Darwinism and “Automatic” Design
Let’s recognize that Darwinism is simply a proposed automatic design mechanism for living organisms. Evolution selects advantageous mutations naturally and employs them in the ongoing struggle for survival. Darwin thought that the accumulation of small improvements might eventually lead to new species. In other words, the Darwinist mechanism is a proposed impersonal designer.
The task of creative design analysts is therefore to determine which proposed automatic design mechanisms have sufficient built-in intelligence to produce the profusion of workable designs seen in nature. Darwin made a bold step 140 years ago when he proposed that the designer need not be all-wise and all-knowing. Did Darwin cut down the designer’s characteristics too far? Is there more to discover about the designer—some essential ingredient Darwin missed?
Apparently Darwin missed something, because the mere optimization of a prepackaged merit function—survivability in biology—has consistently failed to produce new designs.
How Far Can Small Steps Take Us?
We cannot yet obtain automatic design in any field. Go to a software store and browse around. The packages offer computer-aided design. Software suppliers know that if their package offers automatic design, people will sue them for false advertising. Automatic design can’t be done—at least not yet.
What is the barrier? That is not a mere multi-million-dollar question. We’re talking about thousands of millions of dollars. The motivation for producing and using automatic design programs exists.
Most Journeys Require Big Steps
If mutations can produce new variations in a species, why can’t they produce new species in a genus, new genera in a family, new families in an order, new orders in a class, new classes in a phylum, new phyla in a kingdom, and new kingdoms of living organisms? What is the barrier to unlimited variation? The barrier is not a hard-and-fast limit, beyond which no automatic design or Darwinist process is possible. It is a soft barrier, but it is there. The barrier consists of two elements working together. One is a restriction on the step size. The other is the requirement of feasibility (in engineering projects) or viability (the ability of organisms to stay alive) at every step. Let’s use the word functionality to cover engineering feasibility and biological viability. Functionality is a strong requirement and a very limiting restriction.
Notice that the requirement of functionality at every step determines which paths are possible between lower and higher species. We are not here talking about any supposed advantage for survival. Advantages make it probable that the Darwinist process will follow one path among all possible paths, but functionality at every step determines which paths are possible.
Life can only exist where conditions are right for it. But, even if conditions are right, will life arise? Some people claim that “natural selection is such a powerful principle that life will arise wherever conditions are right.” There is an obvious fallacy in that extravagant conjecture. Natural selection only begins to operate after self-reproducing life arises. Having shown very easily what’s wrong with the claim, we will now go on to examine carefully and scientifically whether natural selection is a “powerful principle.” A powerful principle should explain well a broad range of phenomena. We will compare Darwinism’s power to explain the adaptations many organisms have for survival with creative design’s power to make ingenious engineering adaptations.
Small Improvements Are Merely Engineering
The beginning point of creative design is the firm grasp of the obvious. Left and right shoes are hardly more than 100 years old. The differences were always there, but cobblers used to cut both soles from the same pattern. In engineering design, the most obvious point is to avoid trying to do the impossible, when a physical law sets insurmountable limits. Darwinists would do well to take this point to heart.
One doesn’t obtain patents and receive prizes for making small improvements in existing designs. If one desires a new product with new capabilities, one must make intellectual leaps. One needs inspiration, the creative spark. A long series of small changes seldom leads to anything novel enough to patent. A new design incorporating many small improvements can help a product dominate the market for a time. But a competitor who invents a new way of accomplishing an old task may rapidly draw away all the customers.
Guidelines for Personal Creativity
Three ideas have helped me to patent novel technology and win awards, too. One is to look for whatever is wasted in existing designs, to see how it can be economized. Another is to cast out the unnecessary restrictions, especially and foremost to question in existing designs whatever is merely conventional. A third source of inspiration is to bring together ideas from very diverse sources. One needs to search very widely in seemingly unrelated fields and develop a great power of association to design creatively.
The task of creative design analysts is therefore to determine which proposed automatic design mechanisms have sufficient built-in intelligence to produce the profusion of workable designs seen in nature. Darwin made a bold step 140 years ago when he proposed that the designer need not be all-wise and all-knowing. Did Darwin cut down the designer’s characteristics too far? Is there more to discover about the designer—some essential ingredient Darwin missed?
Apparently Darwin missed something, because the mere optimization of a prepackaged merit function—survivability in biology—has consistently failed to produce new designs.
How Far Can Small Steps Take Us?
We cannot yet obtain automatic design in any field. Go to a software store and browse around. The packages offer computer-aided design. Software suppliers know that if their package offers automatic design, people will sue them for false advertising. Automatic design can’t be done—at least not yet.
What is the barrier? That is not a mere multi-million-dollar question. We’re talking about thousands of millions of dollars. The motivation for producing and using automatic design programs exists.
Most Journeys Require Big Steps
If mutations can produce new variations in a species, why can’t they produce new species in a genus, new genera in a family, new families in an order, new orders in a class, new classes in a phylum, new phyla in a kingdom, and new kingdoms of living organisms? What is the barrier to unlimited variation? The barrier is not a hard-and-fast limit, beyond which no automatic design or Darwinist process is possible. It is a soft barrier, but it is there. The barrier consists of two elements working together. One is a restriction on the step size. The other is the requirement of feasibility (in engineering projects) or viability (the ability of organisms to stay alive) at every step. Let’s use the word functionality to cover engineering feasibility and biological viability. Functionality is a strong requirement and a very limiting restriction.
Notice that the requirement of functionality at every step determines which paths are possible between lower and higher species. We are not here talking about any supposed advantage for survival. Advantages make it probable that the Darwinist process will follow one path among all possible paths, but functionality at every step determines which paths are possible.
Life can only exist where conditions are right for it. But, even if conditions are right, will life arise? Some people claim that “natural selection is such a powerful principle that life will arise wherever conditions are right.” There is an obvious fallacy in that extravagant conjecture. Natural selection only begins to operate after self-reproducing life arises. Having shown very easily what’s wrong with the claim, we will now go on to examine carefully and scientifically whether natural selection is a “powerful principle.” A powerful principle should explain well a broad range of phenomena. We will compare Darwinism’s power to explain the adaptations many organisms have for survival with creative design’s power to make ingenious engineering adaptations.
Small Improvements Are Merely Engineering
The beginning point of creative design is the firm grasp of the obvious. Left and right shoes are hardly more than 100 years old. The differences were always there, but cobblers used to cut both soles from the same pattern. In engineering design, the most obvious point is to avoid trying to do the impossible, when a physical law sets insurmountable limits. Darwinists would do well to take this point to heart.
One doesn’t obtain patents and receive prizes for making small improvements in existing designs. If one desires a new product with new capabilities, one must make intellectual leaps. One needs inspiration, the creative spark. A long series of small changes seldom leads to anything novel enough to patent. A new design incorporating many small improvements can help a product dominate the market for a time. But a competitor who invents a new way of accomplishing an old task may rapidly draw away all the customers.
Guidelines for Personal Creativity
Three ideas have helped me to patent novel technology and win awards, too. One is to look for whatever is wasted in existing designs, to see how it can be economized. Another is to cast out the unnecessary restrictions, especially and foremost to question in existing designs whatever is merely conventional. A third source of inspiration is to bring together ideas from very diverse sources. One needs to search very widely in seemingly unrelated fields and develop a great power of association to design creatively.