The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Thursday, June 24, 2010, 13:05 (5265 days ago) @ David Turell

David has referred us to an article*** on the complexity of the genome which contains the following statement:-"The Byzantine complexity and non-intelligent design of our genomes means that there is an awful lot that can go wrong, and all too often it does."-The design argument rests on the fact that the genome is a complex machine that works. The fact that a lot can go wrong is irrelevant. Our cars and computers are complex machines that work. All too often things go wrong. Does that mean they were not designed? -The article links up with another one, giving details of some of the things that do go wrong, which it says "defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent". It's a common and cheap device to discredit the whole by discrediting part, and in both articles it suits the authors to discredit the design argument by equating it with the creationist arm of ID. The notion of design (forget ID) automatically implies that the agent is cognitive, but not that it is caring. Who is to say that the agent (a) did not deliberately design the mechanisms so that its creations would have a limited life, or (b) that through the very nature of the materials used, the agent cannot produce a design that will never go wrong? Here the author (John C. Avise) appears to be attacking the whole concept of design on the basis of his own image of the designer. However, his conclusion suggests that his views are rather less clear-cut, even if they are somewhat confusing: -"Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of non-sentient contrivance by evolutionary forces. In this important philosophical sense, the science of evolutionary genetics should rightly be viewed as an ally (not an adversary) of mainstream religions because it helps the latter to escape the profound theological enigmas posed by ID."-The "conundrum" for mainstream religions is dogmas such as an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God, and I don't see how evolutionary genetics can be viewed as an ally. I would suggest it's the other way round: the science of evolutionary genetics, by revealing the complexity of the genome, is an ally to intelligent design (lower case), but not to the dogmas and enigmas of mainstream religions. Of course it cannot be seen as an ally to intelligent design if you insist that the faults of your motor car prove that it was put together by mindless chance.-*** I have just read the various posts from David, George and Matt. To George I would say that I have no problem understanding your opposition to the design theory if it's on the grounds that a "God in the traditional sense" runs contrary to common sense. I'm only surprised that you should swallow arguments as weak as the above. To Matt I would say you are quite right that complexity does not provide "unequivocal evidence" of design. If we had unequivocal evidence either way, there would be nothing to discuss. It's all a matter of what you think is or is not feasible. I prefer to leave my options open. David and George have made up their minds.