Bend it, move it....

Young Earth Creationists bend the second law of thermodynamics.

On Uncommon Descent the erroneous idea that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution is still being peddled (See here and here). The reason why the second law is consistent with evolution is not difficult to understand. Trouble is, the passionate anti-evolutionists have a strong contingent of Young Earthers in their midst. The latter, going right back to the days of Morris and Whitcomb’s book “The Genesis Flood”, have committed themselves to this fallacy and now they cannot budge from it without becoming a laughing stock. I have tackled this subject several times on this blog, but there is no harm dealing with the subject again from a slightly different angle.

In physics the entropy of a physical system given its stipulated macroscopic conditions is an increasing function of the number of microscopic states consistent with those conditions - the latter number is referred to as the statistical weight of macrostate. For example, if we stipulate that the system is a gas with stated pressure, temperature and density then the entropy will be determined by the number of ways such a system can be realized. If we stipulate that the system is crystalline then it is fairly obvious that the entropy of such a system is relatively low as there are, relatively speaking, not many microstates that realize such a configuration. More abstract macroscopic conditions can be conceived such as requiring that the system is proactively self perpetuating as in the case of living structures. Interestingly, it is clear that living structures are far more “disordered” than crystals in as much as the number of ways it is possible to exist as a proactively self perpetuating configuration are myriad compared to the number of ways a crystal structure can exist. Entropy as a quantity does not pick up on the fact that between the extreme ends of its rather undiscerning spectrum, there are remarkable structures that from an entropy point of view are not differentiated as particularly special. Another limitation of entropy as a quantity is that it only measures the statistical weight of macrostates given the constraints of the physical regime and these meta-constraints remain untouched by thermodynamic decay. Entropy is therefore not a measure of absolute disorder: It is possible to conceive of physical régimes that are so restricted that only highly ordered configurations are consistent with those regimes; in such a context entropy only provides a measure of those macrostates with the greatest statistical weighting. Thus increasing entropy does not necessarily imply a decay to absolute disorder.


That the second law of thermodynamics is not inconsistent with evolution becomes clear even if we start by assuming that the cosmos is the product of an intelligent designer. In fact, what now follows is an intelligent design argument against the YEC abuse of the second law of thermodynamics. If our intelligent designer is endowed with the level of omnipotence and omniscient intelligence usually associated with the Judeo-Christian deity, then given a construction set of parts such an entity would be able to conceptually assemble the entire space of configurational possibilities open to that set of parts. This configuration space forms a kind of manifold of points and a Judeo-Christian deity would be able to think about this manifold like a human being thinks about 3D space. As it stands, however, this huge platonic object is pretty dead and static. So the next step is to introduce some kind of physics in order to give it dynamism. To this end our Judeo-Christian deity could proceed to “wire” up this configuration space into a network of connections. Most naturally the metric of this network would recognize the fact that the manifold of configurations naturally forms a network of relations: These natural relations exist by virtue of the spatial relations resulting of the fact that some configurations are only separated by a small distance in terms of the incremental adjustments needed to turn one into the other.

So, now we have a manifold of points connected into a network by some kind of connection metric. But we still have a pretty static object. The next thing is to give this network a dynamic by assigning transition rates to the connections: This means that if the system is known to be in one configuration we can then work out the probability of it making a transition to one of its “nearby” configurations. The manifold now has a dynamic; that is, it has some physics: Given these transition rates the system will now move from one configuration to the next.

Let us represent this dynamic by the function, T(L), that maps the links represented by L to corresponding transition rates T. In its most straightforward form T will consist simply of a list that maps the links between the nodes of the manifold to their respective transition rates. Given the powers of our assumed deity, then it is clear that such a being has available to it an enormous number of choices on how to wire up this network and how to assign transition rates: In particular it would be quite within the powers of this deity to so wire up this network that it would move toward configurations that contain living structures. To achieve this the transition probabilities need not be directionally biased: The function T may form narrow channels of flow where no direction is favoured, but because these channels form such narrow bottle necks the configurations containing life would have relatively high statistical weight thus considerably enhancing the probability that such configurations arise as the system moves through configuration space. If within the specified channels of development the transition rates are isotropic then this implies that the motion within these channels is one of unbiased random walk. From random walk immediately follows the second law of thermodynamics; namely, that the system would tend to move toward those macrostates with the greatest statistical weight - which is all the second law tells us. Since T(L) puts a tight restriction on what is possible, the macrostates with the greatest statistical weight (that is, with the greatest entropy) are not necessarily disordered in absolute terms. Thus configurations containing living structures can evolve and yet the second law not be violated. The second law works within the constraint supplied by the function T(L) whose form is not subject to thermodynamic decay and is selected by divine intelligence to considerably enhance the probability of life arising. Here then is the rub for those who naively think the second law to contradict evolution: The above system would simply migrate towards its most probable macrostate, that is the macrostate with the greatest “disorder”, and yet if T(L) is carefully chosen by our super–intelligent deity these so called "disordered" states may contain what in absolute terms are the highly complex ordered configurations of living structures.


It all comes down to how the function T(L) maps transition rates to the links between configurations. There is actually nothing really profound here: Given the freedom in choosing any arbitrary T(L) Divine Intelligence is quite capable of contriving a network of transition rates in such way as to favour the evolution of life. The function T(L) effectively defines the physics of the system; that is, it tells us the probability of a system moving for one state to the next. However, it is a funny sort of physics as it simply takes on the form of a list of connections and associated transition rates. This list of connections will contain a high level of information on two counts:

a) It will be a very long list and thus in terms of its linear size it will contain a lot of information.
b) It will be simply one list of many, many possible lists and it will therefore be an extremely rare selection. If, assuming equal a-priori probabilities, we equate this rarity to a selection probability then the implied improbability will entail a very high level of information as defined by the expression for information, –log P. (Which is the expression ID theorist William Dembski uses)

But the profound and difficult questions are these: Is it possible to compress and encode the information in this list into a set of elegant laws? In fact, is our system of physical laws one such compression? I’m not sure I know the answer to these questions, but they are questions I have never seen properly framed let alone addressed on Uncommon Descent or in any of the papers I have read written by anti-evolutionists. Instead the anti-evolutionist stance has a tendency to encourage a spurious dichotomy between “naturalism” and intelligent design. Naturalism is the view that somehow elemental nature can go it alone, a view which is at the heart of atheism. However, no doubt unintentionally, the views expressed by the anti-evolutionists appear to promote the concept of naturalism: The anti-evolutionists who follow William Dembski loudly proclaim the virtues of their design detection science oblivious to fact that it is easy to construe this as suggesting that some things in nature are “designed” and therefore “artificial” and some things need no design and therefore are “natural” , uncreated by intelligence.* I’m sure that in their heart of hearts Dembski and his followers don’t intend this insinuation, but it is all too easy to read the anti-evolutionist thesis as setting up a dualist category of nature versus God. They have created a PR problem for themselves and this is indicated by the fact that Dembski feels the need to address it here.


The fallacious use of the second law by the anti-evolutionist lobby only serves to reinforce this false dichotomy between nature’s creative power and Divine creative power: Thus the anti-evolutionists who have an deep instinctual fear of evolution feel the need to have ready a killer proof of the superiority of Divine creative power over the much feared apparent creative power nature. But the truth is that the second law is no killer argument against evolution and in any case the apparent power of nature to create via evolution must ultimately trace back to the Divine ability to specify the function T(L).

Footnote
* Some problems are harder than others: The presence of a solution to a difficult problem may give an indication of the level of intelligence that solved it.

Back of the envelop Mathematical Model Number 1: Power Laws

After a comment from Stuart about the scale invariance of power laws (See here) I pondered the subject a bit and decided I would do a post on it.

The ubiquity of the power law probably ranks it with the Gaussian bell curve. The latter arises whenever there is a random walk, a very general and common phenomenon. Another general curve is the Boltzmann distribution, an example of which can be seen in the way atmospheric density changes with altitude. But power law distributions differ markedly from the Gaussian and Boltzmann distributions in one important respect. Unlike the latter two, power law distributions don’t return well behaved means and variances. (See here)

The Boltzmann and Gaussian distributions contain negative exponentials and these create asymptotic cut offs which ensure that the integrals used to calculate averages and variances are finite. This cut off behaviour is essential given that both probability and energy are limited by conservation laws and finite resources. How then can we make sense of a power law distribution, like say the size of meteors, which if taken too literally would suggest that there are bodies out there of infinite mass?

Some back of the envelop theorising may help to explain this.

Some power laws seem to have their logical roots in the conventional concept of space constructed by taking the Cartesian product of the coordinates of this space. If an object in a Cartesian space has a size defined by some linear parameter x then that object will have a surface area or volume that will be some power of x. That is, the surface area is proportional to x to the power of p where p is a real number.


Taking my cue from things as diverse as interplanetary bodies and internet nodes, I envisage such objects being capable of attracting further material thereby growing in size. If this is the case then I suggest that the object’s surface area (or volume) is the parameter that determines its growth rate because it is via this surface area that the object interfaces with the “outside world”. If the object grows by the assimilation of material through the membrane of this surface then we might expect the growth of this object to be proportional to this surface area. That is, the rate of growth of the object, G, is given by:
... where k is a constant.

So, an object of size x is effectively ‘moving’ along the x axis with a ‘velocity’ equal to G. If the density of the distribution of objects on the x axis at point x is D(x), then the flow F(x) at point x will be given by:
Now, let us assume that the objects are coming into existence with constant rate at the lower end of the x axis. This means that when equilibrium is eventually reached the flow along the x axis will be a constant independent of x Therefore:Hence:


Given the assumptions I have built into this calculation we see a natural power law distribution in x that ultimately traces back to Cartesian dimensionality.

The above simple model really provides a starting point from which more sophisticated models can be contemplated and built. I actually feel rather unsure about the assumption that objects are envisaged to reside in a conventional Cartesian space that allows their surface area/volume to be calculated using a simple power law. In a manifold where nodes are connected randomly, rather than connected in sequence as in Cartesian spaces, the volumes/surfaces areas are an exponential function of the number of steps between the furthest nodes comprising the object. Notice also the assumption that objects can grow indefinitely – that is, it is assumed that there are no limits on the material available driving the growth of the objects. This, of course, may not be valid – or it may be valid only for a limited time. If the latter is the case then only during the period when material is available will the power law hold as a reasonable approximation.


Returning to my original query about how power laws, which don’t return convergent means and variances, can exist in a cosmos of limited resources, then it seems the answer is this: Power laws only work in open systems, that is in systems where there is an input from without. As long as that input lasts the system will move toward an equilibrium that displays a power law distribution. However, this power law distribution will only be approximate; in a cosmos of limited resources the input can never be maintained long enough for an absolute equilibrium to be arrived at. Thus we expect power laws, like geological lakes, to be a temporary phenomenon, eventually causing a maxing out of resources.

The Gordon Ramsey Foul Mouthed School of Intelligent Design

The following quote comes from Hugh Ross’ web site here. Ross is an “Old Earth” Christian believer. However he doesn’t believe in evolution. Here is his take on the origins of life:

As Fuz and I described in our book, Origins of Life, the existence of liquid water conditions within a few limited refuges at intermittent times throughout 4.38 to 3.85 bya provides a superior explanation for the zircon and rock remains.5 This scenario leaves open the possibility that God intervened every time, or nearly every time, liquid water was present on Earth to create life. When that life was destroyed by a bombardment event, God simply waited for the liquid water to reappear to create life again. (This is why we used the word “origins”–as opposed to “origin”–in our book title.) In More Than a Theory, I suggest that God might have chosen this repeated origins-of-life strategy as a tool to jumpstart the chemical transformation of Earth’s atmosphere.

This strikes me as all rather anthropomorphic. In fact given that some people have likened the big bang to a kind of cosmic cookery and that anthropomorphisms don’t come any stronger than in the banter of TV chef Gordon Ramsey, let’s imagine it was Gordon who cooked up the hot big bang roughly 15 billion years ago. He then travels around his shiny new universe looking for spots suitable for a sophisticated experiment in chemical engineering (which is basically what cookery is all about, I suppose). Trouble is, as far as we know no spot for this work turns up for a long time; about 10 billion years in fact, when at last he discovers the Earth. He intervenes in its chemistry and cooks up some life wherever he finds the suitable ingredients in the primeval soups of its waters. Things are looking up, until suddenly:

“Oh sh*t” said God Gordon “I completely forgot about those f*ck*ng” meteors I created. They’ve completely wrecked my experiment. I’ll have to wait for another few million years before the conditions are right”

A few million years later….

“Right here goes one more time..tum..ti..tum…ti...tum.. ” (sploshing & pouring sounds at this point, along with the occasional clink of Pyrex) ….. There you go, life once again!”

A little later, guess what….

“F*ck! I don’t believe it! Those d*mn meteors have wiped out life again. I’ll have to start all over! If at first you don’t succeed try, try again!

So Gordon keeps at it until at last the late heavenly bombardments ceases and life gets a hold. But Gordon learns a lesson:

“This universe I’ve created is cr*p; it keeps doing things that I don’t want or expect. That’s the last time I create through secondary causes because I can never tell when it’s going to f*ck up. No more Mr. Deist; from now on its going to be Mr. F*ck*ng Interventionist! Then I’ll know where I am”.

So with a bit of chemical tinkering here and there life gets going. The end of Permian extinction and the Cretaceous meteor strike are setbacks, but finally life on planet Earth flourishes. However, after nearly 5 billion years of intelligent design Gordon is in for the shock of his life:

“F*ck! F*ck! It, looks as though I’m back to square one again!

The news? Human beings have appeared on planet Earth along with their free will and weapons of mass destruction.

I think there is something seriously wrong with the above concept of deity. However, the comments that somebody left on my blog here come to mind...

The Blind Asset Stripper

I’m continuing to work through a set of Adam Curtis documentaries that I received for Christmas on DVD. For the first time in my life I’m finding politics interesting, so Curtis must be doing something right.

The latest series I recently completed watching was entitled the “Mayfair Set”. It tells the story of the rise of free market economics in the UK and America. It introduces us to some of its major personalities on both sides of the Atlantic: Jim Slater, Tiny Roland, James Goldsmith, and Michael Milkin. These men made their fortune by taking advantage of the fact that companies are legally owned by their share holders. In most cases the share holders were passive owners uninvolved with the day to day running of the company, seldom looking beyond their share price. Their blinkered ‘bottom line’ view meant that they were unable to resist a good offer when they saw one, and were very ready to sell their shares at the right price, whatever the ramifications in the wider economic sphere. Enter Slater and co: It wasn’t long before these financially ambitious men owned a string of companies, replacing the previously passive ownership with a much more proactive monopoly shareholder who was prepared to “reorganize” the company in order to increase profits. The reorganization process, which they liked to think created leaner meaner companies, had a more pejorative description: “Asset Stripping”. By laying off workers and selling off assets immediate (and ephemeral?) end of year profits were retuned. However, as far as real long term productivity was concerned the effects of breaking up and selling off company assets was unclear. But in the meantime short term profits stimulated a stock market boom as share holders bought and sold.

That is the background. Whether or not the “asset strippers” helped to create a more productive economy rather than just exploiting a legal way of siphoning off stock market money into their bank accounts is not what I am going to comment on here. What I would like to draw attention to in the context of the evolution/ID debate are the following remarks by “asset stripper” James Goldsmith. They can be found in the third program of the “Mayfair Set” series:

Goldsmith on the “Harshness of Change”:

In nature there can be no continuity because there are predators. And in fact there was some game reserve set up by some well meaning people who said it is horrible that these animals should live under the constant threat of predators. Those animals subsequently became degenerate and died because predators are a necessary stimulant. If you eliminate predators in business and just create comfortable bureaucracies and monopolies with no predators you will have a dead industry and the prosperity of the country will shrivel away and your people will suffer infinitely more than by being subject to constant stimulation, threat and competition.

Goldsmith on corporate responsibility:

The sort of stuff senator Worth is talking about (that is, about corporate responsibility – ed), which is the pastoral America with a little company, a church and university which is going to be there forever and they don’t have to compete with anybody and that competition is awful , is a total mixing up of the difference between doing business and doing good. Doing business is what gives you the fuel to do good. Don’t mix them up. The bee doesn’t make honey because he is doing good. He doesn’t have the soul searching of “Am I doing good?”


What irony; the free market process, so beloved of the American religious right, being described in such folk Darwinian terms! Goldsmith is telling us that individuals need look no further than their own immediate productive interests and hey presto out of the hat pops an organized democratic society. (Although conspicuously, he says nothing about a just society). As in evolution only local and immediate gain need be selected for by otherwise relatively blind local market forces, forces that have no cognizance of the greater whole. Thus, no overall social perspective need be conceived and processed intelligently; the average investor need only act selfishly, looking after his own interests without a mind for the bigger picture. A bonus, according to Goldsmith, is that the investor can even think of himself as doing good; thus he can be both selfish and morally upright at the same time!


In some ways the picture sketched by Goldsmith is how societies inevitably proceed – local decisions are made that, due to limited prescience on the part of finite human intelligence, do not take into account the widest of contexts and long term ramifications. Thus, in a very general abstract sense technological societies evolve, quasi-blindly.

Starting here I did a series of blogs as a follow up to watching Adam Curtis’ documentary series “The Trap”

Polkinghorne: A Creationist and ID Theorist.

Last night I was at Norwich Cathedral where John Polkinghorne was giving a talk. I have published some pics to convey the atmosphere. Their quality is not good as my “point and snap” photographic technique struggles under poor conditions.

One of Polkinghorne’s theme (as usual) was of a universe “endowed with the potentiality” to generate life via evolution. During the Q&A session he described himself as a creationist who believes in Intelligent Design. This claim is entirely intelligible given that Polkinghorne believes the universe to have been deliberately “fine tuned” in order to be fruitful in its production of life.

However, what worries Polkinghorne about the term “intelligent design” also worries me: It has become (especially in North America) synonymous with anti-evolutionism. Thus, the insinuation is that theorists like Polkinghorne who are standard evolutionists must be advocating a life creating processes that is unconditional upon Divine Design. As Polkinghorne himself said, somehow the anti-evolutionists have posited “natural” processes in which God has no hand; that is, their objection to physics as the source of life is based on a subliminal feeling that physics is a “mechanical” or “natural” process that minds itself without the hand of God.

The contention here is not whether evolution is supported by common physics or not, but just who can consider themselves to be flying the flag of “intelligent design”. The anti-evolutionists think that they alone are flying that flag and that everyone else should come on side for God. The insinuation is that those who don’t are somehow in bed with “naturalism” and atheism.

The anti-evolution/evolution debate is an emotionally charged war zone where combatants need to know who to shoot at and who not to shoot at. As far as the anti-evolutionists are concerned Polkinghorne is on the wrong side and cannot be regarded as an ID supporter. It is therefore no surprise that in this polarized environment people like Polkinghorne tell us that they have little sympathy with the anti-evolutionist ID community.

But the category division between "goodies and baddies" is based on quite subtle criteria. In this post on Uncommon Descent a correspondent moots the idea that common descent with genetic front loading can be identified as an ID candidate even though the correspondent doesn’t hold this view himself. Why then can’t Polkinghorne’s evolutionary views, which if they are valid would inevitably entail a biased front loading, also be identified as an ID candidate? I suspect this has something to do with the side of the battle field he identifies with.

Christian flock: some think ID sorts out the sheep from the goats
and that Polkinghorne is a nave knave

JOHN POLKINGHORNE LECTURE NOTES

These are the notes I made on the evening of 27/4/2010

Qualia vs Formalism. Meta questions beyond science

1. Why is science possible? Why can we render it using equations? Why do we have a rationally transparent world? The Creator: A concept that makes intelligible the intelligibility of the world.
2. Why is the universe so special? For example the Carbon resonance. Dark energy has been fine tuned to a very small value.

Polkinghorne believes in one universe – the multi universe is speculative and unintelligible.

The universe is endowed with potentiality. The universe is designed to be fruitful. It is not a puppet theatre. Life can make itself.  Mutation needed for evolution tradesoff against cancer. Can not easily separate the benevolent from the malign – inextricably bound up. Hence a universe with ragged edges and blind alleys.

Question & Answer Session

Polkinghorne says he believe in creation and ID.

The IC concept – postulates isolated structures.

American “ID” drives a wedge between the “natural” and God: posits processes where God didn’t have  hand.

The Fall: Down to the self limitng act of God – he gives gifts of free will. Creature make themselves vs puppets. The good has to be balanced against the evil.

Creationism, Interventionism and Deism.

A rather anthropomorphic view of God's activity

In this post on Sandwalk Larry Moran adopts a new term for that category of evolutionist normally referred to as “theistic evolutionists”. The term, borrowed from a blog post by Jerry Coyne , is “New Creationist”. Although I wouldn’t quibble with the use of the word “creationist” here, I would question the appropriateness of the qualifier “new”. In this post on my church blog I submit some historical evidence indicating that the established prewar church was not inclined to question the findings of science, but rather to integrate those findings into its world view. In contrast contemporary Young Earth Creationism is a recent recrudescent phenomenon that started at around the time of the publication of “The Genesis Flood” by Whitcomb and Morris in 1961. So, in actual fact Young Earth Creationism may better qualify for the name “New Creationism”. A more appropriate name for the theistic evolutionists may actually be “establishment creationists” thus describing their identification with mainstream and established science.

In his “new creationist” post Coyne is responding to his antagonist Ervin Lazlo, a philosopher and system theorist. Laszlo must surely understand this subject and yet he is quoted by Coyne as appearing to promote “Hoyles fallacy”, a fallacy which estimates minuscule OOL probabilities by concatenating a set of assumed independent probabilities into a long product series. Naturally Coyne (and myself) would find fault with this kind of procedure. But in a further quote Laszlo appears to show an understanding that evolution requires peculiar preconditions in order to raise its probability to realistic levels – a point of view with which I would concur; if evolution and abiogenesis are facts then the improbability is not to be found in the way suggested by Hoyle’s fallacy, but instead can be traced back to the “one-off” prerequisite mathematical conditions grounded in the physics required by evolution. This “one-off-ness” is, as I have propounded elsewhere, a special case of a more general and abstract thesis that tells us that in the final analysis a great irreducible Logical Hiatus lies at the heart of all finite human theoretical schemes. However, it is the import and interpretation of this inevitable logical hiatus that causes the vexation between atheists and theists. For example, Lazlo effectively waves a red rag to the bull when after noting that evolution is conditional upon particular (and surprising) preconditions he goes on to say:


In the final count the evolution of life presupposes intelligent design. But the design it presupposes is not the design of the products of evolution; it’s the design of its preconditions. Given the right preconditions, nature comes up with the products on her own.

And:

Design is a necessary assumption, because chance doesn’t explain the facts.

Using his own words Coyne renders this sort of argument as follows:

…the evidence for all this is that life is complex, humans evolved, and the “fine tuning” of physical constants of the universe testify to the great improbability of our being here—ergo God.

Evolution started off simple and now many organisms are quite complex. Therefore God.

Here, Coyne is objecting to the God of the gaps argument, an argument whose general form is: “Logical Hiatus, ergo God”. I would concede that given a logical hiatus then an intelligent designer does not necessarily and obviously follow. The atheist has at least some room to play with other ideas in an attempt to “fill the gap” with a non-sentient and elemental cause before he gets to the divine “designer”: For example he might attempt to remove the ultimate improbability of the preconditions needed by evolution with the huge probabilistic resources found in some kind of multiverse model, although this model still inevitably has to make recourse to peculiar preconditions. In fact no matter how one tries to cut it, all human theories have an embedded logical hiatus in the form of given and particular preconditions. This truism leads me to commit myself to the view that logical necessity can only be found in the a priori complex rather than in the simple and elemental algorithmic laws of physics. The elemental is too simple and lacking in degrees of freedom to hide logical self-sufficiency. Therefore I conclude that infinite a priori complexity is the only place left in which Aseity is going to be found, if it can be found at all. Once one takes this conceptual step the possibility of Deity appears at once on one’s conceptual radar.

Although I agree with Laszlo’s theism I would not claim that theism is an obvious inductive leap that automatically follows from the Logical Hiatus that necessarily resides in all finite human theories. The step to theism is less inductive than it is deductive, although it would probably be better to describe theism as a totalizing world view, an all inclusive sense making framework that embraces a wide interdisciplinary experience of life from science, history, philosophy, metaphysics, and personal anecdote - even temperament may have a bearing. In the face of evidence that is sourced so comprehensively, arguments for and against theism will necessarily be narrative intense, absent of killer one-liners and inescapably idiosyncratic; least of all will these arguments meet the strict formal standards of proof that can be demanded of the simple objects dealt with by “test tube precipitating” science. For this reason belief in an intelligent designer is never going to be an obliging, authoritative and publicly shared conclusion. The latter is the preserve of the physical sciences where simplicity of ontology entails greater epistemological tractability.

Although I have some sympathy with Coyne’s objection to the “Logical Haitus, ergo God” type argument, I very much disagree with Coyne’s theology: He portrays the “new creationist” God as a part time deity who occasionally “intervenes”, perhaps only once at the beginning of things:

New Creationism differs from intelligent design because it rejects God’s constant intervention in the process of evolution in favor of a Big, One-Time Intervention,

In fact Laszlo himself encourages this view:

Given the right preconditions, nature comes up with the products of her own. (My emphasis)

The picture is anthropomorphic: The subliminal idea is that God creates in much the same way that a human creator constructs something by configuring elements capable of independent existence. He can then, to a lesser or greater degree, leave His creations to their own devices, perhaps occasionally returning from time to time to “intervene” in the operation of this quasi-autonomous creation. It is ironic that those Christian believers like Robert Sheldon who make a big deal of believing in divine “interventions” are not so far removed from Coyne’s portrayal of the deist’s God: The difference is that Sheldon believes not in a “Big, One-Time Intervention” but “Many-Time Interventions”. Deism lurks threateningly in the background of the Christian interventionist’s philosophy of God.

My concept of God is that of a God who “interrupts” the flow of normalcy rather than “intervenes”; that is, he interrupts or changes His mode of working, a working that in actual fact never ceases: “for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). When we develop physical theories such as Gravitation or Quantum Mechanics, we do not picture such schemes as doing their work by “intervening” but rather see their action as relentless across all time and space. Likewise, if the ultimate underlying ontology of this universe is the Aseity of deity then I don’t expect that Deity to have the occasional role of the interventionist God, but instead to be a present tense continuous agent. As the sustainer of the cosmic order His role is relentless in time and space, interrupting the normal flow as and when He pleases.


Addendum: 29/4/10
Unfinished Business.
When I wrote about the concept of "divine intervention" here the following comment appeared:

Well it could be worse, we could be dealing with Pandeism, which proposes a God that is a quite logical and scientific entity which engineered a Universe that is truly random, and lacking in any of that unacceptable tinkering....

Clearly the person concerned never got to grips with the difference between "tinkering" and "interruptions". That person never turned up when challenged in a subsequent post and remains on my "unfinished business" list. It is ironic that those who are so vocal about believing in "interventions" support a philosophy that has a close relation with deism: "N interventions" very easily turns into "Zero interventions" when faith falls away and N slides toward zero.

Right Wing Celebrity Death Match

Michelle Malkin: The 5-foot-2-inch, 100-pound mom

VERSUS

Alex Jones: The bug-eyed hulk

As a bit of light relief I have recently been dipping my finger into the hot bath of passionate politics that immerses the evolution vs. anti-evolutionist fracas debate. This has partly been encouraged by watching my Xmas DVD collection of Adam Curtis documentaries and partly because in order to comment on Robert Sheldon’s blog I had to sign up to Townhall.com, an American right wing webmagazine. After signing up I subsequently started receiving Townhall.com’s headline email-shots. One these emails advertised the May edition of their paper magazine that was running a feature article on a lady called Michelle Malkin described by Townhall as:

Most people know her as a conservative firebrand who has written best-selling books, including "Culture of Corruption," which dealt with the shady characters that have populated the Obama administration, and "Unhinged," which exposed the lunacy of the Left. She has been a regular analyst and contributor on Fox News for years. Week in and week out, her columns are always among the most read on Townhall.com. And her eponymous blog reaches millions of readers.

And adds:

Her impassioned opposition to Barack Obama has certainly stoked more outrage on the Left…..

But what caught my attention in this email was not so much the outrage from the left, but rather the outrage from a very different quarter altogether:


Not all of the threats come from the Left. Michelle covered the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver and expected to get challenged, but the most disturbing experience involved an altercation with conspiracy-theory extremist radio host Alex Jones. While attending a demonstration of "anarchist loons trying to levitate the Denver Mint," Jones charged out of the crowd toward Michelle.

"This bug-eyed hulk came stalking up and screaming at me about how I was a threat to his First Amendment rights," Michelle recalls. "He was spoiling for a fight with a 5-foot-2-inch, 100-pound mom; his clenched fists, bulging neck veins and spittle-flecked face were, I must say, rather disturbing."

Yes, that’s right good old right winger Alex Jones! Jones calls himself a Christian, but he does not believe in Young Earth Creationism and instead is an Intelligent Design anti-evolutionist. (See here)


I must admit I am bemused by this altercation and I don’t think I have made full sense of the sharpness of this right vs. right embroilment. The best sense I can make of it at the moment is that Jones identifies himself with the old school “patrician”* right wing, whereas the new republican right represented by townhall.com (and perhaps Uncommon Descent, also) think of themselves as the radical right advocates of free market democracy.

When I was contributing to this thread on Uncommon Descent a correspondent called “Jerry” helpfully gave me the following insights into the relevant politics:

Most atheist reside in the Democrat party which is highly secularist. However, many atheist are free market advocates and anti big government so they reside mostly on the conservative side except for social issues when they are often in favor of such things as choice in abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriage. TE’s tend to be liberal Christians and reside mostly in the Democrat Party. Those that adhere to traditional religion will mostly be Republicans because of the secular nature of the Democrats. I have no firm information about YEC’s but suspect they are mostly Republican due to the highly secular and anti Christian nature of the Democrat Party.


....so I’ll throw that into the melting pot as well and see if anything clear emerges.

Footnote:
* I have picked up this term “patrician” from Adam Curtis.

Sounds like something PZ Myers would say…. Really?

In this post on his blog “Pharyngula” PZ Myers publishes the following cartoon with the comment “Sounds like something I would say except that you wouldn’t find me in a foxhole”.

(Click to enlarge)

The most natural interpretation here is that PZ is referring to the large speech bubble in the cartoon. But this is extraordinary! Would PZ really say: “I’m not denying the possibility of the existence of any forms of higher intelligence beyond the scope of our comprehension”? Is this the PZ Myers we have come to know? I suppose “higher intelligence” could refer to evolved aliens, but if so then it might be claimed that beings who share origins similar to our own are not entirely beyond the scope of our comprehension! If such possible and yet unspecified "higher intelligence" is beyond our comprehension then perhaps that may include the origins of that intelligence; perhaps that intelligence always existed, or perhaps it has a necessary existence (Asiety)…. perhaps that unknown intelligence is the most natural candidate for that vexing appellation…..shhh!….God!


For a long time now I have kept banging on about formal “test tube precipitating science” facing increasing epistemological problems as the ontology it deals with gets more complex. Accordingly we must develop what Nassim Nicholas Talib calls “epistemological humility”. For that reason the cartoon’s expression of science’s diffidence toward mysterious epistemologically intractable objects such as “forms of higher intelligence beyond our comprehension” is not at all untoward – in fact as a pensive theist I could almost say along with PZ “Sounds like something I would say”! This is encouraging – it may mean that PZ is not as sold out to “scientism” as I thought, but I don't think PZ will be setting up an altar "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD" just yet! (Acts 17:23)

Roman altar to an unknown deity

Mixing with the Right People.

My poor old irony meter seems to be taking a bashing at the moment. See here on Uncommon Descent where I commented on the very interesting work of Dr Robert Sheldon. See also here and here where I leave comments on Dr Sheldon’s blog on the conservative “Townhall.com” web site – a site endorsed by Anne Coulter….which gives me another excuse to publish a picture of this lovely looking lady:

By the way: The only way I could sign up on “Town.com” was to pretend I was from an American state. I chose the Midwest’s Iowa as I have been there. Cedar Rapids, where I was based, with its rural hinterland, felt a bit like Norwich. I remember comparing notes with one of Cedar Rapids' citizen and we both agreed that we didn't like big cities. I think we were both rubes and would be well out of our depth at a New York republican convention (= heaven, according to Ann)

A God of Some Sort

After my last post on the aspects of anti-evolution ID theory I feel unhappy about, it is very timely that William Dembski has published this post on Uncommon Descent illustrating just what I mean.

Dembski starts by quoting Frank Zindler who expresses the view that a literal Adman and Eve, the fall, original sin and the need of salvation are all incompatible with evolution: Basically the sort of stuff one gets from many a Bible Belt fundamentalist, but with one minor difference: Frank Zindler is an atheist and to him this is all just so much counterfactual theology. It goes to show that there is such a thing as a “Bible Belt” atheist; that is, an atheist who shares Bible Belt mental categories and therefore subliminally reasons and thinks about deity just like a Bible Belter. (Albeit counterfactually)

However, this is by the by. Dembski says of Zindler:

But Zindler is not arguing for the mere compatibility of evolution with atheism; he is also claiming that evolution implies, as in rationally compels, atheism. This implication is widely touted by atheists. Richard Dawkins pushes it. Cornell historian of biology and atheist Will Provine will even call evolution “the greatest engine for atheism” ever devised. To claim that evolution implies atheism is, however, logically unsound (even though sociological data supports the loss of faith as a result of teaching evolution). Theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins, Denis Alexander, and Kenneth Miller provide a clear counterexample, showing that at least some well-established biologists think it’s possible for the two to be compatible. Moreover, there’s no evident contradiction between an evolutionary process bringing about the complexity and diversity of life and a god of some sort (deistic, Stoic, etc.?) providing the physical backdrop for evolution to operate.

With that I agree, but make note of this: The evolutionary beliefs of Collins, Alexander and Miller are, as Dembski generously concedes, apparently consistent with “a god of some sort”. It’s a good thing that these are New Testament days, because I think Dembski will find that in Old Testament times worshipping “a god of some sort” could attract the death penalty. Otherwise so far so good, but be warned things start to go downhill from now on. Dembski goes on to say:

The reverse implication, however, does seem to hold: atheism implies evolution (a gradualist, materialist form of evolution, the prime example being Darwinian). Indeed, the atheist has no other rational options in explaining the diversity and complexity of life. The atheist may, in the face of reason, invoke pure chance to explain the emergence of life.

Atheism implies evolution? In a synthetic and probabilistic sense this is certainly true in that if one is given a person who is an atheist there is a high chance he or she is an evolutionist. But Dembski suggests that atheists have no other “rational” options open to them. This is a bit too strong: There is a measure of subjectivity in gauging just what is rational: One man’s rationality is another man’s idiocy. Would atheists who invoked a multiverse in order explain abiogenesis as a “pure chance” leap classify as being rational or irrational? What about atheist Fred Hoyle’s panspermia and his foray into a kind “alien” intelligent design? And where do we position those who say we are part of a gigantic simulation? It is certainly not clear to me that Darwinian gradualism is the only option open to atheists; it just seems to be the only game in town that currently appeals to most atheists for reasons that I suggested in my last post.


But Dembski then goes on to propose a necessary disjoint between intelligent design and evolution as per the following:

The rationale here is a simple application of the logical rules modus ponens (If A, then B; A; therefore B) and modus tollens (If A, then B; not B; therefore not A). Thus,
Premise 1: If atheism is true, then so is Darwinian evolution.
Premise 2: But if ID is true, then Darwinian evolution is false.
Premise 3: ID is true (the controversial premise).
Conclus 1: Therefore Darwinian evolution is false (modus ponens applied to Premises 2 and 3)
Conclus 2: Therefore atheism is false (modus tollens applied to Premise 1 and Conclus 1)

Premise 1 is unclear. Does “If atheism is true” equate to “If there is no god”? Is Dembski saying “If there is no God then evolution follows”? Is he saying that in the absence of the Aseity of Deity evolution has the logical efficacy to create life and can make good the absence of a divine creator? If so atheist materialists would probably agree. If this is Dembski’s meaning then it goes to show that there is such a thing as a “materialist” Christian; that is, a Christian who shares “naturalist” categories and can thus subliminally reason and think about “naturalism” like a materialist. Or have I got Dembski’s meaning here completely wrong? Does he simply mean that if a person believes in atheism he will believe in evolution? After all “atheism” is a belief about an ontology and not the ontology itself; Dembski has not made clear the distinction between atheism as a belief and atheism as an ontology.

Premise 2 is clearly false. If the cosmos is sourced in some kind of self-necessary intelligence it is not clear to me that it follows that Darwinian evolution is false: As I have indicated in this blog, if evolution is to work in a realistic time, it requires the right mathematical preconditions (if they exist), and those preconditions can be construed as an ID choice made by some super intelligence. However, it is very likely that the idea that an act of intelligent design is required to set up a working version of evolution is not consistent with Southern Baptist Bible Belt creation theology - Dembski’s Southern Baptist outlook would very likely see a conflict between evolution and Christian theism (as per atheist Frank Zindler). So perhaps premise 2 should read as follows:

Premise2: “If Southern Baptist Bible Belt theology is true then Darwinian evolution is false”

Premise 3: As a theist I would accept this premise, but not in the sense that Dembski defines ID (See the following). Clearly then on the proceeding basis Dembski’s conclusion 1 does not follow. But it seems that Dembski’s aim is to define both ID and “Darwinian” evolution in such a way as to drive a wedge between them; they are in his view mutually exclusive as this passage shows:

When I got into this business 20 years ago, I thought that any Christian (and indeed any theist), given solid evidence against Darwinian evolution (as ID is now increasingly providing—see my book The Design of Life and Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell) would be happy to trash it and move to some form of intelligent design (whether discrete creations or gradual guidance or information front-loading or whatever). But that has not happened. Theistic evolutionists have now baptized Darwinism. Thus, in the 2001 PBS evolution series, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller referred to himself as an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinian.

According to Dembski then conventional evolution is not a front loaded process. This is at variance with my own view that evolution, no matter how one defines it, or for that matter any process one constructs which is able to arrive at complex order in “fast time”, must necessarily be front loaded; a front loading that is easily construed by a theist as a gift of providence.

In some respects Dembski well demonstrates what I suspect are subliminal commonalities of mindset between the Christian Right and the Militant atheists. As I said in my last post:

If evolution has occurred then it clearly keeps its load of active information well hidden, so much so that neither the anti-evolutionists nor militant atheists are aware of it; or perhaps they just don’t want to acknowledge it. In the opinion of both parties evolution purports to be a process that can boot strap living configurations from next to nothing. Thus anti-evolutionists and atheists have very large stakes in the respective presence or absence of explicit information discontinuities in nature; in contrast evolution’s information discontinuity is very implicit and is not to be found in material reifications, like front loaded genetic information.

Using Venn diagram notation the picture that Dembski is foisting on all theists is shown below:

(Click to enlarge)

Notice that in the above diagram ID and evolution do not overlap; they are mutually exclusive. In this diagram we see that according to Dembski all atheists are evolutionists and that a subset of theists find themselves (compromisingly) in the evolutionist camp. Needless to say this is where Dembski and I sharply part company. I would suggest that the true picture looks more like this:

(Click to enlarge)

This diagram indicates the logical impossibility of constructing processes that create complex order in “fast time” without a blatant “logical hiatus” or “information discontinuity” being present. I see no way out of this logical trap; evolution or any other process inevitably displays this logical discontinuity. Therefore I have presumptuously labeled this all inclusive set as “intelligent design” because being a theist I see this as the gift of providence. Moreover, the real picture is far more complicated than Dembski suggests: As my Venn diagram shows atheists are not necessarily evolutionists. In fact when constructing the above Venn diagram I contemplated drawing the atheist and evolution circles projecting partly beyond the “ID” circle in order to suggest an atheist attempt to escape the trap of a Logical Hiatus – although I personally can’t see how that can be achieved and so I have shown atheism to reside inside the ID circle; they (and evolution) are the unconscious benefactors of providence.

Is it any surprise that Christian Darwinians have fallen out with Dembski and friends and will have nothing to do with a concept of ID exclusively defined in anti-evolution terms? As Dembski says:

Ironically, theistic evolutionists now make common cause with atheistic evolutionists—specifically against ID. ID has become public enemy number one for both atheistic and theistic evolutionists (the recent spate of books by both sides confirms this point—atheist Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True as well as theist Kenneth Miller’s Only a Theory). Consequently, not just the mainstream academy but the mainstream Christian academy (Wheaton College, Calvin College, Seattle Pacific University, etc. — most schools in the CCCU) have now closed their doors to ID and to hiring faculty that explicitly support it.

Well surprise, surprise. Little wonder that mainstream Christian academies are closing their doors to the Christian right’s anti-evolutionist rendering of ID. Dembski and his right wing friends have cast the debate in the mold of a polarised ID vs. evolution battle thus effectively accusing those Christians who defect from the Christian right’s concept of ID as crypto-naturalists; a charge that is tantamount to an accusation of blasphemy. As I said over two years ago when I first started looking at this whole debate:

They frame the debate to look as though it is ‘naturalistic’ evolution vs. ‘supernatural’ creation by God with, of course, ID coming in on the side of God against those who, like myself, favour evolution. Ironically, many atheists would agree with this framing.

So it seems I have come full circle. How can Christian Darwinians do business with Dembski and friends when the innuendo is that those who do not support Dembski’s version of ID must be crypto-materialists who worship “a god of some sort”? I’m the first to admit that conventional evolution, as far as I am concerned, is only a working hypothesis, a hypothesis that may need considerable modification in the light of the Creator’s providence, but the unwarranted polarization superimposed by Dembski on the subject makes a relationship with the right wing Christian culture he represents impossible. As I said in my last post:

This ……. right wing reaction against evolution is now culturally locked into the contemporary ID movement to the extent that it is impossible for them to countenance “evilution” as one of the options by which divine intelligence may operate. The Christian right wants to undermine the atheist’s main support and therefore evolution must go at all costs.

Dembski echoes precisely this point when he says:

Christians in general need to consider this: The only thing theistic evolutionists have to say to a Richard Dawkins who uses evolution as a club to beat believers is that he’s making a category mistake, trying to get science to do the work of theology (to which Dawkins would respond “so much the worse for theology”). By contrast, ID takes the club out of Dawkins’ hands and breaks it, showing that the theory of evolution on which he relies is all washed up.

What neither Dembski nor Dawkins seems to have spotted is that that club may already have “ID” (or at least “Logical Hiatus”) written all over it.

Darwin Bicentenary: Final Summing up.

Bad Ben says "Evolution is a brilliant theory and Darwin was brilliant guy.” See here

My 2009 blog series on the Darwin bicentenary was, from the start, a pretext to ponder some aspects of the ID community’s challenge to evolution. I stress some because I confined myself to those issues I thought I understood best. I am hoping that this will be the last post on the matter, thus keeping my New Year resolution to stop blogging on this subject and to start thinking about something else.

In part 1 of this post I looked at those facets of the ID movement’s work I like best; in particular Dembski’s papers on active information and the very crucial challenge of irreducibly complexity. In this final part I will look at aspects I am less fond of. None of the following is to say that there is no case against evolution; it’s just that some areas of anti-evolutionist polemic are, in my view, technically inept. Most of the following points I have touched on in my series. They represent my personnel digest and impressions after nearly two years of contact with the anti-evolutionists on Uncommon Descent. It is therefore difficult to formally reference them against the movement’s work, so I’m taking a “if the hat fits, then wear it” approach here.


ONE) Misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics: Some anti-evolutionists still hold the erroneous view that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution. (See this post). This fallacy, I think, is mostly prevalent amongst Young Earth Creationists: It is a fallacy they have repeated to themselves time, time and again and in the repeating they have become entrenched. The loss of face in going back on this entrenched position is unendurable. To challenge this fallacy is to face a desperate antagonist who will cling to it for all he’s worth.

Entropy is defined as S = k Log Z, where Z is the statistical weight of a macrostate. The second law tells us that dS/dt > 0 for an isolated system. The equation for S alone ought to provide YECs with a big hint as to their error. Z is defined given the constraints of the laws of physics. Thus the quantity Z does not necessarily equate to our intuitive concept of disorder because conceivably the physical regime may so restrict possibilities that Z will include a relatively high proportion of states containing self-perpetuating complex ordered forms. Since physical laws transcend thermodynamic decay, our intuitive concept of what increasing Z entails may be completely awry.

TWO) “Chance and necessity”: Another misunderstanding I see perpetuated amongst the anti-evolutionists is embodied in their use of the phrase “chance and necessity”. They identify “Necessity” with the laws of physics. Hence, they conclude that since “Necessity” must have a probability of 1 then it follows that physical laws have a probability of 1. Therefore they wrongly conclude that the patterns generated by physical laws can’t contain information.

THREE) Conflating complexity with information: A very simple outcome with a very low probability will, by Dembski’s definition of information (-log [p]), have very high information content. But a more complex outcome with a high probability will contain less information than an improbable simple outcome. Ergo, the complexity of an outcome is not necessarily an indication of its information content; some anti-evolutionists seem confused about this distinction.

FOUR) Denial that living complexity could conceivably be implicit in simple laws: As a rule anti-evolutionists don’t give much credence to the idea that life is implicit in our physical regime – from their misleading “chance and necessity” perspective they regard it as impossible for the complex information of life to be implicit in physics. Given this belief it is surely ironic that one of their most effective challenges to evolution, that is, irreducible complexity, depends on a very complex object being entailed by physics: Irreducible complexity requires living structures to populate morphospace* as isolated islands of self perpetuating functionality. This conjectured evolution blocking pattern in morphospace is itself a very complex object, potentially containing lots of information. It is an object that would necessarily have to be implicit in the physics that many anti-evolutionists claim “cannot create information”. Thus, the important challenge of irreducible complexity depends on physics entailing a very complex object. If elementary physics is conjectured to imply an intricate pattern that blocks evolution, it would seem that those who tender the opposite conjecture of self-perpetuating functionality forming a connected set in morphospace is not a position that can be criticised on the basis that physics cannot “create” the information required by this object.


FIVE) The polarization of intelligence against evolution: The anti-evolutionists are apt to contrast intelligent agency with the “mindlessness” of evolution. But “intelligence” as we understand it in its human form at least, has a strong trial and error component suggesting that there are deep isomorphisms between evolution, intelligence and algorithmic searches. Moreover, it needs to be pointed out that human technological progress is only possible if “technological morphospace” is populated with functionality in such a way that it is possible for human intelligence to jump the gap from one technological development to the next; without this level of technological “reducible complexity” human technological advance is impossible.

SIX) Intelligence polarized against “naturalism”: Consider this statement which I once read somewhere on Uncommon Descent:

“The four fundamental forces must explain everything on earth if you don’t believe in intelligent design”

So; does it follow that if one does believe in Intelligent Design then one doesn’t believe that the four fundamental forces “explain everything”? No, the above sentence doesn’t actually say that, but it leaves unsaid whether or not the four fundamental forces also constitute a candidate manifestation of intelligent design. If the four forces do “explain life” they would presumably have to be correctly selected in order to make evolution work. The question is, then: Which requires more intelligence: Creating life directly or via the selection of the right laws? Given that many anti-evolutionists are theists, it is ironic that they should set "intelligence" over and against “naturalism” when in fact it is clear that any thoroughgoing Christian theism sees “naturalism” as sourced in divine designs. If the “natural” is divinely sourced then why don’t the anti-evolutionists at least acknowledge evolution as an intelligent design option (albeit one they disagree with)? These matter need to be clarified amongst anti-evolutionists.


SEVEN) Is “Intelligently Designed” the same as “Designed”? The use of the qualifier “Intelligent” may hint at the presence of a rather anthropomorphic valued judgment. I myself would prefer to just use the unqualified term “design” (or even “providence”) for two reasons:
1. “Design” is a more neutral term that can be used to designate the abstract notion that our descriptions of the ontology of the cosmos will always contain an irreducible Logical Hiatus; that is, an apparent contingent giveness will always remain whether we think it to be “intelligently” sourced or not.
2. It avoids the difficulties of trying to assess the motives and capabilities of a designer; for example assessing whether a work of art is intelligent is not so easy given that it is bound up with the artist’s motives, aims and personal complexes.
Perhaps a more objective measure of intelligence could be arrived at in terms of the computational complexity required to arrive at a configuration. In this connection I don’t find Dembski’s concept of complex specified information very helpful. (See here)


EIGHT) No acknowledgement of evolution as a possible design candidate:There are Christians such as Sir John Polkinghorne who believe evolution has occurred and yet who would claim that the propensity for the Universe to be so “fruitful” in evolutionary terms is down to God’s provision (or design). Ostensively, then, evolution too can be interpreted as a design candidate. Whether evolution has actually occurred is not the point here: One Uncommon Descent poster (See here) has acknowledged that genetic front loading is one way of explaining common descent. Although he himself doesn’t believe this has actually happened he allows such a view to be classified as a form of intelligent design. This act of classification raises the question why evolution itself, which as Dembski has shown must be necessarily be fueled by some kind of front loaded “active” information for it to work, can’t also be included in the ID fold!


NINE) Contemporary ID: A theory-less movement: I have criticized the anti-evolutionists on the basis that they have no agreed working theory of natural history: Their theories of natural history may range from Young Earth Creationism to a form of genetically front loaded evolution, as we have seen. Hence their scientific endeavors are largely guided by an anti-science heuristic – that is, one of seeking out the weaknesses in the academic establishment’s edifice of evolution. Actually, I might be prepared to withdraw this criticism given that positing the involvement of super intelligence naturally introduces an entity that could work in quite mysterious ways and thus be scientifically intractable. But then if that intelligence is so inscrutable perhaps conventional evolution, with its burden of implicit active information, is that entity’s chosen method of working. Who knows?


TEN) The politicization of science in a Christian right vs. atheist contention: Evolution has been portrayed by atheists as a process that from its inception to its conclusion is mindless, a process that in the words of Richard Dawkins allows him to become an intellectually satisfied atheist. Thus “evilution” has become the ogre of the Christian right, a rival to creation, an insentient chaos monster that purports to be able to create organized complexity from next to nothing. Evolution’s almost universal acceptance amongst left wing and liberal atheists only confirms to the Christian right that evolution can only ever be anti-intelligence and therefore anti-God. This consequent right wing reaction against evolution is now culturally locked into the contemporary ID movement to the extent that it is impossible for them to countenance “evilution” as one of the options by which divine intelligence may operate. The Christian right wants to undermine the atheist’s main support and therefore evolution must go at all costs. This anti-evolutionist opposition to the liberal academic establishment’s evolutionary world view also marries well with their opposition to that establishment’s views on global warming.

If evolution has occurred then it clearly keeps its load of active information well hidden, so much so that neither the anti-evolutionists nor militant atheists are aware of it; or perhaps they just don’t want to acknowledge it. In the opinion of both parties evolution purports to be a process that can boot strap living configurations from next to nothing. Thus anti-evolutionists and atheists have very large stakes in the respective presence or absence of explicit information discontinuities in nature; in contrast evolution’s information discontinuity is very implicit and is not to be found in material reifications, like front loaded genetic information.

The contemporary ID movement has fallen out badly with the evolutionists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller. Collins and Miller, like Polkinghorne, are theists and therefore they are very likely to attribute evolutionary fruitfulness to divine providence or design. So, why can’t Miller and Collins join forces with Uncommon Descent and their philosophical views on evolution be incorporated into a united ID front? In spite of at least one ID theorist allowing genetically front loaded common descent being identified as an ID candidate my guess is that this can never happen with conventional evolution even though it must also be a front loaded process. There are, I suspect, fundamental fault lines here bound up with political and vested interests making such a union impossible: The Christian right, the free market economists and those who are itching to identify President Obama as Mr. 666 may have something to do with it. It is beginning to look to me as if political identification counts for more than one’s belief in theism, Christianity, or even in intelligent design. According to her wiki page, Christian right winger Anne Coulter (pictured) has the following (tongue in cheek?) concept of the ideal world:

"It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like."

I hope to scale the monumental irony introduced by the right wing connection on my blog Noumena, Cognita and Dreams.** (If there is any doubt about a right wing connection have a look at this post that has just popped up on Uncommon Descent)

Heavenly Body: Ann Coulter is
in Heaven whenever she goes
to a republican convention.






Footnotes
* I must make one thing clear here: Morphospace, in the sense that I use it, refers to both microscopic as well as macroscopic configuration.

** The intended post was in fact published on this blog: See here

The God Computation.

I was fascinated to read this post on Uncommon Descent by Barry Arrington. He gives us a link to an article claiming to have calculated that the probability of abiogenesis to be in the order of 10 to the power of -1018 (Presumably a “spontaneous” probability calculated without reference to the structure of morphospace). This figure, he says, has given some impetus to multiverse views because clearly only a multiverse can provide the probabilistic resources for the required “miracle” of spontaneous creation to take place. Barry then goes on to propose:

But the theist can play this game too. “The existence of God is not logically impossible. In an infinite number of universes everything that is not logically impossible is in fact instantiated, and we just happen to live in one of those universes in which God is instantiated”

Somebody in the comments thread takes Barry to task over the question of logical possibility: The multiverse, the correspondent says, doesn’t imply a carte blanche logical possibility because the multiverse itself is subject to laws (God knows what laws!). That comment seems true enough, but it reckons without Stephen Wolfram’s conjecture of computational equivalence: Viz: Any computation exceeding a certain threshold of complexity will, given enough time, exhibit computational universality – that is, it will compute any computable function and only God knows just what huge computations are out there in the platonic realm waiting to be reified as a real computation. So, if our multiverse is one of these universal computations it will, as it rings the changes of chaos, eventually come up with anything computationally possible. If, then, there is such a thing as a “god computation” or “god function” out there, somewhere sometime the multiverse will compute it! Therefore perhaps Barry Arrington’s point is valid after all!


The irony is that it seems that a multiverse theorist has already arrived at the very juncture anticipated by Arrington. I am thinking of the “computer simulation” argument. This argument tells us that in a multiverse there is a very high probability we are part of some kind of huge computer simulation initiated and controlled by a being or beings who as far as we humans are concerned would have the sort of powers over the simulation that we traditionally associate with deity. See here for details. I once commented on this matter myself here!

One version of the computer simulation theory suggests that it must be these guys who are simulating our universe.