Can natural selection operating on random arrangements of material building blocks (i.e., subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, and larger collections and structures of matter), produce the genomes of all living things, the human language capacity, and all of the world's 6000 plus natural languages? There are two polar views on this question that are widely held by practicing scientists. At one extreme there is the neo-Darwinian claim that chance aided by natural selection can arrange dynamic information systems as they are now. At the other end there is the view that a transcendent Intelligence not limited by matter, space, and time is required. Here an argument is presented from logico-mathematical proofs developed in theoretical semiotics to show unequivocally that the known symbol systems seen in genomes and in human languages cannot be produced by chance arrangements of any kind of material building blocks. The argument is general. It applies to all possible symbol systems, though the emphasis here is on the genetic system evidently underlying all living organisms and the human language capacity, which is manifested in the multitude of natural languages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al-FallayI. (1994). Limiting bias in the assessment of English as a foreign language: The impact of background knowledge on the proficiency of Saudi Arabian students learning English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
2.
BickertonD. (1981). Roots of language.Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
3.
BinfordL. (1981). Bones: Ancient men and modern myth.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
BurksA. W. (Ed.). (1957-1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. (Vols. VII-VIII). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
ChomskyN. A. (1956). Three models of the description of language. In LuceR. D., BushR., & GalanterE. (Eds.), Readings in mathematical psychology, II.City: Publisher. (Reprinted from I. R. E. Transactions on Information Theory, IT 2, 113–124.)
6.
ChomskyN. A. (1957). Syntactic structures.The Hague: Mouton.
7.
ChomskyN. A. (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars.Information and Control, 2, 137–167.
8.
ChomskyN. A. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax.Cambridge, MA: MIT.
9.
ChomskyN. A. (1975). Reflections on language.New York: Pantheon.
10.
ChomskyN. A. (1980). On cognitive structures and their development: A reply to Piaget. In Piatelli-PalmariniM. (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 35–54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
ChomskyN. A. (1993). Language and thought.Wakefield, RI: Moyer Bell.
12.
ChomskyN. A., & FodorJ. A. (1980). The inductivist fallacy. In Piatelli-PalmariniM. (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 259–275). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
CrickFrancis (1981). Life itself: Its origin and nature.New York: Simon and Schuster.
14.
DawkinsR. (1996). Climbing mount improbable.New York: Norton.
15.
DeaconT. W. (1997). The symbolic species.New York: Norton.
16.
DentonM. (1986). Evolution: A theory in crisis.Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler.
17.
EldredgeN. (2000). The triumph of evolution and the failure of creationism.New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.
18.
FieldH. (1972). Tarski's theory of truth.Journal of Philosophy, 69, 347–375.
19.
FischM. H., (Eds.). (1982-present). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A chronological edition (Vols. 1-5). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
20.
GiardettiJ. R. (1992). The effect of black and white versus color still photography on meaning and comprehension with implications for selection of effective visual instructional materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
21.
GiardettiJ. R., & OllerJ. W.Jr. (1995). Testing a theory of photographic meaning.Semiotica, 106(1/2), 99–152.
22.
GouldS. J., & EldredgeN. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered.Paleiobiology, 3, 115–151.
23.
HartshorneC., & WeissP. (Eds.). (1931-35). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. (Vols. I-VI). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
HouserN. (1986). Introduction. In FischM. (Eds.), Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A chronological edition, (Vol. 4, pp. xix–lxx). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
25.
HoyleFred (1983). The intelligent universe.London: Michael Joseph.
KakoE. (1999). Elements of syntax in the systems of three language-trained animals.Animal Learning & Behavior, 27(1), 1–14.
28.
KetnerK. L. (Ed.). (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things: The Cambridge Conference's lectures of 1898 by Charles Sanders Peirce.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
KettlewellH. B. D. (1955a). How industrialization can alter species.Discovery, 16(12), 507–511.
30.
KettlewellH. B. D. (1955b). Selection experiments in industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera.Heredity, 9(3), 323–42.
31.
KitcherP. (1982). Abusing science: The case against creationism.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
KitcherP. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions.New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
LakoffG., & JohnsonM. (1987). Metaphors we live by.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
LeakeyR. E. (1994). The origin of humankind.New York: Basic Books.
35.
LeibnizG. W. (1953). Discourse on metaphysics (G. R. Montgomery, Trans.). La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company. (Original work published 1691).
36.
MillerG. A., & ChomskyN. A. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In LuceR. D., BushR., & GalanterE. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, II, (pp. 419–492). New York: Wiley.
37.
NagelE. (1959). Charles Sanders Peirce: A prodigious but little known American philosopher.Scientific American, 200, 185–192.
38.
OllerD. K. (2000). The emergence of the speech capacity.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1981a). Language as intelligence?Language Learning, 31, 465–492.
40.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1981b, February). Words: Genetic and linguistic problems for evolution.Impact, 92, i–iv.
41.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1982, October). Learning and evolution.Impact, 112, i–iv.
42.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1984a, March). C. S. Peirce's “neglected argument.”Impact, 129, i–iv.
43.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1984b, May). Not according to Hoyle.Impact, 131, i–iv.
44.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1988, June). Review of Michael J. Denton. Evolution: A theory in crisis.Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler. Impact, 180, i–iv.
45.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1993). Reasons why some methods work. In OllerJ. W.Jr. (Ed.), Methods that work: Ideas for literacy and language teachers (pp. 374–385). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
46.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1996a). How grammatical relations are determined. In HofferB. (Ed.), The 22nd Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States (LACUS) forum, 1995 (pp. 37–88). Chapel Hill, NC: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States and University of North Carolina Press.
47.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1996b). Semiotic theory applied to free will, relativity, and determinacy: Or why the unified field theory sought by Einstein could not be found.Semiotica, 108(3/4), 199–244.
48.
OllerJ. W.Jr. (1997, May). The mere consistency of signs and creation.Impact, 287, i–iv.
OllerJ. W.Jr., & CollinsS. (2000, August). The logic of true narratives.Global Journal of Classical Theology [On-line], 2(2). Available: http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/tocv2n2.html.
51.
OllerJ. W.Jr., & GiardettiJ. R. (1999). Images that work: Creating successful messages in marketing and high stakes communication.Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
52.
OllerJ. W.Jr., KimK., & ChoeY. (2000a). Applying general sign theory to testing language (verbal) and nonverbal abilities.Language Testing, 17(4), 377–396.
53.
OllerJ. W.Jr., KimK., & ChoeY. (2000b). Testing verbal (language) and nonverbal abilities in language minorities: A socio-educational problem in historical perspective.Language Testing, 17(3), 341–360.
54.
OllerJ. W.Jr., KimK., ChoeY., & JarvisL. H. (2001). Testing verbal (language) and nonverbal abilities in children and adults acquiring a nonprimary language.Language Testing, 18(1), 33–54.
55.
OllerJ. W.Jr., & OmdahlJ. L. (1994). Origin of the human language capacity: In whose image? In MorelandJ. P. (Ed.), The creation hypothesis: Scientific evidence for an intelligent designer (pp. 235–269). Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
56.
PattersonF., & LindenE. (1981). The education of Koko.New York: Holt.
57.
PeirceC. S. (1897). The logic of relatives.The Monist, 7, 161–217.
58.
PeirceC. S. (1932). The icon, index, and symbol. In HartshorneC., & WeissP. (Eds.), Collected papers of C. S. Peirce (Vol. 2, pp. 156–173). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1902).
59.
PeirceC. S. (1908). A neglected argument for the reality of God.Hibbert Journal, 7, 90–112.
60.
PennockR. T. (2000). The tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
PinkerS. (1994). The language instinct.New York: Harper Perennial.
62.
SearleJ. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–458.
63.
SearleJ. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64.
SmithM. D., & DamicoJ. S. (Eds.). (1996). Childhood language disorders.New York: Thieme Medical Publishers.
65.
TairaTatsuo (1993). Episodes on the computer. In OllerJ. W.Jr. (Ed.), Methods that work: Ideas for literacy and language teachers (pp. 309–319). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
66.
TarskiA. (1936). The concept of truth in formalized languages. In WoodgerJ. J. (Ed. and Translator), Logic, semantics, and metamathematics (translated in 1956, pp. 152–278). Oxford: Oxford University.
67.
TarskiA. (1944). The semantic concept of truth. In FeiglH., and SellarsW. (Eds.), Readings in philosophical analysis (pp. 341–374). New York: Appleton.
68.
TobiasP. V. (1996). The dating of linguistic beginnings.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(4), 789–792.
69.
WhiteR. (1989, July). Time, communication and the nervous system.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 50(4), 197–219.
70.
XiaoS., & OllerJ. W.Jr. (1994). Can relatively perfect translation between English and Chinese be achieved?Language Testing, 11, 267–289.
