Skip to main content

will the real random please stand up?

Fact mentioned by Michael Behe in a debate with Stephen Barr:  that some biology textbooks say that the process of evolution is "undirected" (it's worth noting that Eugenia Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education, said that this adjective should be deleted from science textbooks, and that she justified this by saying that it's already implicit in the term "random")

My thought about that is that natural science is not competent to use the words "directed" or "undirected." That is, natural science doesn't have the word "directed" as part of its vocabulary.  Intelligent design, if it's a science at all, is a social science, not a natural science.

This is most obviously true in the case of physics.  Consider how physics is not competent to describe, index or demonstrate the existence of "direction" or "indirection" in the case of human agency:  what sort of physics experiment--using the toolbox available to physics alone--can detect whether a physical process has been directed by a human being?  None.  If you think otherwise, then try describing "directed" in terms of force: can't do it.

If physics is incompetent to do so, then is biology?  What branch of biology is responsible for detecting and or describing human agency?  Psychiatry?  It can involve interpretation of some sort.  At this point in my thought about the matter, however, it does not seem that psychiatrist is particularly competent to talk about directed vs. undirected in a manner that would be helpful to the case of evolution. 

A biologist who doesn't follow this restriction and ventures an opinion about whether evolution is directed or undirected should be told to mind his own business, or to admit that she is doing something other than biology when speaking about this.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more