Lack of randomness as evidence for design
shephe...@yahoo.com
This is a request for references to sources that discuss the argument
that non-randomness is a positive indicator of design.
I can begin by quoting from "Not by Chance!" by Lee M. Spetner. I have
been focusing on this book on and off for some time, mostly trying to
study it (as best as a nonmathematician can) for errors in probability.
But there is a philosophical side to Spetner's argument as well, and I
think this quotation summarizes it:
----
Why is randomness important? It is important because it has had a
profound influence on the shaping of the Weltanschauung of Western
Society. It has led to atheism and to the belief that we human beings
are no more than a cosmic accident. This belief serves as a basis for
the social values and morals held by Western intellectuals, and for
their attitudes toward religion. If the belief is unfounded, then the
resulting world view and its implications must be reexamined.
----
Lee M. Spetner, PhD. Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of
Evolution, preface, p. viii.
As many readers of this group know, this book attempts to disprove the
Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution (NDT) on statistical grounds. Simply
put, Spetner argues that he has demonstrated that the NDT fails if
random mutations are assumed.
It's difficult to point to one source that refutes Spetner specifically
because I haven't see any book that exhaustively analyzes Spetner's
statistical analysis. I think such a book (or even a long article)
would be a very good investment of time by a statistician, since I have
read of at least a couple of likely errors in Spetner's probability
assumptions - even if the math itself is correct.
But my question here is not whether or not Spetner is correct regarding
the randomness of mutations. Rather, my question is, how did
"anti-randomness" - for lack of a better term - become the rallying cry
of creationists, and is it really a valid position?
After all, I don't know whether there is any genuine cause and effect
relationship between the existence of God and the randomness of
phenomena in our universe. What we see as randomness could have some
divine reason behind it that we don't understand; on the other hand,
what we see as non-randomness could be the result of regularity that is
part of the fabric of a universe without a supernatural designer.
I suppose Dembski's definition of so-called complex specified
information (CSI) may be an attempt on the part of creationists to give
some kind of mathematical rigor to the "anti-randomness" argument.
Whether the attempt is any good is a different matter, and still leaves
the question in my mind of why creationists have been allowed (if they
have been allowed) to co-opt non-randomness as conclusive evidence of
supernatural design.
Thanks in advance to any pointers to good references on the subject.
Regards,
Shepherdmoon
Ron O
shephe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a request for references to sources that discuss the argument
> that non-randomness is a positive indicator of design.
>
> I can begin by quoting from "Not by Chance!" by Lee M. Spetner. I have
> been focusing on this book on and off for some time, mostly trying to
> study it (as best as a nonmathematician can) for errors in probability.
> But there is a philosophical side to Spetner's argument as well, and I
> think this quotation summarizes it:
>
> ----
> Why is randomness important? It is important because it has had a
> profound influence on the shaping of the Weltanschauung of Western
> Society. It has led to atheism and to the belief that we human beings
> are no more than a cosmic accident. This belief serves as a basis for
> the social values and morals held by Western intellectuals, and for
> their attitudes toward religion. If the belief is unfounded, then the
> resulting world view and its implications must be reexamined.
> ----
> Lee M. Spetner, PhD. Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of
> Evolution, preface, p. viii.
>
SNIP:
I don't think that you will see it stated like this very often. It
isn't randomness that they are worried about, but the natural laws that
science finds as explanations for what we see in nature. Spetner is
just a less sophisticated prefaricator. If randomness is an explantion
for the morals held by Western intellectuals, what is the explanation
for the guys that lied in court and were caught in the Dover court
case? What is the explanation for guys at the Discovery Institute or
guys like Spetner and Hovind that don't seem to have much in the morals
department when it comes to discussing this issue? Why would a moral
person have to resort to arguments like this?
What about the nonrandom distribution of water molecules that creates
surface tension. Crystal salt? Combine the two, disolve salt in water
and then let it evaporate. The lack of randomness doesn't seem to
equate with design, and the belief in this randomness bull pucky
doesn't seem to affect Spetner unless he is secretly influenced the
same way as the Western intellectuals that he claims have lower moral
standards than he does.
Ron Okimoto
Kermit
shepherdm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a request for references to sources that discuss the argument
> that non-randomness is a positive indicator of design.
I think that pretty much any source that discusses evolution does this,
only it doesn't usually occur to the writers to call natural selection
"non-randomness".
The mutations *are random. That is, they are random within the
constraints of the behavior of the pertinent biochemistry. A geneticist
could explain these in more detail (but not necessarily more clearly,
from my viewpoint). Certain kinds of chemical events are more likely
than others, but the expression of those mistakes in DNA replication
has no purpose and are incidental to the molecular level errors.
The effects of these mutations are usually neutral, sometimes
detrimental, and sometimes beneficial. Which depends largely on
context.
Natural selection only allows the expression of mutations which are not
immediately fatal (these often result in spontaneous abortions). Pretty
nearly all organisms have multiple mutations. The average human has
several dozen. This provides a natural genepool of random variation.
There will invariably be a differential success rate in reporduction.
Some of this is due to chance (or at least, conditions or events not
related to characteristics of the individual organism). Much of it will
be due to the organism itself, interacting with the environment. Those
characteristics which help it reproduce (usually by surviving long
enough) will then be passed on, if they are genetically based.
Creationists who argue against evolutionary science using the concept
of randomnessare usually committing several errors:
1. They claim that the probabilities of a certain structure, organ,
behavior is extremely unlikely - what are the odds that a species
would have random mutations that would produce X? But in every
generation there were multiple variations, and it was the beneficial
ones *for that generation* which reproduced most often. This is hardly
chance; it's inevitable, and obviously so for anyone who thinks about
it. Imagine if a card dealer threw several cards down on the table face
up, and you were allowed to choose among them. By the time the cards
were dealt, you would have a pretty good hand.
2. A particular structure, protein, behavior, etc. is not the goal. In
this hypothetical card game, you only need a good hand to win; you
don't need a particular one. If the climate starts getting cold, a
small mammalian species can adapt in several ways. It can get bigger (a
larger animal has a larger mass-to-surface area, and retains heat
better). It can get furrier. It can migrate south. It can learn to
hibernate. Etc. Which path it takes depends on which mutations are
available and are most beneficial for that generation.
3. They assume that a complex structure or behavior results from many
seperate behaviors, when often the major change was brought about by a
minor mutation. Neotony is a good example; it's a class of mutations
that prevents the organism from completely maturing. The Axolotl is a
salamander that never loses its juvenile gills; it 's aquatic all of
its life. Now granted there were numerous minor adaptations after this
advantageous neotonous mutation, but it did not have to "build" gills
from scratch.
The twin nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA show pretty clearly
that we *did evolve - all living species. It would be up to the
creationists to establish another model to explain the data, not invent
spurious arguments insisting that the data is impossible. Especially
when we have an understanding of the mechansims which explain it very
well.
More likely it's a shell game to impress the rubes. The geneticists and
statisticians don't seem impressed by it.
> Whether the attempt is any good is a different matter, and still leaves
> the question in my mind of why creationists have been allowed (if they
> have been allowed) to co-opt non-randomness as conclusive evidence of
> supernatural design.
>
> Thanks in advance to any pointers to good references on the subject.
Wish I could point you to one, but perhaps the reason the Creationistss
choose certain "arguments" is because it uses terminology not in
general use in evolutionary science.
>
> Regards,
> Shepherdmoon
Kermit
Dale
news:1159111864.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Kermit
I nominate this for Post of the Month, as much for its conciseness as for
its clarity.
shephe...@yahoo.com
Thanks. That's a great point about morality. Supporting ID apparently
did not induce ethical behavior in the Dover school board. Nor would
learning more about ID -- as I understand it, several Dover board
witnesses were largely ignorant not only about evolution but also about
ID itself.
> What about the nonrandom distribution of water molecules that creates
> surface tension. Crystal salt? Combine the two, disolve salt in water
> and then let it evaporate. The lack of randomness doesn't seem to
> equate with design, and the belief in this randomness bull pucky
> doesn't seem to affect Spetner unless he is secretly influenced the
> same way as the Western intellectuals that he claims have lower moral
> standards than he does.
>
Right, I agree. I'm just curious about the philosophical history of
Spetner's position, which I think is generally reflected in lots of
theological arguments, including (I think) Paley's argument if you
express it as the likelihood of a watch's appearing on a heath.
Yet, as I understand it, in Roman times chance itself was seen as
supernatural (as in the goddess Fortuna) rather than as a sign of the
non-supernatural. I'm curious about the history of where along the line
randomness became equated with atheism.
Regards,
Shepherdmoon
Timberwoof
"Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
> "Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159111864.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > shepherdm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This is a request for references to sources that discuss the argument
> > > that non-randomness is a positive indicator of design.
> >
> > I think that pretty much any source that discusses evolution does this,
> > only it doesn't usually occur to the writers to call natural selection
> > "non-randomness".
> >
<snip>
> > Kermit
>
> I nominate this for Post of the Month, as much for its conciseness as for
> its clarity.
Seconded.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
shephe...@yahoo.com
Thanks so much -- I fully agree that your reply should be a
Post-of-the-Month.
However, even though I see that scientists don't take much interest in
arguments such as Spetner's I am curious about seeing statisticians
analyze it, if only to point out the errors. I think it would be a
valuable exercise to illustrate math/probability fallacies.
Also, I am interested in the *philosophical* history of how randomness
became associated with atheism.
Regards,
Shepherdmoon
Friar Broccoli
[intro snipped]
> As many readers of this group know, this book attempts to disprove the
> Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution (NDT) on statistical grounds. Simply
> put, Spetner argues that he has demonstrated that the NDT fails if
> random mutations are assumed.
and as simply refuted:
It is easy to create beneficial traits by generating lots of
RANDOM mutations and then selecting a few useful ones to keep.
Which is what Natural Selection does.
> It's difficult to point to one source that refutes Spetner specifically
> because I haven't see any book that exhaustively analyzes Spetner's
> statistical analysis. I think such a book (or even a long article)
> would be a very good investment of time by a statistician, since I have
> read of at least a couple of likely errors in Spetner's probability
> assumptions - even if the math itself is correct.
>
> But my question here is not whether or not Spetner is correct regarding
> the randomness of mutations. Rather, my question is, how did
> "anti-randomness" - for lack of a better term - become the rallying cry
> of creationists, and is it really a valid position?
I think "planned" or "directed" is the concept you are looking
for here. My guess is that it became the rallying cry by
simply assuming that if God created man, then He did it using a
plan. And simple, traditional folk prefer simple traditional
plans.
That a simple plan was not used is made obvious by the fact
that at least 95% of the human genome is junk (subject to
random mutations that have no apparent effect). On top of that
our genome is littered with fragments from viruses, some of
which we share with chimps. Our mitochondria even contain
bacterial DNA.
We also have useless vestigial organs, like the human appendix
and male breasts and a LONG list of others. And then there's
the fossil record. Why did the designer create and then
destroy the tens of thousands of extinct plants and animals we
find as rock images in the fossil record? Was He practicing?
In short, a simple plan looks like a valid position, only if
you are willing to ignore (the literal) mountains of compelling
evidence to the contrary.
> After all, I don't know whether there is any genuine cause and effect
> relationship between the existence of God and the randomness of
> phenomena in our universe. What we see as randomness could have some
> divine reason behind it that we don't understand; on the other hand,
> what we see as non-randomness could be the result of regularity that is
> part of the fabric of a universe without a supernatural designer.
I know of no way to positively include or exclude a divine
creator.
> I suppose Dembski's definition of so-called complex specified
> information (CSI) may be an attempt on the part of creationists to give
> some kind of mathematical rigor to the "anti-randomness" argument.
> Whether the attempt is any good is a different matter, and still leaves
> the question in my mind of why creationists have been allowed (if they
> have been allowed) to co-opt non-randomness as conclusive evidence of
> supernatural design.
Religious leaders, or people wanting to become religious
leaders, have always used the "ORDER therefore (my particular)
God" argument. The regularity of planetary orbits was used
for this purpose for thousands of years. Then Newton went and
spoiled it all.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Ron O
I don't know if Paley's argument could be equated with Spetner's bull
pucky. Spetner is purposely confusing what he calls "random"
occurances with what he doesn't want to believe happens. He knows that
there are factors that influence the outcome of the events that he is
trying to ridicule, but he prevaricates to obfuscate the issue and to
fool anyone that doesn't understand what he is doing. Paley was
claiming that known natural laws would be unlikely explanations of a
watch appearing on the heath. He knew that there are natural laws and
that they are not "random" just that we didn't know of any that we
would expect to make such a watch. His problem was that he then tried
to claim that lifeforms were like a watch. He didn't get very far
because lifeforms are not like watches and make themselves all the time
using nothing that we can identify as being designer interferance.
Even Behe would agree that he can't detect the designer doing anything
in lifeforms today. Heck, Behe can't even point to anything that the
designer had to do in the evolution of humans from an ape like
ancestor. He has to go with junk at the limits of our understanding
like the flagellum that may have evolved billions of years ago. That
is why he had to claim, in court, that his designer could be dead.
Blood clotting is the most recent thing that the designer has been
claimed to have been responsible for and that probably started evolving
half a billion years ago.
Natural law seems to be enough to allow lifeforms to be made everyday
without the type of meddling that Paley requires. There is no evidence
that natural law would not be sufficient to allow the evolution of
existing lifeforms. We observe that lifeforms replicate imperfectly
and pass that variation down to their descendants. No one has a
mechanism that would stop evolution from happening. It would take a
supernatural intevention to keep populations from evolving.
The irony is that to keep populations from evolving you would have to
set up selective criteria (natual selection would be the mechanism)
that is more stringent than any that we observe acting on populations
today. The selective pressure would have to always be the same because
if the environment changed the selective pressure would be selecting
for something different. How many such environments on this planet fit
that description?
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
> Hello,
>
> This is a request for references to sources that discuss the argument
> that non-randomness is a positive indicator of design.
Howdy. No macro event in the universe is "random;" one can state with
100% confidence that you have never seen a "random" event, nor have you
ever heard of one. For all intents in human existance, there is no such
thing as "randomness."
Your hypothesis is therefore falsified. Since "randomness" does not
exist, and since there is therefore no such thing as a "random" event,
you would have to posit that everything that happens in the universe is
a "positive indicator" for the gods (your gutless cowardly substitution
"design" fools no one).
Dick
I think you and Ron are confusing things regarding morality.
Just because there are law books defining legality, doesn't mean the
books are read nor the laws obeyed. Sinners do not disqualify rules
of morality.
If one assumes there are no moral codes, the each of us chooses how to
behave within whatever limits the physical laws impose. I would think
that still includes the choice of joining a sect of one's choice.
If there is a Designer, then there is a question of enforcement of the
Designer's will, if the Designer chooses to do so. Mohammed, Jesus
and Abraham believed there was one God and that God had a code for
moral behavior. I don't see that believing in such codes requires
following the codes. It is obvious that many/most believers sin. The
Christians anticipate "sin" and make it easy to be forgiven, the Jews
often just stoned sinners to death.
What is the evidence for "lack of randomness"?
I fail to see the connection with atheism no matter.
How does atheism come to be equated with immorality. Just because
there is no cop in sight doesn't mean I don't have concern for my
neighbor's property. "What comes around, goes around." My dogs take
turns "falling down" when they play. The larger dog must know the
smaller will quit playing if he always has to be the "fall dog."
Interesting thread.
dick
Dick
I see no conflict between Designed life and Random Mutation. Aside
from "how did He do that", once a new form was released it would be
subject to Natural Selection.
dick
Friar Broccoli
> shephe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is a request for references to sources that discuss the argument
> > that non-randomness is a positive indicator of design.
> Howdy. No macro event in the universe is "random;" one can state with
> 100% confidence that you have never seen a "random" event, nor have you
> ever heard of one. For all intents in human existance, there is no such
> thing as "randomness."
Ok, did Schrodinger's cat die or not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
> Your hypothesis is therefore falsified. Since "randomness" does not
> exist, and since there is therefore no such thing as a "random" event,
This statement is probably false, and definitely not provably true.
At the very least there exist events that cannot be predicted, even in
principal. Thus, for analytical/mathematical purposes these events
are
random.
> you would have to posit that everything that happens in the universe is
> a "positive indicator" for the gods (your gutless cowardly substitution
> "design" fools no one).
Note here, that it is also not possible to prove that God does not
exist. Thus, in principal God could be guiding evolution by
influencing random events. Obviously, there is no evidence for the
intervention of God here, but there is no method of proving it did not
occur.
In real debates, I have often backed myself into embarrassing corners
by asserting that I know more than I can demonstrate.
Robert Grumbine
<shephe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>This is a request for references to sources that discuss the argument
>that non-randomness is a positive indicator of design.
>
>I can begin by quoting from "Not by Chance!" by Lee M. Spetner. I have
>been focusing on this book on and off for some time, mostly trying to
>study it (as best as a nonmathematician can) for errors in probability.
Per the potm nomination, the errors tend to lie not in carrying out
the probability computations, but in setting them up in the first
place. The former is an abstract and mechanical process. The
setting up, however, requires connection to reality (understanding
the science). In terms of looking for errors, this is the most
productive area.
[snip]
>But my question here is not whether or not Spetner is correct regarding
>the randomness of mutations. Rather, my question is, how did
>"anti-randomness" - for lack of a better term - become the rallying cry
>of creationists, and is it really a valid position?
It passes its own validity test -- yecs do rally to it, so it is
a valid tool to get them to rally.
Beyond that, you're looking up the magician's sleeve. It's
misdirection and whatever you find won't help you tell where the
rabbit was hidden.
Determinism (anti-randomness) is window dressing, shibboleth,
rallying cry, or misdirection. What's important to the yecs is
that they not be related to apes, and that science support that
they (the yecs) are special people specially beloved by God.
In a weak sense, determinism supports this, in that yecs believe
that for their existence to be special, God must have personally
(deterministically) created at least the human species, and if you
push many, them individually.
But Spetner's (et al.) book are not, though they may give the
appearance, concerned with rational arguments about the science.
They're excuses for believers to believe that they're not related
to apes, even though this is trivially obvious to any casual
visitor to a zoo or who looks at skeletons in museums.
The notion that God could have ordered the laws of physics,
chemistry, biology, ... such that yecs resulted even though
the laws operate 'randomly' is one that they reject a priori --
it doesn't make them special. (Their god is a very limited
creator, requiring regular intervention to keep even reproduction
occurring.)
[snip]
>I suppose Dembski's definition of so-called complex specified
>information (CSI) may be an attempt on the part of creationists to give
>some kind of mathematical rigor to the "anti-randomness" argument.
>Whether the attempt is any good is a different matter, and still leaves
>the question in my mind of why creationists have been allowed (if they
>have been allowed) to co-opt non-randomness as conclusive evidence of
>supernatural design.
They 'co-opt' the existence of rainbows as conclusive evidence
of supernatural design. Looking at their arguments doesn't get
you very far, compared to looking at what their arguments are
defending.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Kermit
<blush>
> However, even though I see that scientists don't take much interest in
> arguments such as Spetner's I am curious about seeing statisticians
> analyze it, if only to point out the errors. I think it would be a
> valuable exercise to illustrate math/probability fallacies.
If you will accept something that's already organized, but not in
direct reply to you, you might follow the links on this website:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
>
> Also, I am interested in the *philosophical* history of how randomness
> became associated with atheism.
As an atheist, I wasn't aware that it was. I thought you were
interested in evolutionary science? That's the main focus in this
newsgroup, altho anything to do with the origins of ...well, anything,
is fair game.
>
> Regards,
> Shepherdmoon
Kermit