend to make the science conform to a theological text, rather than see if science corresponds to it.They would rather take an obscure passage and try and figure out ways why science should match up. Often times it doesn't.Likewise, some evolutionists do the exact same thing. If there is even a hint of design, they are more than happy to come with any reason ad hoc why it couldn't possibly be teleological.Neither is science. This is what the philosophy of science has spawned, because like it or not, most people within the fields of science have philosophies that make a dispassionate endeavor disappear. I believe so. Learning is a wonderful thing. Imagine how boring your life would be without a quest of some sort. I'm not understanding you. Are you asking Christians to pray to God about scientific questions?

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

In Message 47 I wasn’t asking you to justify the Biblical model, I was asking you whether the extensive research that had led to these models told us anything about the supposed design intelligence responsible for natural complexity. The above answer does not address this question in any way, so I must assume that after years of painstaking research, you believe humankind has learned nothing about the supposed intelligent design process. It’s not clear what you believe to be so. The question I was asking was whether the alleged maker wished humankind to ask it to tell them about the ”nuts and bolts’ of the supposed design. That’s exactly what I’m saying. It seems an entirely reasonable question to ask, based on the reasons I have outlined in Message 48 and clarified above. Who better to ask about the design process than the designer itself?I don’t know that I can make the point any easier to understand than that.

I wasn’t sure whether I wanted to respond to this point, as it seems to be moving the topic in a direction that wasn’t originally intended. However there’s been little happening in the topic over the last couple of days, so it’s an avenue that is worth exploring . and it is my topic after all, so I guess I can take it wherever I choose.I guess the first question I need to ask is what represents evidence in terms of ”nature tinkering’ with the natural structure we observe all around us? It’s a pretty big question, and lies at the heart of what separates those who are willing to listen to what evolution has offer and those who aren’t. As such it’s way my beyond my capabilities to come up with an answer that does anything other than scratch the surface.But as a starting point, we could try comparing a penis and vagina in a human couple with a stamen and carpel in a flower. They perform the same role in the respective reproductive processes and sufficiently resemble one another to at least raise the possibility that one may have been an earlier descendant of the other.Of course a proponent of intelligent design might counter the above by saying this similarity in appearance and function simply reflects the ”house style’ of the designer. Further, they might point to the fact that nobody has ever witnessed an evolutionary event occur.But how valid is the claim that we’ve never witnessed evolution in action?Isn’t the emergence of the ”super’ bug an example of a natural organism changing to survive dramatic changes in its environment, i.e. the introduction of insecticides? Then there’s the contentious area of whether viruses that mutate and adapt are examples of evolution in action.So the assertion that we’ve never seen evolution in action is at best contentious.But I suppose a more classical bone of contention, forgive the pun, is what the fossil record reveals to us. Depending on which side of the fence one sits, this shows either an evolutionary continuum of new species arising from earlier ones, or it shows unrelated species being introduced, and phased out, discreetly by an invisible designer.One of the criticisms of evolution is the lack of ”missing links’ in the fossil record. But if we try to imagine how many living creatures have lived and died over the last several million years, how tiny is the percentage that have been fossilised and then discovered? It’s anyone’s guess, so mine would be a very tiny percentage.The chances, therefore, of discovering a ”missing link’ are heavily dependant on how many actual living creatures meeting the criteria of ”species in transition’ walked the earth, versus the number of creatures who lived and died as part of a species in its most common, stable form.If the number of surviving fossils overall is tiny, then the number of surviving fossils of transitional species will be even tinier, especially if the idea of punctuated evolution has any validity.Punctuated evolution certainly appears to be a pretty good fit with the fossil record. However there’s another reason why I like the idea of it.It concerns what we observe in large populations, namely the fact that large populations tend to be normally distributed, i.e. a large majority of the population tend to be clustered around the middle of the ”ability’ range, whether it be height, IQ or ability to run fast, resulting in the majority of off-spring born in the world being very ”ordinary’.So when I hear the term survival of the fittest, I immediately translate that as survival of the most ordinary, as opposed to survival of the biggest, fastest or most ferocious.When I think about, this makes sense to me.Imagine an isolated island, which has a very simple eco system. There is one type of plant, one species of insect that feeds on and pollinates the plant, one species of small mammal that feeds on the insect and a larger mammal that feeds on the smaller mammal.Provided the populations regenerate in line with the normal distribution, there is no reason to believe the delicate balance of the eco system will not be maintained and all life forms can continue as before.However, if we imagine a freak generation of genetically mutated ”super killers’ being born amongst the larger mammals, what are the consequences likely to be.In the very short term these ”super killers’ will thrive and pass on a disproportionately large number of ”super killer’ genes. A little further along the line though, things don’t look so rosy as the ”super killers’ decimate the population of small mammals, endangering its survival. This in turn has a knock on effect for the larger mammals, who no longer have sufficient food to sustain their population and they also become endangered.Further on down the food chain the insects, whose population was previously held in check by the smaller mammals, flourish briefly as their population increases dramatically. However, as a result the plant life on the island also gets decimated, which in turn leads to the insects becoming endangered.So in a very short time, the consequences of a freak set of genetic mutations leads to the destruction of the entire eco system - leaving the way open for a whole new set of genetically mutated descendants of the original species perhaps, much more suited to the new prevailing eco system?There is no need to labour the point by outlining what might happen if the freak set of genetic mutations had resulted in a generation of super wimps instead of super killers. The end result would be the same.The point I am trying to make is that normally distributed populations have a much greater chance of surviving to pass on their ”ordinary’ genes to the next generation and very large populations are statistically much more likely to be normally distributed.What this means is that at any given time, most of the life forms on the planet will be part of very large populations, which by their very nature will tend to be normally distributed, which in turn means that the probability of change or evolution within each population is very small.All of which suggests to me that the punctuated evolution model is not only a good fit for the fossil record, it is a very good fit for what we see in the normal distribution of populations.I suggest that what we observe in the way populations are distributed would ”predict’ a fossil record that looks remarkably like the one we see if evolution were the explanation for life on earth. As such, I think we have observed evolution in action and ”nature tinkering’ with the natural structures we see all around us. Edited by dogrelata, : Typo

quote:

---

The problem is that we see zero evidence of nature tinkering around with penises and vaginas.

---

Clearly, you are not an entomologist. Many species of insects (e.g. damselflies) are identified based on differences in the shape of their reproductive parts. Male damselflies have to have their reproductive parts shaped in a certain fashion to be able to mate with females of their species. If there is a change, the male can no longer mate with females who have the wrong shape of opening. Female parts, however, are not as prohibitive as male parts, and are often less elaborate.Furthermore, note that male marsupials have a forked (i.e. two-pronged) penis, and females have two canals inside the vagina.I would count that as "experimenting."

quote:

---

It concerns what we observe in large populations, namely the fact that large populations tend to be normally distributed, i.e. a large majority of the population tend to be clustered around the middle of the ”ability’ range, whether it be height, IQ or ability to run fast, resulting in the majority of off-spring born in the world being very ”ordinary’.

---

This may just be a snapshot effect, though: if you tested the population again at a later time, would the peak of the bell curve still center on the same value? If the peak falls at a different value, that would indicate a change in the population (i.e. evolution).Such changes were documented in Darwin's finches of the Galapagos in response to El Nino-caused vegetational disruption on the islands. The result was that beak size increased with the increase in reliance of the species on hard nuts for sustenance. Beak size rebounded when softer fruits returned to prominence in finch diets a few years later. If the softer fruits hadn't ever grown back, it is likely that the finches' beaks would have retained the larger size, and the genetic capacity to shrink the beak again would have been lost.Note also that the offspring of the highest-value individuals also have a normal distribution in the trait, but the median value will usually be different. Thus, even if the population is changing, it could always show a fairly normal distribution. Except, in the situation where the median value approaches the maximum possible value, the higher-value side curve will be compressed.So, the distribution of the attribute in a population isn't as informative as the change of that distribution. If the change in the median value over time is essentially zero, then the population is probably being forced into its "mediocrity" by selection. This could lend support to the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution.However, selection for the middle ground (i.e., stabilizing selection) could also be the result of trade-offs. In this case, the median value represents the maximum value of that trait that doesn't cause an unsurmountable handicap in another trait. So, I wouldn't count it as selection for the middle ground, but selection for the maximum that is being hampered by other factors. I do not think this situation favors the punctuated equilibrium model.

Cleary I am not an entomologist. But equally clearly you have become a little confused as to who is saying what around here. The quote you have highlighted belongs to Nemesis Juggernaut, not me. I was simply trying to refute it in my own clumsy way. Yes, but the changes you mention are in response to environmental changes. The point I was trying to make was that I believe normally distributed populations will tend to ”stand still’ unless subjected to outside influences such as environmental change. As such, all other things being equal, the tendency towards normal distribution in large populations leads to little or no evolutionary movement. Although we tend to use the term natural selection, I don’t like it because there is an implied sense of purpose. The way I prefer to look at it is, populations that remain stable will tend not to disrupt the balance of the eco system they belong to and therefore tend to survive. Change, on the other hand, will tend to destabilize the balance of the local eco system, which increases the risk of endangerment or even extinction.

My apologies about the entomology quote: I knew who wrote it, but I didn't acknowledge it in my post. I should be more careful, and I will be next time.These are from you, though:

quote:

---

...normally distributed populations will tend to ”stand still’ unless subjected to outside influences such as environmental change.

---

I agree with you very much here. Environmental change is the underlying driving force for most of evolution. But not all of the time.Catastrophic models for evolution can explain massive turnovers like the K-T extinction (killed the dinosaurs, for any readers who aren't familiar), and the Cambrian explosion, but they are less successful in explaining fine-tuning (such as predator to prey) and sexual selection.

quote:

---

Although we tend to use the term natural selection, I don’t like it because there is an implied sense of purpose

---

I understand where you're coming from here, but I disagree. As I see it, there is a purpose to evolution, which is why we use the term "selection" instead of "happenstance." However, the purpose isn't transcendant, as is claimed in religious circles, but practical, dealing with survival and reproduction. Nature discriminates between fit and unfit, and the actual "selection" is applied against the inadequate, not for the best.For example, only tigers who are fast enough or sneaky enough (not the fastest or the sneakiest) can catch a deer. Therefore, as long as the deer don't get faster, there will be no selection against the tigers of mediocre speed, and they will remain in the population. If the deer do get faster, the faster tigers will probably prevail, and the tigers will keep up. But, you may consider this an environmental change in itself (I wouldn't, but I wouldn't complain if you did).Clearly, though, you are very well-versed in evolutionary concepts, and I see no reason why you're ideas aren't valid.Anyway, all of this is very different from what you started with, which was the watchmaker analogy. My next post will deal with that.

Here's my take on the watchmaker analogy: it makes perfect sense if you presuppose the notion of irreducible complexity. The problem is that the analogy's various incarnations always use inanimate objects, usually man-made, to explain them. A watch requires all of its interworking parts to function in a specific manner because that was one of the original premises of its design.This is where the analogy breaks down: there is no set function of any protein, except in the context of its interactions with other body systems. Any protein in any organism's body could be used as a pigment simply because of the wavelengths of light it reflects and absorbs. So, what gives the protein its function is the way other chemicals in the body react to it, and the various proteins are constantly being tweaked into their complimentary functions.In some ways, your idea of the "evolving" knowledge used to make the watch parallels this. As soon as man figured out how to spin one gear by causing another gear to spin, he used it in devices such as portcullises. When he learned to use external sources, such as running water, to move the first gear, he put the first gear in the river so he didn't have to move the lever himself. When he learned to store energy in springs and similar devices, he put this into his designs to develop another form of automation. When he learned how to correlate time of day with a circular pattern, he slapped the hole mess into a watch. Thereafter, each piece that he created was adjusted until it functioned optimally with the other pieces.This whole process implies a gradual, stepwise behavior, as does the education of any individual throughout his or her lifetime. There is little in this analogy to suggest a sudden creation. What it suggests is that complexity comes from tinkering, adjusting and fine-tuning, not that complexity indicates something unexplainable.I guess that was just a restatement of what you said, but it still may help somebody understand it better.