Tim's comments on What if Evolution is Compatible with Design After All?

[Tim]

In responding to @John_Harshman, Kojonan replies:

@Rope

I disagree! I do not think such a misunderstanding or misrepresentation has been demonstrated, even with Tim’s further posts.

Yet you seem unable to articulate to anybody else’s satisfaction how your interpetation is an accurate understanding or representation of Carroll’s article.

@Rope

In context in the book, the Carroll quote is pretty much just flavor text, showing the history of the idea, and is used to argue only what it says in the quote.

Which further demonstrates the paucity of your engagement with biology.

@Rope

… as does biologist Denis Alexander, the “scholar” mentioned by Tim …

Calling Alexander a “biologist” is a stretch. He was what I have seen described as a “biomedical researcher”, with a PhD in Neurochemistry. He is, as I accurately characterised him, a “‘Science and Religion’ scholar”, and since 2006 has been the founding Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

@Rope

I then go on to argue (as does biologist Denis Alexander, the “scholar” mentioned by Tim) that the case is stronger than in the time of Carroll’s article. Nothing much depends on the quote, and I do go on to also discuss reasons for doubting that evolution has a necessary direction. So the careful reader should not be left with a false impression.

I would note that Alexander, in the cited book, likewise does not employ the term “laws of form”. Yes, he makes the Carroll quote, but in the context of asking the “question” of:

whether the evolution of the shapes of life represent a random walk through all possible shapes and sizes, or whether there are physical constraints arising from physics, genetics, and development that channel evolution in certain prescribed directions.

… rather than making the stronger proposition that some “law” exists governing this. In fact, in a succeeding section, he discusses the fact that, with a few exceptions:

Biologists don’t generally spend much time looking for “laws of nature”, feeling that this is really the task of mathematical physicists. Living organisms are far more complex than relatively simple objects like stars and do not lend themselves easily to the kind of broad generalizations concerning the properties of matter that we associate with the term “law”.