PZ Myers: The Biology Does Work

Evolution 2.0

Perry Marshall is raising some eyebrows and saying some interesting things about his Evolution 2.0.   I mostly like what he has to say, although I don't think he is giving proper credit to what Intelligent Design is or where some of his arguments come from.  He presents 'Evolution 2.0' as a kind of bridge between evolutionary thinking and design intuitions (what started as 'Mere Creation') and this is essentially what Intelligent Design already is.  Marshall does seem to bring a lot of the collective arguments of Bill Dembski, Steve Meyer, and Mike Behe framed succinctly within the past 30 years of genetic discoveries.

However, the confusion is in no small part because of the willful conflation of ID with creationism by ID's critics.  'ID Creationism' is a worthless term that is nothing more than a dishonest advertising campaign co-developed by Barbara Forrest and the NCSE.  Its effect has been to shut down discussion before it happens, and I believe that was precisely the intention.  This ploy was opportunistic ideological propaganda "in a cheap tuxedo."  If this lame political stunt now ends up causing people to pick up a book like Marshall's, so be it.  In the end inquiring minds will probably find that Evolution 2.0 is simply the more evolution-friendly version of ID.  

An interesting exchange between Perry Marshall and PZ Myers appears online and I was struck by various attempts by Myers to dismiss an engineering perspective of biology.  This one stood out in particular:

Over and over again what you do is you tell me ‘well from my perspective as an electrical engineer this doesn’t work, it can’t work’ and I’m telling you yeah but biology does work, so maybe your perspective is wrong.

What does Myers mean by "biology does work"?  In context, he seems to be saying that even though perspectives from engineering and computer science cast doubt on the very idea of a coding system arising through natural, random processes, it does indeed work so phooey on perspectives outside the fiefdom of biology.  Does he mean that the science of biology gives us useful technology (e.g. penicillin) and therefore we shouldn't question that life had a spontaneous origin?  Or is he dogmatically asserting that in modern biology it is a matter of unquestioned orthodoxy that natural processes are sufficient to produce whatever exists?  Fossils therefore abiogenesis?

Marshall challenges (with a 3 million dollar prize) the realm of biology to generate a coding system through an undirected chaotic process, and Myers states that this challenge is a sham because he should be able to present the already naturally occurring genetic code as evidence that this can happen and thus get the prize.  He doesn't need to question his assumption that abiogenesis happened because "biology does work"!  It is obvious that he, like so many others in evolutionary biology, are completely unaware of just how much intellectual laziness is represented here. 

He then goes on to ironically accuse Marshall of assuming what he intends to prove.  While Marshall is simply using the same abductive argument championed by Stephen Meyer, PZ Myers is unaware that museums full of fossils do not demonstrate that our DNA has a perfectly coherent natural explanation.  He fervently believes no one should actually have to do the work of demonstrating the random genesis of a code to get that 3 million dollar prize.  Darwin's "one long argument" showed the world that science had no need for God, and since there is no God we know that amazing codes like DNA have a perfectly natural explanation, even if we don't know what that could be (RNA, crystals, abiogenetic molecules du jour). 

I wish that Myers had promoted Tom Schneider's work as proof of a randomly generated code.  Then there might be some interesting back-and-forth about what a coding system is vs. a lock-and-key system.  While I suspect that there are flaws in the applicability of Schneider's model to actual site recognition, the bigger flaw is in its applicability to the sorts of biological "innovation" that Wagner and others have tried to characterize. 

Myers also criticized Marshall for what he considers an 'appeal to authority'.  Now you have to keep in mind that to Myers a 'creationist' isn't necessarily someone who believes that the world was created in 6 days, a 'creationist' is anyone that thinks that there are evidential reasons for thinking that life is the result of a conscious, creative act.  This is never more evident than in Myers' insinuation that Perry Marshall is a creationist.  As a rabid anticreationist, Myers will not only belittle 'creationists' for citing other 'creationists', but will get much more upset if they cite a figure that has some weight and is not already discredited as being skeptical of neo-Darwinism.  When 'creationists' do this, it must be characterized as an 'appeal to authority'. 

But if you read carefully, you'll see that Myers doesn't think it's wrong to appeal to authority; he faults Marshall for not appealing to the correct authorities. 

Myers and likeminded crusaders against anti-science tend to dismiss the engineering/software analogy.  Dawkins and others embrace the analogy because they don't see the problem.  Regardless of the definitions, orthodox evolutionary biology has the unique problem of trying to explain how engineering happens without an engineer, how a coding system develops without a coder, how purposeful machines arise in entropy-ridden purposelessness.  The Myers approach is to claim that the analogies from digital engineering don't apply to the digital wetware in our bodies.  It is too different they claim because it is (a) complicated, (b) replicated, (c) fault-tolerant, and (d) so darn wet.  All that math and computer science that is applicable to artificial digital systems is therefore not applicable to biological wetware (except when it seems to confirm an evolutionary point of view, of course).  Biological matter is too different in its complicated, self-reproducing electrochemical wetness to be beholden to information principles.
Engineering analogies must not be applicable because fossils and stuff show that the "biology does work", and after all, there are random errors that follow known distributions.  Therefore we can safely conclude that all the non-randomness is due to the accidents of genome arrangement.  After all, hundreds of thousands of biologists show up for work each day, and do science, and get their findings published.  There's no need to demonstrate how such elaborate order arises from disorder, because evolutionary biologists already know that it did.  All this "brute force molecular biology" really has no place weighing in on the matter.  Myers can join Jerry Coyne here in lamenting how molecular biology is not bolstering evolutionary theory--the weed of secular creationism seems to be sprouting up in molecular biology.  Seems like we will have to extend the Salem Hypothesis to include molecular biologists. 

Pay no attention to any ramifications of Craig Venter's work.  Why?  'Cause biology does work already!  It works!  We're not going to give up a hundred years' worth of conjectures and plausibility stories for some preposterous "brute force molecular biology" experiments!  The biology has worked just fine without them.

Is ID the New Lysenkoism?

"[I]mprovement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'. 

[I]f truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say.

~ Jerry Coyne, fearless defender of neo-Darwinism, quoted here

Elsberry and Perakh, despite their obvious disdain for Darwin skeptics, make for interesting reading when they try to comment on the substance of ID approaches.  They completely jump the shark on the matter of ideological science in general and Lysenkoism in particular.

First of all, I'd like to comment on where I first heard Lysenkoism mentioned with respect to Darwin-skepticism.  The first was in some commentary by Eugenie Scott.  As I recall, it wasn't in response to anything by ID advocates, but simply an analogy based on her belief that all ID is driven by ideology, and since the Lamarckist approach under Stalin was favored because of Marxist ideology, ID and Lysenkoism are obvious soulmates.  Profound.  (It's possible she was inspired by the E&P paper, but I don't remember seeing any references to it.)

The second instance was in the book Corrupted Science, which was advertised as an unbiased look at the relationship between ideology and science, and ironically turned out to be completely political polemic.  This too wasn't a reaction to Lysenkoism comparisons by ID advocates.

My impression upon reading the Scott article was a sense of irony.  The lost jobs, lost tenures, lost promotions, etc. where professors and teachers go from being praised and celebrated to suddenly being denounced as third-rate hacks abound.  As neo-Darwinist zealots often remind us, skeptics of hyper-selectionism and neo-Darwinism are sorely outnumbered.  In spite of this, what you will hear from the "science defenders" are complaints as to how dangerous it is to question ID (you might lose the good opinion of all those cranks they make fun of).