Sci Am\'s Complexity with Darwinism (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 24, 2012, 15:05 (4688 days ago) @ dhw

REPORT ON ALTENBERG: So, for example, Stuart Kauffman and Stuart Newman argue that we need to see the evolutionary importance of the form-giving processes of self-assembly and self-organization as governed by the laws of physics and chemistry.-dhw: "Self-assembly and self-organization" are precisely what I was thinking of in my posts about the "intelligent cell".
 
I'd like to elaborate a little on this, because it seems to me a prime example of how language can be used to buttress belief. I've no idea what Kauffmann and Newman believe, and I've quoted a report, not their own words, so it's the report I'm concerned with. We're told that evolutionary self-assembly and self-organization are governed by scientific laws. The implication is that there's no need for any outside intervention in the mechanics of evolution. This implication might even be extended to the laws of physics and chemistry enabling inanimate bits and pieces to self-assemble and self-organize into the first living organisms. The quasi-religious belief that blind chance could create life and the mechanisms of evolution is thus given what seems like a solid scientific base. And yet there's not an ounce of solid science behind it. Does anyone seriously believe that the laws of physics and chemistry demand, for example, the invention of eyes and ears, of legs and wings, of penises and vaginas? It may well be that once the ingredients for life, replication, adaptation and innovation had come (been mixed?) together, self-assembly and self-organization took over (through the innate intelligence of cells), but the mechanisms had to be in place before the evolutionary processes could get underway, and we don't know of ANY laws governing such self-organization.
 
No, I'm not arguing for design ... simply because I can't argue for a designer. I'm merely pointing out the subtle dangers of sophistry even within the scientific community.