I believe it was coined by Behe, who isn’t really a creationist, and co-opted by the real creationists. That changed it from an interesting but incorrect hypothesis to total garbage. Behe may not have invented the term, but he definitely popularized it.
Now we’re getting into semantics. In a certain sense Hoover Dam and a beaver dam are both natural, but that isn’t a very helpful point of view. Intelligent design presumes intelligence, which assumes some sort of privileged position for the designer.
My original point was that intelligent design does not require any miracles and is not supernatural, unlike much of religion claims. But if the “natural” in natural selection means anything besides not supernatural, it means that there is no intelligence behind it and it is not directed towards a specific goal.
Then there is the other type of intelligent design, which Behe tried and failed to find, which involves structures which could not have evolved naturally, and which would have to be designed using genetic engineering. A Spock, for instance. We are inserting genes from one species into another all the time now, so this is also not supernatural, but cannot happen except under the direction of intelligence.
If someone suggests that water naturally flows downstream except in the case of a blockage such as a beaver dam, but that humans can stop it through an entirely different method, then it’s a pretty helpful point of view. Humans are just participating in the same game of physics that beavers are joining. We might do it more quickly, but it doesn’t matter from the water’s point of view.
Keep in mind what I was responding to:
From the point of view of natural selection, what fruit do (create a fleshy outgrowth that doesn’t directly improve the health of the organism, but that encourages other animals to spread the organism’s genes) is exactly what carrots do. In both cases, the plants mutated and recombined genes until a particular combination of genes changed the behavior of another organism (bears in one case, humans in the other case), and at that point, the gene pool stabilized on a new set of genes.
That’s what’s important, in my opinion. The fact that the bears didn’t know this was happening, and the humans did, isn’t what’s important.
I think I see your point. You seem to be arguing along the lines that selection by humans is also natural selection, in the ‘grand scheme’ of things.
But still, the fact that the bees don’t know what they are doing but humans do is exactly the important distinction. The difference between natural selection and intelligent selection.
Change through chance mutation + selection versus steered mutation +selection.
I think this is the vital distinction. Natural selection is a hill climbing algorithm, which climbs whatever hill (reproductive advantage) it winds up at through mutations or environmental changes. artificial selection or intelligent design pushes the species up a desired hill.
Of course everything is natural in a sense. Even genetic engineering done in high tech labs is natural. But it kind of confuses the issue, doesn’t it?
Again, though, it proposes that we’re somehow separate from the environment. We’re part of it.
Genetic engineering is a different procedure. In normal selection, those critters with particular genes engage another species to spread their genes. In genetic engineering, there’s no critter with the genes to begin with: humans create the alpha model.
Where is this coming from? I’m not a biologist, but AFAIK they don’t just whip up DNA from scratch. They take genetic components from one species and splice in into another, in ways that couldn’t happen through natural processes.
Or has the science advanced so far that there is a machine that can just print out DNA for any trait you want?
Take Dawkins’ metaphor of “Climbing Mount Improbable.” In that metaphor, there are places on the mountain that are dead ends. Little promontories cut off from other, higher peaks. Natural selection cannot cross those divides.
But artificial selection can. We can look across chasms on “Mount Improbable” that nature couldn’t cross in a hundred million years…and walk right across. We can build bridges over these (abstract) canyons.
Otherwise, as Voyager notes, you’d have to call Hoover Dam a “natural formation,” and it ain’t. I’ve actually heard people argue that Plutonium “occurs in nature,” since humans, and technology, are part of nature. This is an extreme use of the word which reduces it to inanity. Okay, fine: the Chernobyl radiation zone is perfectly natural… At that point, the word has no meaning.
No it doesn’t. All the hills are part of the environment. Someone noting a species on top of a hill can’t tell if it got there through natural selection or was pushed there by intelligent selection. That is why theistic evolution is indistinguishable from real evolution. Only seeing the interference can tell you they are different.
But since we are part of nature, anything we do is natural by definition - or that seems to be what you are saying.
There have been fruit fly experiments where irradiated flies grew legs in odd parts of their bodies. How is that different from designing the genes from scratch? In any case, we are not at the point of designing genes yet - we get them from other places, like other species as I noted.
Googling, it does look like there have been some designed genes. Mentioned here and here for example (second link is PDF).
Flowers: one day, a plant gets a weird mutation where it secretes some sugar near its pollen producers. Some bugs like that sugar, so they start selectively eating it and selectively spread the pollen more efficiently than the non-mutant-plants’ pollen spreads. Natural Selection!
Carrots: one day, a plant gets a weird mutation where it grows a big tasty root. Some humans like that root, so they selectively start eating it and selectively spread the seeds more efficiently than the non-mutant-plants’ seeds spreads. Natural Selection!
Genetic engineering: One day, a human shotguns one genetic sequence into another genetic sequence and grows an organism from the resulting zygote. Natural, but not selection!
Voyager, when the word “natural” is used to exclude humanity, I don’t generally think it’s a useful word. When someone thinks that the process of getting carrots is fundamentally different from the process of getting flowers, I think that shows where the word “natural” impedes, rather than informs, understanding.
Not at all clear that those examples are actually designing a gene from scratch as opposed to reworking the dna in an existing gene. Can’t tell much from the abstracts though. They did design a virus from scratch, but they still used chunks of existing dna to do it.
No matter. Whether or not we’ve done it already, we will in the not too distant future.
If you are using natural to mean not supernatural, then sure, it is all natural.
If you are using it in some other way, what is artificial then? Or designed? Is artificial intelligence (if we ever get there) the same as natural intelligence since natural people did it?
If people see the mutated carrot, and like it, and spread it, unintentionally by pooping its seeds hither and yon into places with lots of nutrients, then the case is no different from the flowers. If however they grow lots of carrots and winnow out the ones they want, and repeat and spread the seeds to others, then I think it is a different situation. That appears to be how our orange carrots arose.
Another example. I’m involved with raising guide dogs. One of the puppies we raised got selected as a breeder. Guide dogs only are allowed to breed if they pass a very rigorous battery of health and behavior tests - which is fundamentally different from anything you’d see in nature. If you go to an event at the training center, you’ll have a hundred dogs and no barking. That is an excellent example of directed selection.
If you say what they do is just like natural selection, then there is hardly any non-supernatural intelligent design possible.
And really, using preexisting bits and pieces to make something normally is considered “making something from scratch”. People don’t call a house “natural” because the wood its boards and beams were made from grew in a forest. Nor does a meal cooked “from scratch” have to be made 100% from ingredients synthesized from basic elements in a lab.
No–because I’m not saying natural intelligent design is the antonym of natural selection. Rather, I’m saying it’s a subset. In the case of the dogs, those dogs with certain traits tend to reproduce more.
I wouldn’t use it to exclude humanity; I’d use it to exclude technology, especially the more advanced forms. Humans were part of nature for a long time, but with fire, agriculture, neolithic tools, cured leather and woven textiles, etc., we have moved out of the realm of the purely natural. We have undertaken to modify our environment on a large scale.
In my opinion, to say that Plutonium “occurs in nature” is no longer using the word in a useful or meaningful way.
(Genteel disagreement; I actually have a tendency to agree with your posts. This may be the first notable exception!)