Digital Homology
Posted in Evolution, Web/Tech on | 2 minutes | 15 Comments →
I’ve always thought of the “evolution / creation” thing in programming terms. When I write a program, then desire to write another program, I often invoke code from the first to create the second. It’s an efficient process, and I would expect God to operate efficiently. If you view the source code of the websites I’ve created over the years, you’ll notice recurring code snippets, a sort of “digital homology” if you will. Does the fact of code re-usage—analogous to Darwin’s homologous resemblance—necessarily entail the conclusion that one website “randomly mutated” into the others? Of course not. Rather, the fact of re-usage is precisely what we would expect from a supra-intelligent Creator creating with respect for efficiency. Though there is a fact of the matter one way or the other, what we believe WRT evolution is all in the color of our lenses. Evolutionists typically view the evidence through atheist-colored glasses, then attempt to usurp the evidence as supportive exclusively of their preferred metaphysical conclusion. But that’s not right. In the words of that great character, Sherlock Holmes:
Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing… It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different… There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.
Syllabus
says...Yeah, I think it’s vital to be at least aware of one’s metaphysical positions and name them as such, rather than passing them off under the banner of SCIENCE!, which so many people seem to do.
Adamoriens
says...I’m not following. Labour-saving techniques are what we’d expect of finite creatures who desire efficiency. But God doesn’t have these weaknesses.
cl
says...The desire to create efficiently is not a weakness.
Adamoriens
says...I should say instead that the human desire to be efficient is a consequence of certain constraints ie. our finite time, resources and abilities. God suffers no such weaknesses, so whence his desire to reuse genetic code?
cl
says...What reason do you have to believe that?
Adamoriens
says...I’ll respond to that question momentarily. First, though, you wrote in the OP:
Are you arguing that:
1. We’d expect design efficiency and thus code reusage given the existence of God; or
2. We’d expect code reusage given a god who desires design efficiency?
If it’s the first posit, I wonder what basis we’d have to think that God would care about design efficiency. Hence my attempting a distinction between humans and God; I want to elicit some assurance from you that, contrary to my suggestions, God is similar to humans in this respect. Since this is your argument from analogy, it behooves you to show that God is similar to humans in this respect. This is absent in the OP.
However, it also behooves me to show that the desire for conservation in humans is a consequence of our limited resources. I can only appeal to my own observations (I think yours will be similar) of financial, industrial, social and individual activity. I think that art is the only exception. Conservation of sorts does occur; for example, Edward Elgar’s Enigma Variations builds on a single simple melody throughout its movements. But would we say that Variations is more efficient than Holst’s The Planets (which, so far as I can see, shares no melodies between its movements)? If so, would we say that Variations is more beautiful and praiseworthy in this respect? Does God find Variations more beautiful and praiseworthy in this respect?
In other words, either humans prefer design efficiency because they want to conserve their finite resources, or they want to conserve for some aesthetic reason. Since God does not lack resources of any kind, we have no assurance that he’s motivated in the pragmatic way we are. And, barring some sort of particular and strong realism about ideals of beauty, I think we lack assurance that he’s motivated in the way that Edward Elgar was when he composed Variations.
So it seems to me that we’d expect nothing specific about DNA usage given theism alone.
cl
says...I clearly stated what I’m arguing in the OP.
cl
says...I talk more about homology here, in case anybody’s interested.
Adamoriens
says...Alrighty. If you’re arguing that we’d expect code reusage given the existence of a god who desires design efficiency, I’d wonder how this would in turn support philosophical or biblical theism. The desire for design efficiency must be entailed, or made more probable by:
1. God’s moral goodness (perhaps);
2. Pragmatic considerations about the designer’s limitations (there are none);
3. God’s aesthetic ideals (controversial);
4. Or, in the case of supporting biblical theism, scriptural intimations that we’d expect God to desire design efficiency.
cl
says...What is your ultimate motive for pressing further?
Adamoriens
says...Curiousity.
cl
says...Then unfortunately, I can’t oblige the time.
cl
says...Adamoriens,
Perhaps I was a little short.
The thought I meant to convey was that I’m no longer interested in extended back-and-forths unless they come from openness to the gospel (and even then I’ll be tended to say much less). That’s why I asked your motive. If you’re in this just to show I’m wrong, or just to trade philosophical banter, or because you’re curious, well… that’s fine, you’re more than welcomed to comment and I openly encourage your criticism and curiosity, but if that is the case, just know that I can’t justify much time spent. I am sincere about welcoming your criticism, and always have been. After all, if it is found correct, then you’ve strengthened my position!
OTOH, if you are open to returning to faith, and asking a question because a solid answer might encourage you in that direction, then that’s different. I’m willing to spend more time on those cases. But if not, well… I’m not much into talking “just for fun” or to satiate people’s curiosity. Honestly, blogging is not my idea of fun—at all. Over the years, I’ve allowed myself to fall into the trap of fruitless back-and-forth with atheists, skeptics, and even believers. Now I feel it’s time to put an end to it. Crucify it, if you will :)
In brief, I’ll say these:
1) If there are computers and programming, I will still re-use code even in New Earth (eternity), despite an infinite amount of time (if such a thing as “time” exists, and Scripture seems to indicate it will).
2) When creating a finite, material universe, YHWH did not have an infinite amount of time. In fact, all the evidence indicates that “time” began at creation! Therefore, once begun, it would behoove YHWH not to waste time. There is a corollary here to the argument from kinesis, wherein “time” denotes transitions from potency to act. Pre-creation, no such transitions existed. This also lends logical credence to a literal creation week.
3) Even if we grant that YHWH had an infinity of time, that doesn’t entail that YHWH should waste, or drag processes out longer than they need to be dragged out.
Hope that helps.
Adamoriens
says...My foregoing comments apparently haven’t kept pace with your new views. I can’t say that whatever resolution on this issue of digital homology will bear on my accepting Christianity, simply because it’s not very relevant to the truth of Christianity. So I guess you should adjust your expenditure accordingly.
I think I’m openminded enough that, were a reasonably compelling case for Christianity presented, I would become a Christian. Given your view of the rationality of non-believers, though, it’s a bit incongruent to ask me for assurances in this matter.
With respect to digital homology, though, God expends nothing whether he chooses to reuse DNA code or not. Being omniscient, he can conceive a totally novel DNA code, or a whole new type of biological organism, and realize it instantly (to our reckoning).
cl
says...Didn’t you identify as “Christian” at one point? Or have I got that wrong?
I didn’t ask for any assurances. I just asked why you were pressing me.
Why should I believe that? I tend to disagree at first blush, but, I’m open to your case.