Introducing James Barham; Parts 3 & 4 (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, August 20, 2015, 16:29 (3172 days ago) @ David Turell

Again I'll cherrypick from Parts 3 & 4:-“To avoid teleology, Darwinism must posit random genetic changes that result in random phenotypic changes. But West-Eberhard's work shows us there is no such thing as a random phenotypic change. Instead, we can now see that all phenotypic change is goal-directed.”-We need to think carefully about this term “teleology”. Does he mean purpose, or does he mean divine purpose?
 
“Thus, the evolutionary process has depended upon the inherent, teleological capability of all living things to adapt themselves to circumstances, within and without. It is this capability that explains evolution, not the other way around.”-Evolution doesn't explain anything; it's a process. Darwin tried to explain evolution through the sequence of random mutations and natural selection, i.e. chance dictated the first, but whatever was not fit for purpose perished, so natural selection was not chance but purpose orientated. Of course I agree with Barham that random mutations are highly dubious, and that it is more likely that organisms themselves purposefully make the changes that will enable them to adapt or improve. So instead of random mutations and natural selection explaining evolution, we now have purposeful mutations and natural selection as our explanation. We do not have an explanation for the intelligence that organizes the purposeful mutations.
 
“The point is simply this: Organisms of all sorts are capable of intelligent, goal-directed, adaptive behavior that cannot possibly be accounted for on the basis of the theory of natural selection.”-Of course they can't. The argument is a non sequitur. Their intelligent behaviour is accounted for by their intelligence. Natural selection merely decides which of their behaviours will survive. It seems to me that Barham is conflating random mutations and natural selection in his desperation to discredit the atheistic view of Darwin's theory. As is so often the case with agenda-driven arguments, much of what he says is true, but it is undifferentiated.-“The main task of Darwinian theory is to "reduce" teleology and normativity to mechanism.”-Interestingly, the main task of Turellian theory is to promote teleology through mechanism, since David believes God's purpose could only be achieved by preprogramming and dabbling, which would make all organisms into automatons: the exact opposite of Barham and Shapiro's claims.-“Therefore, as soon as the Darwinist admits the reality of a general capacity for adaptivity extending throughout all of the living world, he has already given away the whole ballgame.”-Hold on, who said this capacity extended throughout all of the living world? Adaptivity only comes into play when conditions change, and throughout the history of the living world, changing conditions have resulted in death to much of the living world. This particular agnostic Darwinist can therefore point out that although cells may apply their adaptive intelligence, it is natural selection that will decide which of them will survive. Thus evolution progresses through a combination of chance and purpose: chance dictating changes in the environment and which organisms have the right sort of intelligence to cope with them or exploit them; purpose, because those organisms have deliberately sought to change themselves appropriately. How much of the ballgame has been given away? Not common descent. Not natural selection. Only random mutations, which have now become purposeful mutations.

DAVID: My comment: Obviously organisms have built-in adaptation guides; source?-Not obvious at all, since clearly Barham and Shapiro attribute autonomous intelligence to organisms. Source? Shapiro refuses to be drawn. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility of a designer God. I don't believe in it, but I don't believe in any of the alternatives either, though one of them must be true!-Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-Part 5 does not seem to me to add anything to the discussions we have already had, though I regard emergence as a very fruitful subject that is highly relevant to our own discussions on consciousness in general and cellular intelligence in particular.