Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.

Jason Rosenhouse (from his Blog):

The relevant comparison is not what human intelligence can create in the short run versus what natural selection can create in the short run. The question is what natural selection can create in the long run. Moreover, I have no idea what your metric of creativity is. When applied to problems in engineering and medicine, evolutionary algorithms routinely find solutions to problems that had eluded scientists applying other methods. The successes of breeders in modifying the form of organisms in short periods of time are likewise impressive. None of this supports the rather facile comparisons you are trying to make.

First off, breeding isn’t primarily based on Darwinian evolution, but upon Mendelian genetics – i.e., the pre-programmed potential for variation that exists within sexually reproducing populations that doesn’t require the evolution of anything functionally new within the gene pool. It’s already there – pre-programmed. I know this concept can be confusing for many who haven’t taken or don’t remember basic biology. In fact, many of Darwin’s own observations weren’t really Darwinian in nature, but were simply observations of Mendelian variation over time.

As far as evolutionary algorithms routinely solving problems that have eluded scientists, this only happens within very restricted regions of search space – i.e., at very low levels of functional complexity where evolutionary algorithms are very good at sifting through large numbers of variables in relatively short order. However, when it comes to solving problems that require the invention of complex machines or information systems, machines and systems that require multiple parts working together in specific arrangements, evolutionary algorithms aren’t helpful at all beyond very low levels of functional complexity because the non-beneficial search space is simply too large to be searched this side of a practical eternity of time. Now, it would be great if such an evolutionary algorithm could be creative at higher levels of functional/meaningful complexity. Such an algorithm would put human engineers, computer programmers, and authors out of business and make whomever came up with such an algorithm far far more wealthy than Bill Gates! Good luck with that…

Of course, as previously explained, the reason for the clear limits to the creative potential for the evolutionary algorithm of RM/NS is due to the exponential decline in the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial in sequence space and the fact that a function-based selection mechanism cannot look into the future as intelligence can.

Your suggested solution to this problem (a nice neat little line of closely spaced steppingstones in sequence space) just doesn’t represent known reality. No such a pattern has never been identified in sequence space beyond very low levels of functional complexity. And, given what we do known about sequence space, your vision of a nice line of sequentially selectable steppingstones is very very unlikely to be found.

In short, what we do know and can observe is that intelligent design is superior to your evolutionary algorithm beyond very low levels of functional complexity within observable time. And, there is absolutely no reason to believe that your algorithm somehow gets better beyond what can be observed given the known exponential decline of the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. All that is left is wishful thinking and your usual appeal to “circumstantial evidence” that is based on what you think an intelligent designer would or would not do – not demonstration or statistically tenable arguments regarding the nature of sequence space or the actual creative potential of the mindless Darwinian mechanism.

I’ll address your claims about sequence space in the Probability and Evolution post. Your remarks about intelligence, though, are an utterly breathtaking extrapolation. I can’t even imagine how you go from, “We have technology today that would have seemed miraculous to the ancients,” to “There’s no limit on what intelligence can do.”

Your claim is especially dubious in light of the fact that there seem to be clear limits on what intelligence can do. So far as we know, intelligence cannot bring universes into being or adjust fundamental constants. Nor have we been able to create life of any sort, much less life equipped with complex biochemical machines. And since every intelligence we know of is embodied, it is not clear at all that an unembodied intelligence is even a possibility.

I am actually quite surprised that you appear to be arguing for a theoretical limit to what intelligence can achieve given enough knowledge and technological advancement. Are you actually suggesting that the creation of biological machines, equivalent to something like a flagellar motor, is clearly beyond what human intelligence could ever achieve? – regardless of future knowledge and technological achievements? Really? Also, given our limited intelligence and creative ability, and how we clearly learn and improve over time, how can you possible argue that no form of intelligence, regardless of level or technological know how or learning or advancement, is theoretically limited to what you know how to do or can possibly imagine with your very limited brainpower? Do you really think you can define the limits of where even human intelligence can go and where learning and creative potential ends?

Not “greater creative potential” (whatever that means). Just different creative potential. For example, the physicists tell us that matter spontaneously creates itself all the time. I am not aware of any instance of intelligent agents creating matter from nothing. As for the relative merits of natural selection versus ID, you simply ignored all the evidence I cited, briefly, at the end of this post.

Please do cite where matter has been created from absolutely nothing. This simply hasn’t been observed. Even theoretically an “empty” vacuum isn’t exactly “nothing.” It is thought to be a combination of matter and antimatter — particles and antiparticles.

As far as your “evidences” for the creative power of natural selection, I’m sure I did miss such an argument in your post. Where was it again?

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print