fractalnavel

not “identity” - “intelligent design” :

on evolution

A DEBATE OVER DARWIN
Squaring God and Evolution

Articles in this series examine the debate over the teaching of evolution and the politically astute challenge led by the Discovery Institute.

PART 1
Challenging the Theory
Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive (August 21, 2005)

PART 2
Evolution or Design?
In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash (August 22, 2005)

PART 3
Squaring God and Evolution
Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science (August 23, 2005)

rough notes on the creationism / intelligent design “debate”:

• a nyt opinion: Editorial Observer: Grasping the Depth of Time as a First Step in Understanding Evolution
• not just the immense time scale, but the even more immense parallelism at play in evolution.  the opportunities for complexity to arise are enormous - !
• maybe consider the issues not only from an a priori standpoint, but also a posteriori: assume we accept or reject such-and-such, what are the positive / negative consequences ?  for creationism, it would seem to be relevant only to ethical and moral agendas, not scientific or technological ones.  for evolution, there are of course technical implications, but also ethical ones and historical ones.  it is an uneven field - and that's good.
• popperian definition of science (often boiled down to “falsifiability” ) may be problematic, as may be any definition, but imperfection doesn't justify outright rejection
• define “designer”. define “intelligence”.
• i've heard one i.d. supporter say something to the effect that just as cells or other parts of our bodies are not aware of the greater complexity realities (?) of our bodies, we won't necessarily be aware of something of greater complexity than ourselves of which we are a a part.  then he goes on to apply something resembling proof by induction to say that ultimately there is a universal complexity, and then declares this possibility as suggestive of i.d.  counterpoint: nested hierarchies of complexities have nothing to do with intention or intelligence, and the perception of emergent properties at various levels is dependent on the observer, not representative of any absoulute “truth”.
• it seems this need by religious folks to dispute science - and so many other things - really represents an insecurity, rather than an unshakeable faith.  well, of course.
• in some sense perhaps the i.d. people are less naive (or ingenuous) in their estimation of the import of evolution than is the science community, at the same time that their naivete with respect to faith is exposed.  the converse is also true of scientists.  forests and trees, i guess.
• what are some other alternatives to explaining the origins of current state of affairs, scientific or religious ?  all of science is extremely consistent internally, and i.d. stands against the body of evidence and theories accumulated by all of science, not just evolution.  evolution does not exist in some ideological vacuum.  this is the same criteria that any competing “theory” would face, regardless of underlying motivation. so i.d. is faced with integrating itself into the existing body of scientific knowledge - or with supplanting it.  even the catholic church's huge body of (cosmological) theology couldn't ultimately stand up to one man with a piece of ground glass, and i.d. is nowhere near achieving that magntitude of a body of knowledge. 
• what of godelian incompleteness ?
• this does not mean there are not important psycho-social issues to resolve.  but they should be addressed directly and explicitly for what they are, not through reactionary ideological proxies.
• argue the reverse: it's the lack of complexity that is the hallmark of “designed” objects.  we cannot create life.  in fact, we recognize the work of “intelligence” by the presence of geometric or other relatively simple patterns.  one might argue that higher and higher intelligences can create even more complexity, but i think you can always trump this by pointing out a complexity beyond their ability to create.  it's the difference between finite and infinite.  no “god” could do better than evolution (“better”?).  and even then, we are only perceiving an infinitesimal portion of all possible existing patterns, let alone all past and future ones. 
• and also a reminder-to-self here to consider anti-entropic processes.

iraq, aka “new texas” ?

there must be more of these...

in other news, it seems the military's force transformation initiative is directed at creating a global protection racket.  read between the lines of “Base closings hint at new air strategy”.  you don't think ? then how will american taxpayers be able to continue to foot the bill for protecting the increasingly free market places in the rest of the world ?  the other economies get the benefits, but none of the costs, of that protection.  that's not what i call “competition”.  they also get the benefits of free markets without the costs of many services, rights and privileges that we take for granted here. 

it's already established national policy to use military force abroad to “preserve” national security - and that includes economic security.  that typically means strong-arming regions into giving us what we want at otherwise unavailable terms.  don't want to play that game with us ?  no problem, we'll withdraw our “protection”.  even better, we'll throw our support behind groups that oppose you.

all old news.  the new part is that now it seems we will be doing the dirty work directly.

just an unbalanced note on one aspect of the issues here to remind me of some of the dynamics at play.