Too easy...

An article in the March 23rd New York Times discusses the role that old technology still plays in the computer business.

Get a load of this: " To survive, technologies must evolve, much as animal species do in nature... Paul Saffo, a technology forecaster in Silicon Valley [said]... 'Technologies want to survive, and they reinvent themselves to go on.'"

Yes! The technologies reinvent themselves. Apparently there are no designers. Now, I work for IBM, have for more than 3 decades. There is a museum of sorts in the corporate headquarters, showing the progress of computing over time. And there are no small, random, undirected changes in the chronology. On the contrary, there are huge changes in the technology. (When IBM announced the System 360, for instance, it was viewed at the time as a "bet the company" move because it represented such a radical departure from previous technology.)

I say again: we confuse ourselves about evolution, and about the world around us, when we misapply the term. We end up babbling nonsense. I offer Paul Saffo as the poster child for incoherence.

More abuse of the language

In a recent report on NPR's All Things Considered, we are told that the insurgents in Iraq have "evolved". (It is possible that they are quoting the officer who was interviewed; but there are no quotation marks, so "evolve" may be the reporter's word.)

Now, one might argue that the insurgents are deteriorating: remember the story where they had to strap up two women with Downs Syndrome to serve as human bombs (the bombs were detonated remotely)?

A digression: I can picture Bin Laden telling the terrorists that they simply have to learn how to "do more with less".

Let's grant that they have improved their bombs, and the means of hiding them. This is not "evolution". It may be "development", "maturation", "embellishment". I'm fairly certain that the insurgents did not arrive at the new designs through a series of small, random changes.

It gets more depressing. In the March issue of The American Spectator, Tom Bethell has an article that discusses establishing democracy in unfree countries. At one point, he says "Absent civic order, a strong central power is probably the essential starting point. Then that power may be gradually relaxed and decentralized, and the country may reach a stage where law, property, and perhaps even an independent judiciary evolve." Wouldn't "develop" be a better word?

Continued misapplication of "evolution"

I received a newsletter which had the content of this blog posting.

Here's the important part of it: researchers have determined that human babies, up about age 9 months, can distinguish "faces" for other creatures. Where an adult would not be able to remember the "faces" of 6 chimpanzees (or sheep, or whatever), a baby can.

It could be that infants a) have less to remember and b) don't yet know what is important, and therefore indiscriminately remember everything. The author looks to evolution for an explanation and finds that "being able to tell animals apart led to a greater chance of survival". And "that's not really true today", because our world is more complex, and now we have to limit our focus on distinguishing human faces.

How does the ability to tell one sheep from another have any survival value? Apart from shepherds taking inventory, why would anyone care to distinguish among sheep?

Speaking of shepherds: they're all more than 9 months old, and they know their sheep. For that matter, Jane Goodall knew the chimps she studied, as individuals. Could it be that paying attention is the differentiating factor here?

When we downgrade a certain class of information (such as the details that distinguish one chimp from another), we stop retaining it, with the result that chimps start to become indistinguishable. This is not irreversible. We have the capacity to decide to shift our attention.

None of which has anything to do with evolution.

The evolutionary template continues to distract from the important point. "Humans received another gift in the evolutionary lottery, an adaptable mind [he means "brain", but that's another discussion]. The brain you get at birth is not the brain you'll end up with. A 2007 study at Oxford University found that newborn brains have almost 50% more neurons than adult brains. Babies have more raw "brain material" to work with. They get shipped with the full menu of evolutionary options, including the ability to tell monkeys apart." Why would babies come with a "full menu of evolutionary options", only to discard many of them as they mature? What is adaptive in that feature? Wouldn't it be better to come equipped with what is needed?

And how is ti adaptive for an infant to have 50% more neurons than an adult? Flip the equation: presumably, it's adaptive for an adult to have 2/3 the neurons of an infant. How is having fewer neurons is adaptive?

Now, the author is actually on to something. Jeffrey Schwartz has shown (in The Mind and The Brain) that the brain is adaptable; that the changes in the brain can be directed by the mind; and that attention is the tool used to change the brain. I fear that he hobbles his argument, and limits his ability to see, by locking himself (needlessly!) into evolutionary orthodoxy.

[Updated on 1/25/2008 to reduce combativeness.)

Worm makes ants into “berries” to entice birds

See this article.

And then ask yourself: what were the small, incremental, gradual changes that were improved the nematodes chances of survival, and resulted in them being able to make ants swell up and look like berries?

A Different View

I recently came across this article which attempts to identify why some people oppose Darwinism. I will let the article speak for itself. There is also a lively discussion linked to the article. Anybody have any thoughts or reactions to the article and the discussion?

Good review of book

A friend sent me this link to a review of Uncommon Dissent. I have the book, and can highly recommend it.

Resources for the discussion

A dear friend has been kind enough to point me to various other places on the Web which may be useful in discussing such things as the proper relation between Faith and Science. This post will capture links to those sources; and will be updated as additional resources come to my attention.

Please note that this list does not represent an endorsement of any of the cites; rather, it is intended to provide access to additional resources.

Dr. John Polkinghorne's website. Dr. Polkinghorne is a scientist (particle physics) who became an Anglican priest. He won the Templeton Prize in 2002.

Answers in Genesis: This organization provides a wealth of information useful in challenging the Darwinian orthodoxy. Unabashedly Christian believers in Creation and a "young earth".

The Discovery Institute: Their mission statement says that the Institute "discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty". They are strongly involved in Intelligent Design.

IntelligentProject: This site approaches the question of Science and Faith from a Roman Catholic perspective, and provides links to relevant articles.

(added 12/6/2007)
Nova's website on Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

PBS's website on Evolution