Saturday, December 5, 2009

Joe Felsenstein: De Novo Genes Trumped by Metaphysics

Evolutionist Joe Felsenstein sounded a familiar note recently when he appealed to evolution's intellectual necessity in response to scientific criticism. I pointed out here that the blind evolution of the de novo gene T-urf13 is highly unlikely. In typical fashion, the evolutionist completely ignored the scientific issue at hand and skipped straight to the metaphysics. There are about a dozen metaphysical arguments mandating evolution. They fall into the two categories of theology and philosophy and provide the foundation of evolutionary thought going back several centuries. You can see my reconstruction of the evolution of evolutionary thought here. There is much cross fertilization between these traditions which form a sort of tapestry in the history of thought. Of course these arguments are not scientific, but they are extremely powerful. They are why evolutionists confidently know their theory must be true. Therefore empirical evidence is not an epistemological problem, but merely a scientific problem. No observation can harm our knowledge that evolution is a fact. Hence Felsenstein goes straight to the underlying philosophy:

A simple way to state the problem with Cornelius Hunter’s argument is that he is arguing that a Designer could do anything, so a Designer cannot be refuted by any observation. He is happy to have thereby refuted all the people who point out bad design.

But he doesn’t get it that what he has just done is to admit that the hypothesis of a Designer is not science, as it predicts every possible result. If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything!

Unless you have some information about the Designer’s intentions, her powers, how frequently she acts, and where, and on which organisms and which phenotypes, you ain’t got nothin’, no scientific hypothesis at all.

In other words, not only is evolution true, it also is necessary for proper science. That's convenient.

This argument that strictly naturalistic explanations are mandated in the historical sciences traces back to the nineteenth century before Darwin though, as with several of evolution's metaphysical planks, it gained momentum from Darwin's theory as much as it fueled Darwin's theory in the first place.

Darwin's main concern was that people accept evolution. Which subhypothesis of evolution one accepts, explained Darwin, "signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable: for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field open to him for further inquiry."

Evolution was needed for scientific research as that was yet another spot where creation failed. As he wrote in Origins:

On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is;—that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation.

As Darwin’s friend J. D. Hooker put it, if theories of divine creation are "admitted as truths, why there is an end of the whole matter, and it is no use hoping ever to get any rational explanation of origin or dispersion of species—so I hate them."

Thirty years later evolutionist Joseph Le Conte argued that the origins of new species, though obscure and even inexplicable, must have a natural cause. To doubt this, he warned, is to doubt "the validity of reason, and the rational constitution of organic Nature." For Le Conte divine creation was not rational. Evolution, he triumphantly concluded, "is as certain as the law of gravitation. Nay, it is far more certain."

Needless to say this metaphysical sentiment only grew stronger in the twentieth century. Evolutionists, under the guise of science, continued to issue this non scientific mandate for evolution. As Niles Eldredge wrote more recently:

But the Creator obviously could have fashioned each species in any way imaginable. There is no basis for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. … the creator could have fashioned each organ system or physiological process (such as digestion) in whatever fashion the Creator pleased.

Felsenstein's metaphysic is nothing new. It falls into well defined clade in the history of evolutionary thought. Of course there is nothing wrong with metaphysics, per se. But let's not pretend we're doing science.

5 comments:

  1. Felsenstein argues that Dr. Hunter argues that a Designer could do anything. (Yes, keeping track is complex.) However, "so what".
    The argument that a Designer could do anything is primarily a response to evolutionists metaphysical argument that God/Designer would or would not do something a CERTAIN way. I might argue that the Designer could do anything, but that does not mean I know what the Designer WOULD do or HAS done. I am primarily saying, "I do not know the restraints or motivations of the Designer; I do not PRESUME to know the actions of the Designer based on my own preconceptions."
    Which brings me back to "So what if I argue such? So what?" What I do consider is the EVIDENCE of Design. In the biggest scheme of things, a granite rock in Wyoming MIGHT be designed; whether it was or not is entirely metaphysical, but I am NOT talking about that. I am talking about the physical properties and capabilities of proteins and genes. There is NOTHING metaphysical about that. Does the protein or gene show evidence of design in terms of the most basic characteristics of any object which we know to be designed. If it does, then I am bound to conclude that there is a Designer, but I do not have to proclaim that I know anything about the Designer or the Designer's restraints or motivations.
    Felsenstein's argument that Hunter argues that the Designer can do anything has no significance on the detection of Design in a protein or gene.
    It baffles me as to how evolutionists continue to grapple with everything but the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks to Cornelius Hunter for quoting my comment at Panda's Thumb in its entirety, without emendation (he did add some emphasis, in color, but not in a way that changed my meaning).

    My comment was not responsive to the origin of T-urf13 but was intended as a response to many other comments Hunter has made on this blog (and at Uncommon Descent) in which he argues that one cannot predict what a Designer would do, and thus that arguments that she would not make bad design are invalid.

    As should be clear from my statement, I was pointing out that this makes the hypothesis of a Designer not a scientific theory, and thus not a credible alternative to naturalist explanations.

    Oh, and it should be clear that naturalism does *not* create an "intellectual necessity" of evolution. There are explanations that might be advanced that are not evolutionary but are natural. It is the evidence, not simply naturalism itself, that is the basis for concluding that life has evolved.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Felsenstein,

    In regards to your last paragraph, I would say evolution is dependent on the principle of continuity and this principle is necessitated by methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism. Within the bounds of these metaphysical principles, can you provide an alternative to the principle of continuity?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Darwin's main concern was that people accept evolution. Which subhypothesis of evolution one accepts, explained Darwin, "signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable: for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field open to him for further inquiry."

    You need to clarify here that the criterion Darwin was putting forward in that quotation was transmutationism, not strict naturalism. In fact, it seems that here Darwin was almost-explicitly admitting that Richard Owen's transmutationist but not-strictly-naturalist ideas met the criterion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve asked:

    "In regards to your last paragraph, I would say that evolution is dependent on the principle of continuity and this principle is necessitated by methodological naturalist and uniformitarianism. Within the bounds of these metaphysical principles, can you provide an alternative to the principle of continuity?"

    Sorry to have not noticed this comment for some days. I assume you mean within the bounds of methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism. Am I allowed to consider cases of animal and plant breeding such as hybrid corn or Craig Venter synthesizing a bacterium? I would say those are processes that fall within naturalism. They are design but human design, and as such natural.

    ReplyDelete