OpEdNews » Evolving Design - A third way between evolution and creation

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Education; Education Curriculum; Evolution; Philosophy Philosophical; Science
Add to My Group

June 15, 2007 at 09:49:26

Evolving Design - A third way between evolution and creation

by Jim Arnold Page 2 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

The idea of Evolving Design stands in sharp contrast to the para-scientific interpretations of Materialism, but it needn't be less respectful of scientific facts. By its contrast, Evolving Design profiles Materialism as a peer philosophy with no exclusive claim on scientific evidence. It's arguable that Evolving Design is actually better equipped to recognize and accommodate the interdependent, wondrous examples of evolution featured by the advocates of Intelligent Design. By any argument, an open competition for scientific fitness between philosophies could serve to clarify both the indispensable value of a speculative perspective and the need to separate speculation from scientific methodology. Science, freed of its implicit materialist slant, could return a-lightened and afresh to its original project, an inspired but disciplined methodology for analyzing direct experience.

The segregation of science from philosophy could help illuminate both what science is and what science lacks. When left alone to its work, science is supremely adapted to classification and the analysis of function, but it is unable to account for the unaccountable. Science can measure tones, intervals, and decibels, for example, but it is unable to comprehend music. So while it's important that science is isolated, it may be just as important that science is situated, placed in a context of meaning and value.

The percolating political battle over the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design in science class could find a resolution in these terms. Situating science, placing it in context, might best be accomplished by means of an introduction to each course of study where a discussion of the scope and horizon of the subject-matter is made explicit.

In the teaching of Evolution Theory up to now Materialism has usually pervaded (rather than introduced) the curriculum as the one implicit and presumptive philosophical orientation, just because it adds to the science only a belief that there's nothing else to add. But though Materialism may be the simplest, most economical pro-scientific philosophy, a scientific description of a magic act (to offer an admittedly superficial analogy) isn't credited for simplicity if it leaves out the unseen trick that explains the illusion. The amazingly complex interdependence of cellular metabolism is no illusion, and science can be rightly criticized for dismissing the challenge micro-complexity presents to Evolution Theory. The point is, a presumption of virtue for simplicity and economy begs the question of whether there might be something more encompassing to consider and understand.

Introducing the science of evolution with a survey of various perspectives, even including a mention of religious denials of the evidence (presented as anti-science) might satisfy the ultimate desires of many on both sides of the culture-divide without infecting the curriculum itself. And by giving large context to the minutia of scientific investigations, an introduction might encourage a more elevated and productive diversity of approaches to the analysis and synthesis of facts.

Who can say what insights placing Evolution Theory in the context of differing pro-scientific philosophies might inspire? Who can say what constrictions have been perpetuated by the presumption of just one perspective? And what possible threat could there be in a brief introductory survey of opinion prior to delving into the science, except the threat to the hegemony of a Materialist bias?

A recognition that science should be strictly circumscribed, that it's best presented in the context of various conflicting but supportive philosophies, that in situating the theory of evolution there is a third way between Religion and Materialism -- these considerations could finally provide a bridge to reconciliation among true friends of science.

1 | 2

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

12 comments

I'm an inveterate curmudgeon.
George C. SieversI'm an inveterate curmudgeon.

Woo

Lots of WOO here.

by George C. Sievers (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 10:07:59 AM

A member of Democratic Circles (DemocraticCircles.org), responsible for Internet publicity. A former visitant of UC Santa Cruz, union boilermaker, ex-Marine, Vietnam vet, anti-war activist, dilettante in science with an earth-shaking theory on the nature of light (which no one will consider), philosopher in the tradition of Hegel, Marx, and Fromm (no one listens to that either), author of a book on wine clubs (ahem), and cast-off programmer of ancient computer languages.
Jim ArnoldA member of Democratic Circles (DemocraticCircles.org), responsible for Internet publicity. A former visitant of UC Santa Cruz, union boilermaker, ex-Marine, Vietnam vet, anti-war activist, dilettante in science with an earth-shaking theory on the nature of light (which no one will consider), philosopher in the tradition of Hegel, Marx, and Fromm (no one listens to that either), author of a book on wine clubs (ahem), and cast-off programmer of ancient computer languages.

WOO?

"Lots of WOO here."

Not much to respond to.

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 81 comments) on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 10:36:49 AM

.
TomK .

Get informed first

You're not even close to a basic understanding of evolution Jim. Modern scientific theory of evolution is a far cry from Darwin's primitive description, but the basic principles are close. Modern theories say life evolves based on natural selections, which is carried by mainly by highly selective changes in the coding of DNA and related chemicals in response to environmental changes and challenges by other spices. Most of these changes are 'engineered' by the organisms, random DNA/RNA changes being a minor player. That's why its called 'selection'. Also, the word 'natural' has a specific meaning: it refers to natural forces imposed onto the organisms which can be understood by physics and which therefore can be described accurately (but sometimes only in approximation) by mathematics. This rational process is what make modern evolution a science. Its findings and conclusions have been verified millions of times in every imaginable scenario. If not, you won't have thousands of PhDs in molecular biology and genetics in the world making amazing discoveries, predicting future adaptations with mathematical accuracy, combating new deceases brought about by evolving germs.

But nobody ever said the scientific theory of evolution is a theory of life creation. Comparing evolution and the theology of creation is for the uninformed, the evangelicals, and just plain crackpots.

by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 235 comments) on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 12:29:43 PM

RE: Get informed first

Your interpretation of the “modern theory of evolution” is unformed if not uninformed. How exactly does science allow you to “understand” how an organism might “select” and “engineer” changes to its DNA coding? Engineering a bridge requires a highly developed intelligence and level of experience. How would an organism, at the cellular level, translate the need for even a minor adjustment to the environment into a specific rearrangement of molecules in the DNA sequence – a marvelous feat of engineering that would presuppose an organism’s profound comprehension of its own genetic code and the code’s physiological manifestations? In a multicellular organism, how would environmental influences be interpreted by somatic cells – presumably the ones affected – and conveyed to well-insulated and already-formed germ cells for modification so that the organism’s progeny could benefit?

I’m sorry, but you’re trying to take science way beyond science. There is no evidence (millions of instances?) for such a wondrous (not to say magical) capability as you imagine. Random genetic modifications that sometimes benefit the species, thereby “selecting” them, after the fact, for relative advantage (still the meaning of “natural selection”) is all science can and should describe.

“But nobody ever said the scientific theory of evolution is a theory of life creation. Comparing evolution and the theology of creation is for the uninformed, the evangelicals, and just plain crackpots.”

I didn’t say “evolution is a theory of life creation.” You may be confusing me with someone else.

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 81 comments) on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 1:31:37 PM

A writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Mark SashineA writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...

to see more of bio, click on member name

folks

No one but Americans chew on this. And people of the US do not chew on this also - only the media. It does to follow orders- discuss anything but real stuff. And we.. we follow it?

by Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3597 comments) on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 2:30:18 PM

artist, senior, student of life
Christina Staffordartist, senior, student of life

The Field Theory

Hi,
I enjoyed your article and wondered if you'd read the two latest books by Joseph Chilton Pearce, which address the same issues from a perspective of brain research and beyond. The titles are: The Biological Basis for Transcendence - and The Death of Religion and the birth of Spirit.
Also there's a website called awaken in the dream.com where you can find articles by Paul Levy who himself had an awakening experience that throws more light on the mystery of consciousness.
Much luck to you,
Christina Stafford

by Christina Stafford (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 7:12:39 PM

.
TomK .

It is a proven theory

Thanks Jim for commenting on my response. By asking those questions about 'selection' and 'engineering' you indicate that you have not heard of it nor understand present day genetics and related disciplines, which together form the basis of modern theory evolution. I used the word 'engineering' as a rough description. Actual mechanisms are complex but they are there. Random mutations is a minor player in evolution. Earth life have evolved to become far more sophisticated than using random chances. While the origin and creation of Earth life is still very much in debate, how they evolve is not. The scientific evidence is absoluely overwhelming. All I can say is, read the scientific literature and research papers, become the knowledgeable if not the expert. Just do a Google search and learn.

Evolving Design appears to be an exercise in philosophy. Creationism and so-called intelligent design is pure religion.

But theory of evolution is a proved and validated scientific theory - meaning you can use it to explain correctly and accurately the mechanisms of life changes, to predict future changes, to design and engineer new artifical changes, and to design experiments to formulate further understandings. You don't need to believe me. Just check out thousands of scientists doing just that everyday all over the world, and thousands more studying hard to get their PhDs in the field.

by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 235 comments) on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 9:37:42 PM

RE: It is a proven theory

Tom,

Your assumption seems to be that if I disagree with the interpretations of the evidence, it means I’m not aware of the evidence. Part of my original point was that the evidence does point to something we could loosely call “engineering” in cellular function. It’s just that science isn’t equipped to adequately explain something that’s holistic and somehow intelligent.

The fact that scientists can “design and engineer new artificial changes” – in effect, mimic the evolutionary dynamic – actually demonstrates that evolutionary processes are more than just complex, they’re sophisticated in the truest sense of the word.

A good example of how science assumes more than can be scientifically justified can be found in “artificial intelligence” theory. Although the bits of a computer are discrete, and entirely independent of each other, science tends to believe that if you pile enough bits together, and program them with sufficient complexity, you will someday have real (but “artificial”) intelligence. I’d argue that no matter how many bits there are, they remain independent, the computer as a whole remains a manufacture of separate parts, the parts will always remain singular, and computer output is only unified, and meaningful, to the human mind that reads it.

Science, as science, can only interpret intelligence, comprehension, and design as the product of complexity. I’d call that (ironically) a belief in the virtual magic of virtual infinities. Those of us who don’t disagree with the evidence of science are disagreeing that what’s interpreted as a product of complexity is actually the manifestation of ultimate simplicity – the simplicity of the unified whole. You can denigrate our perspective as “philosophy”, but only by invoking the magic of virtually infinite complexity to explain intelligent phenomena.

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 81 comments) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 11:16:57 AM

Retired academic
IanRetired academic

Keep it up

Thank you, Jim, for an illuminating article. I always felt slightly uncomfortable with some scientists’ contributions to the debate, but you have made clear for me exactly what my problem was. It was the insistence that naturalism and materialism provide a complete explanation for the workings of our universe – an insistence that goes beyond science, and beyond what the evidence shows. What they are insisting on may very well be right, but it belongs more in a metaphysics lesson than in a science lesson.

But I felt you were simplifying a little too much when you said it's apparent that mutation and natural selection are the only mechanisms that can be directly observed operating in the evolution of life forms. I take it you would not want to overlook the role of recombination and genetic drift, and, in the future, genetic engineering.

I agree that Evolving Design has not yet been satisfactorily articulated, but keep working at it. It may produce further flashes of inspiration.

by Ian (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 3:02:40 AM

RE: Keep it up

Ian,

You're right. Thank you for the clarification.

Jim

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 81 comments) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 11:21:46 AM

A truly independent and non-ideological thinker, who assumes nothing and questions everything.
DJHA truly independent and non-ideological thinker, who assumes nothing and questions everything.

Oh, Please ... !

Let's face it ... just as "intelligent design" was cooked up in order to get around the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguilard so that evangelicals could continue to proselytize public-school children, so too is this "evolving design" merely an effort to get around the fact that, by now, everyone knows the term "intelligent design" is a transparent cover for "creationism." Any other conclusion is ludicrous.

No attempt to wedge any religious notion into science can ever work. Religion is a form of metaphysics, and therefore has no relation to science. Science is the study of the natural world according to empirical principles; nothing metaphysical, however, can be understood empirically.

The country would be better served if everyone just decided to let science be science and not shove metaphysics into it. Anyone who wants to indoctrinate their kids into religion, can do so at home or in church, synagogue, temple, etc. No one can stop you, nor should anyone stop you. But ramming religion into public-school science classes is not appropriate under any circumstances.

If evangelicals really want to be considered followers of Christ and therefore upright and moral people, they should be honest about their intentions and stop using legal fictions and circumlocutions to have their way. Disingenuousness is not, so far as I know, Christian.

by DJH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 3:32:07 PM