BISTON BETULARIA

[Stanley A. Gorodenski]

I think creationists have succumbed to the idea that man can understand
the universe through his intellect.  Under this thesis, if man cannot
understand something, then there must be a 'guiding force', if you
will.  My view is that, although man's reasoning powers are greater than
the rest of the animal world on earth, such abilities are limited, and
it may not be possible for man to understand all.  This does not
necessarily mean that what is not understood is evidence of a 'guiding
hand'.  To illustrate this, I read in Science (a publication of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science) about a year ago or
so concerning the use of genetic algorithms in industry.  Genetic
algorithms are computer routines that incorporate the essence of
recombination, mutation, mating, and selection.  Such routines have been
used to derive, for example, computer routines to sort an array of
numbers.  In this particular application, genetic algorithms were used
to develop a kind of circuitry.  The end product, i.e., the circuitry,
was superior, because the genetic algorithmic procedure had tweaked the
design by adapting it to local temperature, and other factors.  THIS
CIRCUITRY COULD NOT BE BACK ENGINEERED BY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, i.e.,
they did not understand it.  Now, this is an example of the limitations
of man's intellect, but it certainly in no way is an indication of a
'guiding hand' because the PROCESS giving rise to the circuit design was
completely understood.  There is nothing mystical about it.  Now, this
does not mean there is no god.  It simply means that creationists are
approaching the problem wrong.

Another aspect of creationist thinking revealed in some of these recent
messages, is the prevalence of typological thinking regarding a
species.  Mayr in his Origin of Species discusses how typological
thinking had hindered biology early on.  Typological thinking is defined
by Mayr as "A concept in which variation is disregarded and the members
of a population are considered as replicas of the type, the Platonic
eidos".  This seems to define the creationist's approach to the
biological world very well.  Whereas biologists are still attempting to
define a species (first it began with the Biological Species concept.  A
lot of this was discussed at the recent Lep Soc meeting in Arizona this
year), creationists appear to not have made any attempt to define what
they mean by a species.  There seems to be some sort of vague notion,
such as dogs are different than birds, and hence are different species,
but as you get to finer and finer levels, such an approach falls apart. 
Biologists have come a long way toward understanding the biological
world.  The typological approach by creationists is a regression to the
early years in biology, and, hence, a step backwards.

Stan Gorodenski



-- 
If people knew how hard I had to work to gain my mastery, it wouldn't
seem wonderful at all.  -- Michelangelo