|
 Provocations
Michael
LaBossiere
Number
One: Evolution, Analogy and Complexity
Although
in the past philosophers and scientists presented arguments to show
that the universe resulted from intelligent design, this view seems
to have almost completely fallen out of favor. In fact, in its July
2002 issue Scientific American roundly dismissed attempts
to argue for intelligent design as "nonsense."
My
purpose in this brief essay is to address, from a philosophic standpoint,
John Rennie's reply to the complexity argument in "15 Answers
to Creationist Nonsense." Presented a bit more robustly than
in the article, the argument is as follows: From the standpoint
of probability, it is effectively impossible for any suitable complex
entity to evolve by a process governed solely by chance. Since there
are complex entities, it follows that there must be something other
than chance governing the universe. This "something other"
must be an intelligent being.
Rennie
replies that while chance factors into evolution, natural selection
makes use of changes that are not random. It does this by ensuring
the continuance of "adaptive features" and discarding
"non-adaptive features." He notes that "as long as
the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push
evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures
in surprisingly short times."
From
a philosophic standpoint, one of the most interesting parts of his
reply is the analogy he employs. He notes that random chance (in
the form of the famous million monkeys equipped with typewriters)
would take up to 78,800 years to produce the famous phrase "TOBEORNOTTOBE."
However, as he points out, Richard Hardison wrote software that
could create phrases randomly but would also, most importantly,
maintain the position of individual letters that "happened
to be correctly placed." Unlike the poor million monkeys, the
program produced the phrase in 336 attempts and in under a minute
and a half. Given four and a half days, the program was able to
reconstruct Hamlet.
At
first glance, this analogy seems to be a powerful argument in defense
of the claim that complex entities can be built up out of the combination
of a random process and a non-random method of selection. And, at
second glance, it can be seen that is exactly what it is.
However,
the analogy creates an interesting problem. One key claim in evolutionary
theory is that there is, in fact, no intelligent design behind the
process of selection and evolution-the process is not entirely random
but it is not guided by or the product of an intelligent being (or
beings). This is not to say, of course, that intelligent beings,
like humans, do not intervene in the process through selective breeding
and genetic engineering.
Now,
what is interesting about the analogy is that while the program
does illustrate a system in which complexity is generated via non-random
selection it is also obviously the product of intelligent design.
If the program is taken as being analogous to the universe in which
natural selection does its business, then Hardison must be taken
as being analogous to the legendary intelligent designer who has
laid down the mechanism of evolution and who has given it a purpose
(in this case, to recreate the play). Thus, in a twist of irony,
the analogy actually serves to support the claim that the universe
is the product of intelligent design.
It
might be contended that it is somehow unfair to focus on the fact
that the software is the product of intelligent design and that
what should be focused on is how the software illustrates a particular
mechanism. In reply, the point at issue is whether or not complex
entities require an intelligent designer to take a role in some
part of the process that results in said entities. Hence, if it
is claimed that intelligent design is not needed, than an analogy
must be presented that does not involve intelligent design in the
process.
Naturally,
evolution cannot be presented as an analogy to itself-this would
beg the question. Perhaps paradoxically, no experiment can be set
up by intelligent agents to prove that complex entities can arise
without the benefit of intelligent design - by setting up the experiment
they have already become the intelligent designers.
Provocations
will next be updated early September 2002
Join
Our Café mailing list
To
receive *very* short messages, letting you know when the Café
has been updated, just fill in your email address below - and press
submit.
[If
you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, simply fill in your
subscriber email address, select "Unsubscribe", and press Submit.]
|
