 |
| The NAID community hold an a-priori anti-evolutionary position. Their subliminally deist concept of "natural forces" connives with this view. |
What started as a single post has now become a four-part series with the fourth part to come. The two previous parts of this series can be found here:
As we saw in Part I the North American ID community (NAID) have painted themselves into a corner that has committed them to defending a Dawkinesque philosophy of evolution: Namely, that evolution and intelligent creation are mutually incompatible. Evolution, they'll try to tell us, makes no claim to using intelligent design and creative input; therefore, to be an evolutionist in their view is an attempt to do away with the necessity of intelligent input.
In the dualist paradigm of the NAID community there is a clear XOR choice between so called "natural forces" and the artificial forces of intelligence. This dichotomy does work if we are dealing with agencies, sentient or not, that work within the created or "natural" order: Viz: When we come across a material configuration of some sort, such as an object of archeological interest, a signal from Outerspace, or an Unidentified Ariel Phenomenon, it is a meaningful question to ask whether we looking at an outcome of the physical regime and generated "naturally" or whether it is the work of one of those natural intelligences that are actually an aspect of the physical regime: e.g. humans, intelligent apes, elephants, birds, little gray men from Zeta Reticuli or even Greek sub-deities; these intelligences are "natural" in so far as they are cosmically in-house; that is, they are material objects. In this context the natural physical regime and natural intelligence are regarded as distinct causative agents and it makes sense to see a material configuration as the outcome of either purely natural forces or having input from natural intelligence. Here the NAID epistemic filter works after a fashion.
Given the foregoing scenario it is meaningful to declare that if a configuration is generated purely by the physical regime, this therefore excludes the involvement of natural intelligences. Moreover, those unintelligent "natural forces" are seen as autonomous generators of configurations, albeit innovationally inferior to the creative potential of natural intelligent agents. If the physical regime is going to generate configurations more startling than say crystals, layers of rock, or random noise or rhythmic pulses from the stars, it is going to need at least a little help from those natural intelligences which reside within the natural order such as humans, apes or little grey men. In this context it makes sense to ask the question "Did natural forces do it, or was intelligence involved?". This dichotomy brings to the fore the current conundrum which surrounds the question of organic forms; they are clearly more sophisticated that anything human beings can construct and, apparently, far, far more sophisticated than anything we directly observe nature constructing. Therefore, according to Naive Intelligent Design life must be evidence of intelligent agency. But in drawing this conclusion the distinctiveness of the natural intelligence category is not given cognizance by C&S.
As we have seen and will continue to see in this post, the foregoing is the epistemic paradigm NAID culture has locked itself into, and ironically it is also the paradigm of those committed to exclusive secularism such as Richard Dawkins. In the Dawkinesque world it makes sense to put all one's philosophical eggs into the "naturalist" basket of evolution because it can then be declared that "The creation of life is a natural phenomenon that hasn't had intelligent help". And ironically this is also how the NAIDs think of evolution except that they believe that without "intelligent help" evolution is not up to the task of generating living configurations. Consequently, NAID philosophers are committed to minimizing the life generating powers of evolution whereas Dawkinesque philosophers are committed to maximizing the constructive efficacy of evolution.
But as it turns this polarized paradigm is shoddy theology and falls over badly in the context of Christain theism.
***
In this post I will be critiquing the following post by Casey Luskin and Stephen Dilley:
Evolution
Falsified? Rope Kojonen’s Achievement | Evolution News
CASEY & STEPHEN: If mainstream evolutionary theory can account for the eye of an eagle, does it make any sense to say that intelligent design is also needed?
C&S: The heart of Kojonen’s book is an attempt to reinvigorate a
biology-based design argument that is compatible with mainstream evolutionary
theory. That is, he accepts evolutionary explanations of the rise of flora and
fauna, yet he also argues that this same flora and fauna provides empirical
evidence of intelligent design. At first blush, this sounds like a violation of
Ockham’s razor. If natural selection and random mutation are up to the task,
what ground is there to say that an intelligent agent is also needed?
MY COMMENT: The reason why C&S think Kojonen has violated Ockham's razor is because they are unable to mentally free themselves from the ID vs Natural Forces dualism forced on them by their flawed epistemic filter. As a consequence, they have superimposed an either/or choice on the question of whether evolution is sourced in natural forces or intelligent agency. In their eyes, one must choose one or the other or else be accused of multiplying entities contrary to Occam's razor. The subtlety they haven't spotted is that their epistemic filter has encrypted into it the subliminal assumption that the kind of intelligence this filter deals with is always a natural intelligence.
***
C&S (my emphases): Kojonen believes that his particular conception of design
rises to the challenge. He argues that design helps evolution succeed. In this
collaborative model, God directly designed the laws of nature, which in turn
gave rise to special preconditions that enabled evolution to produce biological
form and function. As we explain in our article:
In chapter four,
Kojonen marshals various arguments to show that the preconditions of evolution
must be designed if evolution is to be successful (as he believes it to be).
The deck must be stacked in advance. In particular, fitness landscapes must be
finely tuned ahead of time in order for evolutionary processes to successfully
produce biological complexity and diversity. Kojonen believes that it is
implausible to think that evolutionary processes can account for flora and
fauna without these special preconditions. To make his case, Kojonen cites the
work of Andreas Wagner, William Dembski, and others on protein evolution,
evolutionary algorithms, structuralism, and the like. For Kojonen, these
thinkers’ arguments powerfully show that evolutionary processes need prior
“fine-tuning” of fitness landscapes (Kojonen 2021, pp. 97-143, esp. pp.
109-23). Thus, “evolution and design” is superior to “evolution alone.”
MY COMMENT: As we will see in Part IV Kojonen isn't saying anything startingly new. Therefore, to say "Kojonen believes that his particular conception of design rises to the challenge" is grossly inappropriate. As we will see we cannot imagine evolution being anything other than how Kojonen describes it as a process that necessarily exploits a smooth well-tuned "fitness landscape". It beats me why C&S are so startled by Kojonen's very unoriginal claim.
And yet it is clear from the above that C&S are actually attempting to frame their deliberations within the context of a transcendent divine intelligence as opposed to natural intelligence: Viz: "God directly designed the laws of nature". So, as we shall see in due course their epistemic paradigm crashes ignominiously because it is unable to handle transcendent intelligence: When it comes to a transcendent Christian deity it makes no sense to talk of a collaborative model. Once again, we see the NAIDs epistemic filter forcing on the debate a paradigm that is only meaningful when dealing with natural intelligences; given natural intelligences it is meaningful to say that these intelligences collaborate with nature when creating artifacts.
Actually, in spite of my reservations I can agree with the general drift of the quote above. After all, as I have said in my previous post, if the probability of life forming in a very finite universe is to be significant it must be a conditional probability: Viz:
Conditional probability of life ~ significant = Prob(Organic configurations, right conditions)
That is, life has all but no chance of forming unconditionally given the nature of naked randomness: It can only form if the randomness is "dressed" with the right conditions, usually expressed as mathematical constraints (i.e. laws governing the physical regime) putting a tight envelop on the dance of randomness. Naturally, being a Christian theist there is only One Power I can think of capable of that. In fact, we hear about that Power in the quote above. Again: "God directly designed the laws of nature"! ...this suggests that C&S are in actual fact attempting to frame the question of evolution in the context of Christian theism but they fail to see that this throws a whole new complexion on intelligent design as we shall see.
But although I largely agree with the above quote C&S betray at least two subtle flaws in their thinking....
ONE: They refer to "pre-conditions" and "prior fine tuning, done ahead of time" and God "designed the laws of nature". The thinking expressed here about past-tense pre-preparation of the cosmos looks like subliminal deism; deism is also a feature of proto-secularism. In deism God sets up the necessary conditions in advance and then lets the cosmos dance its dance while He stands back. And yet the constraints of the physical regime (i.e. its laws) are a presence-tense-continuous influence on the ongoing patterns that the cosmos generates; those constraints are there as transcendent pattern controllers everywhere and everywhen, justified by no apparent logic which can wipe away the utter surprisal (i.e. the information content) of their contingency. Recycling old well-known phraseology, it might be said that natural law is daily and hourly scrutinizing & controlling events throughout the world. Let's also recall the sophistication of randomness itself; randomness is the absence of any succinct mathematical rule which might describe it or constrain it. In its ideal state randomness is incomputable. All this sounds suspiciously like the ongoing input of a very competent exocosmic agent, whether sentient or not.
I have to confess that when talking about the necessary conditions for a working model of evolution I might have once expressed myself by talking about preconditions and the physical regime being "front loaded" with information, but I now see this as a deistic error; those contingent constraints on the patterns of the physical regime are ever present and ever working; everywhere and everywhen.
TWO: NAID pundits use terms like "Thus, “evolution and design” is superior to “evolution alone.” without embarrassment because they conceive evolution to be distinct from intelligence agency. Well, as we have seen that's OK if we are dealing with humans, aliens or sub-deities like Greek gods. But if we are dealing with the immanent Judeo-Christain God the implicit categories here underlying NAID culture's natural forces vs intelligence paradigm fail: For if standard evolution has occurred (caution: I'm not committed to saying it has) it is necessarily the subject of both present-tense continuous mathematical constraints and the event surprisal of randomness; for a Christian theist such a process would clearly require the ongoing immanent input from the One and Only Transcendent Sovereign. In this conceptual context “evolution alone” is unthinkable.
Is it possible that C&S are simply repeating Kojonen's own deistical terms which then provides them with enough rope to hang Kojonen. I can't speak for Kojonen on this score as I haven't read his book. But I can criticize C&S for adopting a proto-secularist deistical philosophy for themselves as the basis for critiquing evolution; for as soon as you admit the existence of an imminent Judeo-Christian Deity, the possibility of the existence of the strict mathematical constraints supporting an efficacious evolution then looms on the horizon.
C&S: This is a keyway that “design” adds value to “evolution.” Yet is there empirical evidence that these fine-tuned preconditions and landscapes exist? If so, then there are good grounds for Kojonen’s particular conception of design. If not, then his view of design falls short. As we explain:
Kojonen situates design precisely in those fine-tuned preconditions which yield smooth fitness landscapes that allow evolution to succeed. His case for marrying design with evolution therefore depends on the existence of this fine-tuning. So, it is crucial to assess whether this fine-tuning is real. And this question can be assessed scientifically: are fitness landscapes smooth? Are there open pathways between functional proteins, for example? Or are there impassible barriers between such proteins?
Alas, this is where the dike breaks. As we show in our
article — and in previous posts — there is no good evidence for fine-tuned
preconditions and smooth fitness landscapes (as Kojonen envisions them).
Indeed, there is extremely strong evidence against such things.
MY COMMENT: At last C&S are actually making some good coherent sense here and I might (or might not!) agree with them (apart from quibbling their use of the term preconditions). As I said in Part I and many times before, standard evolution depends on the existence of what I call the spongeam, a structure of thin fibrils in configuration space which join the complex ordered configurations of survivable organic structures into a connected set thus facilitating the transport of probability via the diffusion equation through to those complex ordered configurations we call life. But along with NAID culture I would want to raise a plausible question as to whether such "smooth landscapes" actually exist in configuration space given the known cosmic physical regime. But on this question there is one big difference between myself and NAID culture: NAID culture has burnt its boats, and its mutual back-slapping groupthink has lead it to assert with confidence "There is extremely strong evidence against such things." Well, true there may be evidence against such things but is it extremely strong? I'm not so sure; for am I to believe that all those scientists (and that includes Christian scientists) who claim there is empirical evidence for evolution are in a conspiracy to ignore what NAID culture claims is strong evidence for the absence of those "smooth landscapes"? The question sounds moot & debatable to me.
So, in conclusion... From my point of view, I can allow that NAID culture does have a prima facia case here, but as I'm not a biologist and don't have sufficient grasp on the empirical data I therefore have to admit I can't speak intelligently on this question. However, I must stress I have no commitment to the groupthink of either side.
Be that as it may C&S have at least admitted that a physical regime fine-tuned enough for the spongeam to be an ongoing controlling envelope is a sign of intelligent agency, presumably a transcendent intelligent creator: Viz:
"Yet is there empirical evidence that these fine-tuned preconditions and landscapes exist?If so, then there are good grounds for Kojonen’s particular conception of design."
Whether or not this is the case swings on whether or not the spongeam exists; perhaps it doesn't! In which case organic forms are irreducibly complex with their working components isolated on islands of functionality. As I've said before, discovering whether or not organic structures are irreducibly complex may be a computationally irreducible question; that is, we may be looking at a computation that has no short cut analytical answer and can only be answered by an actual "long hand" evolutionary experiment.
But in spite of the absence of easy analytical answers about whether evolution is feasible, it is an axiomatic part of NAID groupthink to assert the irreducible complexity of organic structures; it has therefore become a culturally irreversible choice for them. Consequently, in the face of a seemingly irresolvable and acrimonious empirical debate with the evolutionary establishment about irreducible complexity, NAID culture is casting around for stronger logical grounds for eliminating evolution from the debate. Cue, their precarious crypto-deistic epistemology.......
Kojonen’s model provides yet another significant reason to
reject evolutionary theory. Of course, the general falsity of evolution is not
the focus of the argument in our paper per se; it is nonetheless a direct
implication of the failure of Kojonen’s model. Readers who take his case
seriously will realize that he has given a beautiful account of how to falsify
evolutionary theory. Kojonen mounts a sophisticated argument — based on
evolutionary algorithms, convergence, structuralism, and the like — that
evolution is impotent on its own to explain biological complexity. It requires
design. If he is correct, then evolution cannot succeed without design. And if
we are correct, there is no such design. The inescapable conclusion is that
evolution does not succeed.
MY COMMENT: The hidden logic underlying the above argument is based on NAID's flawed epistemic filter which forces a choice between intelligent design and natural forces (See my initial preamble above and Part I). In the NAID paradigm intelligent agency and natural forces are two mutually excluding categories and one must choose one or the other, just as one must choose between, for example, aliens or a natural radio emission when doing SETI.
It is the NAID category system which enables one to conceive that there is such an object as "Evolution on its own"; that is, as a process unaided by (natural) intelligent interference. So, in the NAID universe of conceptions Kojonen is mixing the two categories of intelligent agency and natural forces in order to give evolution a little help from intelligence to bump it off the bottom of otherwise natural inefficacy. C&S are trying to get past us the incoherent notion that Kojonen's thesis is tantamount to admitting that "Evolution on its own is insufficient" as a life creator and therefore the alternative is that it is an admixture of intelligence and natural forces. But according to C&S this dual explanation of evolution violates Occam's razor.
Moreover, C&S see this as a backdoor clincher in favor of their thesis: Kojonen in admitting evolution's need for intelligent help has, according to C&S, admitted its inefficacy in creating sophisticated configurations such as organic structures without that help. Therefore, if evolution shows no evidence of those design nudges which might be the work of a sub-deity or alien intelligence then Kojonen is effectively telling us that evolution ("alone") doesn't work. In fact, as C&S are fast to point out Dawkinesque secularists "reject design precisely because they think evolutionary processes are fully sufficient"
Let me repeat all that in slightly different words: According to C&S (and also Dawkinesque thinking) evolution is supposed to work without design; that is, without the input of the ad hoc tinkering by some sub-deity or super-alien giving it a nudge or two to get it moving in the right direction. So, if you believe that evolution needs the designs of fine-tuning to work, this is tantamount to admitting that without a lot of intelligent tinkering evolution as a natural process doesn't work.
Well, the foregoing is the logic of NAive Intelligent Design. As I have already said this logic is bad theology in that it actually employs in a form of crypto-deism. This follows because one is being asked by NAID thinkers to conceive a category of so-called natural forces that are able to operate autonomously as configuration generators, if only with the potential to generate relatively elementary configurations. In the NAID paradigm these "natural forces" are deemed "blind and unintelligent". But this NAID category only makes coherent sense if it is being contrasted against natural intelligent designers who work within the confines of the created order and are part of it, such as humans, apes, aliens and classical sub-deities - it doesn't work in the context of the transcendent, immanent God of Christianity who creates not just at the beginning of time, but whose creative power is an ongoing present-tense-continuous power controlling and creating the patterns of cosmic behaviour.
Assuming that C&S are rightly representing Kojonen's views, then according to C&S Kojonen is telling us that evolution needs to be supplemented with the kind of fine-tuning that entails smooth "fitness landscapes" in configuration space. But as we shall see such fine-tuning isn't a mere supplement but is in fact part and parcel with the very description of evolution and cannot be divorced from it. Least of all does Kojonen's work count as a new radical and startling departure as C&S seem to (wrongly) think it is. Kojonen's contribution is something we already know to be a minimum requirement of a working evolutionary model, in fact part of its very definition.
***
C&S: We bring our long series to a close on a note of current
relevance to the ID community. As members of this community know, some thinkers
actively call for advocates of ID to accept only versions of design that are
compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory. They believe that ID will only
stand a chance of success if it accepts conventional thinking. Naturally,
advocates of this view may be tempted to see Kojonen’s model as an ally in
their quest.
MY COMMENT: I'd accept the underlying point here: It is not a good strategy to bully the NAID community into accepting mainstream evolutionary theory. To do so has only had the effect of pushing the NAID community into the embrace of the far-right evangelicals & Trumpites. As I have said in Part 1 of this series the existence of the spongeam (i.e. "reducible complexity") can be challenged and the NAID community do have a reasonable and even plausible case here. In fact it is a good thing to have such anti-evolution critics on the sidelines challenging the evolutionary establishment to come up with solutions to those apparent gaps in what they think to be smooth evolutionary change. And yet C&S tell us above that the general falsity of evolution is not the focus of the argument in our paper per se. That is, in this instance C&S are not focusing on this constructive challenge to evolution. Instead, they have foolishly followed an epistemic willow-the-wisp which uses the bad theology of their "natural forces vs sub-deity" paradigm.
May I repeat: Personally, I have no vested interest staked in either the truth or falsity of standard evolution: I'm not a biologist and so I don't have at my fingertips the empirical evidence to decide on a question about the reality or otherwise of what may in fact be a computationally irreducible process. What I do know is that the NAID epistemic paradigm is flawed through and through and they should scrap it and spend more time backing their argument for their empirical theory of irreducible complexity.
***
C&S: But the reality is quite different. Kojonen’s argument is that mainstream evolution on its own is insufficient to explain biological complexity. Hence, he argues that designed laws and preconditions are needed. His claim about the impotence of evolutionary theory is hardly the received view among evolutionary biologists. [That is, Dawkinite thinkers and not Biologos!] (At least, this is true in their public-facing statements; in private, one sometimes hears great cause for concern.) Indeed, many evolutionary biologists say they reject design precisely because they think evolutionary processes are fully sufficient. [Again, Dawkinite thinkers and not Biologos!] Why else would they accept the theory? So, even when Kojonen’s model is taken on its own terms, it runs against the grain of mainstream evolutionary thought. Thinkers who petition the ID movement to accept evolutionary theory and who see Kojonen’s model as an aid to their cause have not understood the actual contours of the debate. Kojonen’s model is no ally of accommodationist versions of intelligent design.
Moreover, if our criticisms of Kojonen’s model are correct, then he has, in effect, falsified mainstream evolutionary theory. Far from bringing people into the evolutionary fold, Kojonen has done science (and ID) a great service by showing them why they should pursue a richer, more thoughtful path.
