Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Could you give some examples of the bold? Thanks!

Examples: the bacterial flagellum, the human blood clotting cascade, and the relationship between DNA, RNA and proteins. Discussion:

An irreducibly complex machine is a system which is composed of a number of interacting parts, where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. Examples in biology include the bacterial flagellum and the human blood clotting cascade. Behe used the human blood-clotting system as an example of irreducible complexity, because all of its complex components have to be present in order for a clot to form when and where it’s needed. Missing any of its many components can have devastating consequences. But the components themselves do not depend on the prior existence of the other components.

A blind purposeless stumbling-in-the-dark process like neo-Darwinism just can't create these systems, as shown by scientists like Michael Behe. Various mechanisms proposed to be able to do this by Darwinists have been shown to just not work. These usually involve "co-option". There have been no successful schemes or "blueprints" that in the necessary detail show how any of these systems could have come about through the Darwinistic mechanism. Just a few "just so stories" that generally ignore the vanishingly low probabilities of encountering each of the supposed steps through random mutations.

There is deep ingenuity evident in biological nature in designing and implementing systems like complicated irreducibly complex machines. To do this absolutely seems to require a process that in some way incorporates in some form the basic stages of design, the necessary steps in the design of any complicated machine. It starts with analysis of the engineering requirements - defining what is the problem, what is the purpose of the design. Perhaps there is a tradeoff study of different envisioned possible structural solutions to the problem. Then there is implementation and testing. Then perhaps a feedback to try a different structural solution. This overall process requires engineering insight involving purpose, visualization, foresight and planning, especially with irreducibly complex machines. This is an irreplaceable act of consciousness.

Marcos Eberlin just published a new book on the many examples of causal circularity (requiring design) that are found in biology. Causal circularity is a much stronger claim than just irreducible complexity, and (as Eberlin repeatedly points out) it also poses a serious problem for the notion that the components of the system and the system itself evolved step-by-step from simpler entities. His book,  Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose, is discussed here. 

"A (simple) example of causal circularity is: to get A we need B, but to get B we first need A. We can’t have one without the other. To get both together, we need foresight.” In other words, we need intelligent design. Eberlin describes cases of causal circularity throughout his book. In each case, the organism needs A to make B, but it has to already have B before A exists. And in Eberlin’s examples A and B are both complex entities.

“We find examples of this causal circularity — and thus the need for foresight — throughout living systems.” One example is the relationship between DNA, RNA, and proteins: “Without DNA and RNA, the cell could not synthesize the proteins it needs. Yet without a suite of complex proteins the cell could not synthesize more DNA and thus could never divide. And without another suite of complex proteins the cell could not make RNA. No DNA and RNA, no proteins. No proteins, no DNA or RNA.”"

It occurs to me to add an aside: notice that in this little summary exposition of some major elements of ID theory I have not once mentioned God, Christian or otherwise, or any gods, or any other description of the agent or agents. This is not necessary in showing the bankruptcy of Darwinism and the necessity of seeing life in the light of design.

For me, the whole subject is peppered with just-so stories. Whether we talk about origin of life, the astonishing complexity of the factory within every cell or biological evolution itself. Unfortunately the argument has become polarised into yet another science vs religion issue which is very sad for those of us without ideological commitments to either materialism/atheism or religion. Scientific careers can founder on the rocks of faith. We saw a video posted here recently containing explanations as to why the current thinking on origin of life is flawed. When I went to google search to find commentary on these arguments from James Tour I found they came in two distinct formats: one attacking Tour for being a committed Christian, the other hijacking Tour's arguments to promote religious dogma. Nobody seems to want to address the facts.

From the materialist side, the origin of life argument seems to be: there is no such thing as magic so the process must be natural. We have some naturalistic proposals which are being researched and they will eventually come up with all the answers: "we are close!". The religious argument, conversely, takes what Tour and others say about the sheer magnitude of improbability against the chance combination of chemicals producing life as leading to the automatic conclusion that it therefore must be proof of God and the bible. Unfortunately, it seems, Tour himself takes that route towards biblical literalism.

When I went to google search to find commentary on these arguments from James Tour I found they came in two distinct formats: one attacking Tour for being a committed Christian, the other hijacking Tour's arguments to promote religious dogma.

According to Wikipedia, James Tour is a Jew, so if people are attacking him for being a Christian they are definitely off-target!

According to Wikipedia, James Tour is a Jew, so if people are attacking him for being a Christian they are definitely off-target!

Correction: Apparently Tour is a "Messianic Jew," which means he accepts Jesus as the Messiah. I must admit that's not something I was familiar with.

For me, the whole subject is peppered with just-so stories. Whether we talk about origin of life, the astonishing complexity of the factory within every cell or biological evolution itself. Unfortunately the argument has become polarised into yet another science vs religion issue which is very sad for those of us without ideological commitments to either materialism/atheism or religion. Scientific careers can founder on the rocks of faith. We saw a video posted here recently containing explanations as to why the current thinking on origin of life is flawed. When I went to google search to find commentary on these arguments from James Tour I found they came in two distinct formats: one attacking Tour for being a committed Christian, the other hijacking Tour's arguments to promote religious dogma. Nobody seems to want to address the facts.

From the materialist side, the origin of life argument seems to be: there is no such thing as magic so the process must be natural. We have some naturalistic proposals which are being researched and they will eventually come up with all the answers: "we are close!". The religious argument, conversely, takes what Tour and others say about the sheer magnitude of improbability against the chance combination of chemicals producing life as leading to the automatic conclusion that it therefore must be proof of God and the bible. Unfortunately, it seems, Tour himself takes that route towards biblical literalism.

Yeah, it's hard to sort out the arguments when the evidence is so hotly political in addition to relying on deeper knowledge of biology.

According to Wikipedia, James Tour is a Jew, so if people are attacking him for being a Christian they are definitely off-target!

Sorry, yes I do remember reading that. The point is similar though - the ad-homs are directed at his religious faith.

Reducible examples
 https://youtu.be/W96AJ0ChboU

https://youtu.be/KP3AY0iHEUA

Behe's trial reanactment
https://youtu.be/a_5FToP_mMY

A new penetrating and lucid analysis of the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design battle.

The author, Robert Shedinger, is a professor of religion at Luther College, Iowa. Although his area of professional expertise is as an expert on religion and a Biblical scholar, he also has a good grasp of the basics of biological science and accepts the manifold evidence of the reality of some sort of evolutionary process over billions of years. 

He looked into the ID controversy and was surprised to discover that “this (ID) literature was far more scientifically substantive than the usual caricature, and this drove me to immerse myself in the scientific literature of (Darwinian) evolutionary biology to see if it was as convincing as usually portrayed.”

The new book is The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms: Darwinian Biology’s Grand Narrative of Triumph and the Subversion of Religion. Paraphrasing the rough descriptive summary: Is Darwinian evolution really the most successful scientific theory ever proposed—or even the best idea anyone has ever had, as Daniel Dennett once put it? This new book gives a comprehensive critical reading of the literature of evolutionary biology from Darwin to Dobzhansky to Dawkins. Shedinger shows that the popular Darwinian account of evolution is a fatally flawed attempt at a grand narrative that greatly overstates its empirical validity as the almost religiously held modern evolutionary theory. He shows that the mechanisms driving the evolutionary process truly remain a mystery more than one hundred fifty years after Origin of Species.

Q & A from the book:

"What is the grand narrative of Darwinian triumph?

This refers to how Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been passed from one generation of scientists to another as the most successful scientific theory of all time despite serious questions about its empirical foundation. This narrative acts to ensure the scientific status of biology as a purely materialist discipline, but actually undermines a serious attempt to grapple with the origin and diversity of life.

How does this grand narrative subvert religion?

By claiming that the diversity of life can be fully explained in purely material terms–as the result of natural selection acting on the inherent variability of organisms–this narrative renders religious ideas about a creator God or gods or some creative intelligence at work in the world of no explanatory value. Religious scholars and thinkers are thus reduced to accommodating their religious reflections to this scientific truth in ways that evacuates religious ideas of their meaning.

What aspects of modern evolutionary theory remain a mystery?

There are currently no good scientific explanations for how life emerged from inanimate matter or how mind emerges from the material brain. Likewise for the origin of the genetic code and the grammaticality of DNA. How and why did multi-cellular organisms evolve since single-celled bacteria dominate the planet and seem far better adapted to the conditions of life? How did the various animal body plans come into existence so suddenly in the Cambrian period 520 million years ago with no new body plans having evolved since? Why do so few fossil species show any evolutionary development over their life histories? This is just a sample of the many mysteries.

How do you feel about movements like creationism and intelligent design?

As a trained biblical scholar I cannot read the book of Genesis literally or historically. The 4.5 billion year age of the Earth is well established scientifically, and the fossil record as well as the biogeographical distribution of species around the world is strong support for an evolutionary process. So I cannot accept strict creationist ideas. I am, however, open to the intelligent design idea that life’s history cannot be explained without recourse to some type of intelligent agent. I do not identify this agent with the biblical God as some intelligent design advocates do, but I am sympathetic to the criticisms of Darwinism coming from the intelligent design movement and the principle that life cannot be explained apart from intelligence."

A new penetrating and lucid analysis of the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design battle.

I fear the author seems only as qualified as a layperson so I don't see this work making much headway between the two sides you mention here.

Reading the Q&A I believe the author has left out some possibilities regarding the question of materialism's relation to evolution. Starting with the first quote:

This refers to how Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been passed from one generation of scientists to another as the most successful scientific theory of all time despite serious questions about its empirical foundation. This narrative acts to ensure the scientific status of biology as a purely materialist discipline, but actually undermines a serious attempt to grapple with the origin and diversity of life.

I am not sure the scientific community as a whole thinks of evolution as the most successful theory - I've heard it said by a few scientists that QM holds that award. Additionally, I also think he's wrong to say the narrative makes biology a materialist discipline as Raymond Tallis is an immaterialist who rejects ID & more poignantly the engine of evolution plays a large part in Donald Hoffman's Idealist conception of reality.

And that's merely two examples.

Then there's the next bit:

By claiming that the diversity of life can be fully explained in purely material terms–as the result of natural selection acting on the inherent variability of organisms–this narrative renders religious ideas about a creator God or gods or some creative intelligence at work in the world of no explanatory value. Religious scholars and thinkers are thus reduced to accommodating their religious reflections to this scientific truth in ways that evacuates religious ideas of their meaning.

Going back to those Feser articles on ID (reposting here for convenience) I think trying to squeeze God into the IDer's probabilistic argument seems like something of a disservice. The God who is the Ground of Being surely isn't the God who piddles around with DNA?

Even in cases of showing the guidance of an intelligence toward a final form or some more direct intercession that would be "punctuated evolution", as Max_B pointed out you would still have the deathly struggles of an incredible number of entities. This dovetails into a general problem of Evil that I don't think Feser's Scholastic view really gives answer to either but that's a convo for another thread...
 
Moving on:

There are currently no good scientific explanations for how life emerged from inanimate matter or how mind emerges from the material brain.

Agreed, but this isn't a issue with evolutionary theory itself AFAICTell? There are Idealists and Panpsychists who reject ID.

Those criticisms aside I may end up reading the book for a survey of issues that IDers find relevant. I am curious about this bit:

I do not identify this agent with the biblical God as some intelligent design advocates do, but I am sympathetic to the criticisms of Darwinism coming from the intelligent design movement and the principle that life cannot be explained apart from intelligence."

Is this meant to be a personal sense that the agent of ID isn't the God of the Bible, or a more strict position that it is erroneous to associate whatever the agent(s) of ID might be with the God of the Bible?

Article by Bernardo Kastrup

https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/08/...tions.html