Survive or be Useful?
Last week I saw the movie Expelled, and I just saw it again this evening. That movie has made a big impact on me. In a later post I might go into more detail on that, but for now I want to focus on relating software design to the theory of biological evolution.
I do not know much about biology. But I do know a lot about system design, and the rules of system design are as universal as the rules of logic. Humans are systems. Dogs are systems. Cells are systems. Molecules are systems. Everything in life can be broken down into systems and systems within systems.
Here are some examples of system philosophy:
A system cannot produce a system more advanced than itself.
Mankind has never yet been able to design a system that improves itself, and there is no evidence to suggest that such a feat is possible.
Hierarchy is the best organization of systems, and all of life can be neatly conceptualized into hierarchies.
Modularity is an essential property of a good system.
Those are just some examples of the abstract world I love to study.
From a systematic point of view, evolution is illogical in multiple ways. Many scientists claim that all the evidence points to evolution, but that is simply not true. They are only referring to specific evidence. I am talking about general evidence which, if they wish to maintain rationality, they must be accountable to.
Like I said, there are multiple ways in which evolution is systematically illogical, but to apply modularity I will only address one of them in this post. And the first is this: evolution, or at the least the most popular interpretations of evolution, are intrinsically based upon natural selection. I would argue that, from a systematic point of view, natural selection could never account for the current state of the universe.
To begin, I need a definition of natural selection. Unfortunately, I've had a hard time finding a definition of natural selection. It seems that much of the people in this world do not understand what a definition is anymore and are busy defining the class that natural selection is inside instead of the attributes of natural selection that distinguish it from everything else. Both of the terms "evolution" and "natural selection" are so ambiguous that it makes it very challenging to argue against evolution.
Whatever the case, the common trend I've seen in most explanations of natural selection is "survival of the fittest"; the idea that the organism with the best ability to survive in it's present environment will continue to exist after the weaker organisms go extinct.
And therein lies the rub. The driving factor within natural selection is survivability. To an evolutionist, the most important value an organism can have is how well it can maintain its existence and propagate. That sounds nice in theory, but in the real world good systems do not work like that. In the study of systems, it quickly becomes evident that the best systems are when the existence of organisms is maintained based upon functionality, not how well that organism can survive over its fellow organisms. Natural selection leads to anarchy. Good system design leads to community.
Functionality does play a role in the theory of evolution through symbiotic relationships, but that is still only a fraction of what is needed to produce a good system. Within natural selection collective functionality is subservient to individual survivability. How often will an employer hire people based upon how well that person will outlast his fellow employees? I've never seen it. An employer hires people based upon their usefulness to the company. Now, a useful employee will last longer in that company than a useless employee will, but notice that in that scenario the survivability is derived from the functionality, which is the reverse of natural selection. Throughout the bulk of existence functionality reigns. However, there are places in human experience where survivability is prioritized over communal usefulness. Some examples are: Slums, prisons, mafias, orphanages, beaucracies, etc.
A system is a collection of organisms working together to accomplish a common goal. If at least some part of that goal is not beyond the scope of that system, then that system is useless. In programming terms, it is a node with inputs but no outputs. It takes but doesn't give. Natural selection does not care if a system is useful or not. In a world of natural selection, it would be perfectly plausable to have useless systems thrive while useful systems vanish.
There is a funny sense in which evolutionists are like lukewarm Christians. It is a common trap for Christians to fall into thinking that being a Christian only matters on Sundays, and the rest of the week they live a life largely disconnected from the religious beliefs they claim to hold. Many Christians have a sense that God was sort of a thing of the past; that he was more real in ancient times than at present.
Evolutionists in general are the same way with their beliefs. They believe the laws of evolution applied to the "millions and millions of years" that led up to the present, but don't really consider those laws to be in effect within their moment to moment lives. "The world was developed by organisms fighting against each other, but now all those organisms are working together." Evolutionists put so much effort into justifying how evolution can explain the way things came to be that they don't put any effort into justifying how evolution can explain how things maintain their operation now.
If the laws of natural selection suddenly came into effect to the degree that evolutionists claim that they are, the human body would tear itself apart in competition. My heart and my lungs have a symbiotic relationship, but do they know that? My heart does not need my hand in order to function, so why doesn't it just stop pumping blood to my hand? But of course that is absurd. The organs of the body work in harmony. They are not competing with each other and no one except perhaps some biologists question that. But if natural selection is true, then they should be competing with each other. If you believe in natural selection than you should be afraid that your stomach would quit passing nutrients to your intestines because food passes through the stomach first, making the stomach the more powerful of the two organisms. If you say that is absurd, I agree with you, natural selection to that degree is absurd. If you say that natural selection does not work that way, then I will point out that if natural selection is not a universal law then there is no way it can account for every step of biological development.
As another example, take green evolutionists. I have heard many say that man has upset the balance of the ecosystem. But if they believe in evolution then there is no such thing as a balance of the ecosystem. To say such a thing is to suggest that all of these animals killing and devouring each other actually results not in a system of natural selection but in a system of natural harmony. That if humans had not come along there would actually be some state of status quo.
To further explore that, let's say there were only two species on the planet, the eaters and the eatens. Since the eaters live off of the eatens, the eaters are the more powerful of the two species, and yet they need the eatens to survive. Now, what would happen if the eaters wiped out the entire species of eatens? They too would go extinct. Thus it would be in the best interest of the eaters to keep the eatens alive.
And yet that is not natural selection. To keep the eatens alive would be to value their functionality over their survivability. They are more useful than they can survive. But if what evolutionists say is true and nature is in fact blind then in such a case both species would be wiped out. For the eaters not to wipe out the eatens would require an assessment of the larger picture. In short, it would require intelligence.
I think I'll stop for now. This isn't even touching the tip of the iceberg, but it's enough to start. As a quick closing point, natural selection is an inherently selfish theory. It proposes that the development of life as we know it was driven by exclusive selfishness (not simply thinking about yourself, but only thinking about yourself.) I believe in the Bible, and it teaches that our selfishness is not exclusive, but is derived from our functionality. As John Piper would say, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him" and "God is the only route to final and lasting happiness". While evolution does not line up with systematic evidence, God does.
I do not know much about biology. But I do know a lot about system design, and the rules of system design are as universal as the rules of logic. Humans are systems. Dogs are systems. Cells are systems. Molecules are systems. Everything in life can be broken down into systems and systems within systems.
Here are some examples of system philosophy:
A system cannot produce a system more advanced than itself.
Mankind has never yet been able to design a system that improves itself, and there is no evidence to suggest that such a feat is possible.
Hierarchy is the best organization of systems, and all of life can be neatly conceptualized into hierarchies.
Modularity is an essential property of a good system.
Those are just some examples of the abstract world I love to study.
From a systematic point of view, evolution is illogical in multiple ways. Many scientists claim that all the evidence points to evolution, but that is simply not true. They are only referring to specific evidence. I am talking about general evidence which, if they wish to maintain rationality, they must be accountable to.
Like I said, there are multiple ways in which evolution is systematically illogical, but to apply modularity I will only address one of them in this post. And the first is this: evolution, or at the least the most popular interpretations of evolution, are intrinsically based upon natural selection. I would argue that, from a systematic point of view, natural selection could never account for the current state of the universe.
To begin, I need a definition of natural selection. Unfortunately, I've had a hard time finding a definition of natural selection. It seems that much of the people in this world do not understand what a definition is anymore and are busy defining the class that natural selection is inside instead of the attributes of natural selection that distinguish it from everything else. Both of the terms "evolution" and "natural selection" are so ambiguous that it makes it very challenging to argue against evolution.
Whatever the case, the common trend I've seen in most explanations of natural selection is "survival of the fittest"; the idea that the organism with the best ability to survive in it's present environment will continue to exist after the weaker organisms go extinct.
And therein lies the rub. The driving factor within natural selection is survivability. To an evolutionist, the most important value an organism can have is how well it can maintain its existence and propagate. That sounds nice in theory, but in the real world good systems do not work like that. In the study of systems, it quickly becomes evident that the best systems are when the existence of organisms is maintained based upon functionality, not how well that organism can survive over its fellow organisms. Natural selection leads to anarchy. Good system design leads to community.
Functionality does play a role in the theory of evolution through symbiotic relationships, but that is still only a fraction of what is needed to produce a good system. Within natural selection collective functionality is subservient to individual survivability. How often will an employer hire people based upon how well that person will outlast his fellow employees? I've never seen it. An employer hires people based upon their usefulness to the company. Now, a useful employee will last longer in that company than a useless employee will, but notice that in that scenario the survivability is derived from the functionality, which is the reverse of natural selection. Throughout the bulk of existence functionality reigns. However, there are places in human experience where survivability is prioritized over communal usefulness. Some examples are: Slums, prisons, mafias, orphanages, beaucracies, etc.
A system is a collection of organisms working together to accomplish a common goal. If at least some part of that goal is not beyond the scope of that system, then that system is useless. In programming terms, it is a node with inputs but no outputs. It takes but doesn't give. Natural selection does not care if a system is useful or not. In a world of natural selection, it would be perfectly plausable to have useless systems thrive while useful systems vanish.
There is a funny sense in which evolutionists are like lukewarm Christians. It is a common trap for Christians to fall into thinking that being a Christian only matters on Sundays, and the rest of the week they live a life largely disconnected from the religious beliefs they claim to hold. Many Christians have a sense that God was sort of a thing of the past; that he was more real in ancient times than at present.
Evolutionists in general are the same way with their beliefs. They believe the laws of evolution applied to the "millions and millions of years" that led up to the present, but don't really consider those laws to be in effect within their moment to moment lives. "The world was developed by organisms fighting against each other, but now all those organisms are working together." Evolutionists put so much effort into justifying how evolution can explain the way things came to be that they don't put any effort into justifying how evolution can explain how things maintain their operation now.
If the laws of natural selection suddenly came into effect to the degree that evolutionists claim that they are, the human body would tear itself apart in competition. My heart and my lungs have a symbiotic relationship, but do they know that? My heart does not need my hand in order to function, so why doesn't it just stop pumping blood to my hand? But of course that is absurd. The organs of the body work in harmony. They are not competing with each other and no one except perhaps some biologists question that. But if natural selection is true, then they should be competing with each other. If you believe in natural selection than you should be afraid that your stomach would quit passing nutrients to your intestines because food passes through the stomach first, making the stomach the more powerful of the two organisms. If you say that is absurd, I agree with you, natural selection to that degree is absurd. If you say that natural selection does not work that way, then I will point out that if natural selection is not a universal law then there is no way it can account for every step of biological development.
As another example, take green evolutionists. I have heard many say that man has upset the balance of the ecosystem. But if they believe in evolution then there is no such thing as a balance of the ecosystem. To say such a thing is to suggest that all of these animals killing and devouring each other actually results not in a system of natural selection but in a system of natural harmony. That if humans had not come along there would actually be some state of status quo.
To further explore that, let's say there were only two species on the planet, the eaters and the eatens. Since the eaters live off of the eatens, the eaters are the more powerful of the two species, and yet they need the eatens to survive. Now, what would happen if the eaters wiped out the entire species of eatens? They too would go extinct. Thus it would be in the best interest of the eaters to keep the eatens alive.
And yet that is not natural selection. To keep the eatens alive would be to value their functionality over their survivability. They are more useful than they can survive. But if what evolutionists say is true and nature is in fact blind then in such a case both species would be wiped out. For the eaters not to wipe out the eatens would require an assessment of the larger picture. In short, it would require intelligence.
I think I'll stop for now. This isn't even touching the tip of the iceberg, but it's enough to start. As a quick closing point, natural selection is an inherently selfish theory. It proposes that the development of life as we know it was driven by exclusive selfishness (not simply thinking about yourself, but only thinking about yourself.) I believe in the Bible, and it teaches that our selfishness is not exclusive, but is derived from our functionality. As John Piper would say, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him" and "God is the only route to final and lasting happiness". While evolution does not line up with systematic evidence, God does.
Labels: Evolution, God and Programming
posted by Chris Johnson at
7:38 PM
8 Comments:
As a quick disclaimer, this post was a very rough draft. I expect people to poke holes through it. This is a very complex issue and I handled it like someone trying to clean up the stairs while falling down them. I believe my core argument is sound but I know my presentation of it has problems and would be glad for people to point them out.
Chris, to be frank, there are only two species on this planet, the eaters and the eatens, but if the whole world was made up of tigers and anteloupe, the tigers that survived would be the ones that didn't eat every anteloupe in sight. Functioning is a healthy part of surviving, they aren't mutually exclusive, nor is a lack of intelligence conducive to survival.
A lot of your arguments are quite good, but you're trivializing what natural selection actually is. As you pointed out, it's not easy to define.
I psychotically disagree with the ideas on this blog, but I respect the amount of thought you clearly put into them. It's a very good blog, and I bet there's a lot we actually do agree on. What do you know, atheists and Christians can be friends after all.
Thank you for your comment. I'm not sure what you mean by a psychotic disagreement, and if you have ever have the time I'd love to hear more detail how you disagree with my essay. Also, I would appreciate any pointers anyone could give me on how to better reference natural selection in future essays.
I probably should have clarified that the bulk of what I wrote is not my argument but examples to help communicate my argument. For example, when I spoke of the human body I am by no means an expert on anatomy and was imagining how the principles I am proposing would play out. The same goes for my example using predators; it is like a diagram trying to assist my argument but it in itself is not the argument.
In re-examining my essay, I realize that I never summarized exactly what the argument was, partially because in the process of writing it I was still organizing my case. So here is a summary of the argument:
My argument is based on two proposals. First I propose the existence of a universal law. Second, I propose that natural selection condradicts that law. The proposed law can be described as follows:
For a system to be useful, all of its components must provide some utility beyond their immediate benefit, and they must all be working in harmony to achieve that system's external functions. Any conflicts between the individual components will either hinder or nullify that system's usefulness.
Using my working definition of natural selection (I say "working" because I am prepared to modify it based on user input) my second proposal is that natural selection is in conflict with that proposed law, in that natural selection invariably leads to systems that do not obey that law and, (since that law practically encompasses the entire definition of a system), would not really be systems at all.
This argument will remain unchallenged until someone can do either one of two things: (1) Prove that the universal law I proposed is not, in fact, a universal law, or (2) Prove that natural selection is not actually in conflict with that proposed universal law.
For further efficiency in communication, I will refer to the proposed universal law as the "Law of System Utility".
I hike along the beach a bit, especially in the winter, when roads are closed in the mountains. One thing I notice by the oceanside is the long line of rocks.
All of the big rocks are grouped together in a stripe. The smallest pebbles are separated from their bigger kin, but grouped together in their own stripe. And so on, for every conceivable shape of rock on the beach.
The forces of nature - specifically the waves and the tides - are building a small amount of complexity out of random nothingness...
This is entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics. Things go from ordered to unordered in a closed system. With energy being fed in from on high, all bets are off.
That is very interesting. However, it is unclear to me whether you are arguing in favor of my proposals, against them, or simply mentioning some interesting thoughts related to the matter at hand. Specifically, I'm not sure how what you say applies to the question of functionality.
Forrest's last point brought a good issue that I need to clarify for everyone. He said "Things go from ordered to unordered in a closed system." In most forums where you would find that passage used it would make perfect sense, but here it is being taken slightly out of context. The context for that definition is thermodynamics, which is a physical science, so that the definition would more properly be described as "Things go from ordered to unordered in a closed physical system."
When someone is speaking of physics he is speaking of a larger system that has many predefined rules involving energy and resources. Not all systems have these rules. The argument I am raising with this post applies to all systems, of which physics is a subsystem, so in essence my argument transcends physics. Physical evidence can still be used to argue for or against my proposals, but that must be done by acknowledging the additional implied rules of physics and that those rules are (to one degree or another) unique to physics.
I don't understand how your reply relates to the food for thought I left you? On AngryXtian's blog, you wrote:
"As to mutating complexity, I am writing a series of essays that provide strong evidence that the idea of simple systems producing complex systems is absurd. [...] and I am still trying to find anyone who can provide a substantial argument against it. I think this is important because if my proposals are not proved wrong then evolution is scientifically illogical."
You can head out to a beach yourself, and and see complexity being produced by a manifestly simple system. Rocks are being sorted according to their size, by little else than the effect of the moon on the ocean.
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't have the time to dance politely around the issue: your proposals are been proved wrong.
The part about evolution being scientifically illogical is ... well ... illogical. To put it mildly. You also wrote "First I propose the existence of a universal law."
How did you come to believe this describes the universe? What observations, what experiments, what peer review is this based on? What mechanisms do you propose "enforce" this "law?"
If that sounds rude, it shouldn't. All of science goes through a process to sort the truth out from, well, arm-chair observation. You would never have heard of evolution, natural selection, quantum mechanics, or any of the like, were they not thoroughly vetted by competing scientists. These theories have withstood the test of time.
With due respect, you should learn the distinction between a theory and a law before trying to propose either of them. What you've written is amazingly dismissive of the scientific method. Newton didn't flippantly announce gravity to the world ... we can talk about the specific details that show why the "law" you're proposing is not a universal law, does not describe the workings of the universe ... but if you'd bothered with the process, these details would be obvious.
( And, sorry, but semantic dancing around the idea of "outside of physics" is meaningless. Science != poetry. )
I apologize, for to cause such a response I must have come off rather arrogantly, and that was not my intent. I know I make mistakes and do not know everything and the possibility that I could be wrong in this and in many other areas is a possibility rarely far from my mind. However, I do not always express myself as such, and I know from time to time I can appear as if I think I know all the answers, which is one of my many weaknesses.
With that said, I think I need to address some of your statements, Forrest. You seem to suggest that I am presenting the arguments of this blog post as fact. And yet I have gone out of my way throughout this blog to clarify that what I am doing is simply a proposal, and not a proven fact. In fact, in one of my previous comments I said I knew my presentation of the proposal had problems. I have been, in essence, throwing this out there for people to critique so my proposal would be clarified and corrected.
Forrest: "(a) How did you come to believe this describes the universe? What observations, what experiments, (b) what peer review is this based on? (c) What mechanisms do you propose "enforce" this "law?"
(a) Because every system I have ever analyzed fits the law I'm proposing. (b) You are currently a part of my peer review. (c) If it is a law, and it is universal, then I suppose it would be enforced by whatever mechanisms enforce things like reason and physics.
But the main thing I need to address is your counter argument. I never said it was wrong. Maybe it does completely blow away my argument. I was simply pointing out the fact that I do not understand exactly how your argument relates to my argument.
My entire argument is built around the question of functionality. Since you did not explicitly refer to any useful function the rocks on the seashore were providing I am left guessing what function you are thinking of. And even beyond my argument, it is not clear to me how you meant for your example to apply to what I was arguing against: natural selection. Were the rocks competing with each other? Were the rocks arranged in that way because the bigger rocks could survive better?
Forrest: "The forces of nature - specifically the waves and the tides - are building a small amount of complexity out of random nothingness..."
What exactly is the random nothingness you are referring to? Surely the waves and tides aren't nothing? And how does one get anything out of nothingness? Does randomness grant nothingness creative abilities? Forgive me if this sounds like I'm making light of your comment because I am not; I am very sincere. That usage of nothingness and randomness seems to be very prevalent in the modern scientific world and I confess I have a hard time making sense of it.
Forrest: "You can head out to a beach yourself, and and see complexity being produced by a manifestly simple system. Rocks are being sorted according to their size, by little else than the effect of the moon on the ocean."
You are not explicitly saying what the manifestly simple system is. Are you speaking of the ocean? As a 3D animator, I have put a fair amount of work into studying liquid simulations, and the particle physics needed to simulate waves is staggeringly complicated. And one of the factors is the moon? I didn't know that. So a rock the size of a miniature planet that is orbiting our planet far above our atmosphere is influencing our oceans in such a way to place those rocks and such a pattern. If the waves and the moon were what you are referring to when you spoke of simple systems and random nothingness, I can see how I would have misunderstood you, because to my unscientific mind it seems rather complicated.
But that's beyond the point. My proposal never said that complex systems could not arise from simple systems. It said that natural selection, in prioritizing survival over usefulness, would not create the order and harmony that can be found in things like the human body. The human body works because there are organisms doing selfless things that are useful to me; they perform functions that if they did not do I myself would cease to properly function. For your example to be an argument, you would have to clarify what was so useful about the arrangment of the rocks and why it was better for those rocks to be arranged in the fashion you described than in some other fashion. And is the law of natural selection dictating that usefulness?
Forrest: "( And, sorry, but semantic dancing around the idea of "outside of physics" is meaningless. Science != poetry. )"
So then are you saying that the laws of thermodynamics apply to every system?
Post a Comment
<< Home