Metaphysical Considerations Enhance Reverse Engineering Studies
Dominic Halsmer, PhD, PE, Dean, College of Science and Engineering, Oral Roberts University
Jessica Fitzgerald, Undergraduate Engineering Student, Honors Student, Oral Roberts University
ASA Annual Meeting, Naperville, IL, July 29-31, 2011
Abstract
With recent successes in the application of reverse engineering techniques to natural
systems, this approach is being adopted on a more widespread basis, especially in biology.
Reverse engineering encompasses a broad approach that asks many questions. How does the
system work? How was it formed? How does it relate to other systems? What is its function or
purpose? Has it experienced damage or corruption from its initial state? How has this corruption
affected its functionality? These kinds of questions are best answered by considering the wealth
of information that not only comes from direct dissection and analysis of the specimen, but also
the broad range of background information regarding the specimen. In the case of natural
systems, this will typically involve metaphysical considerations.
Methodological naturalism commonly holds sway in the modern scientific enterprise, and
this is understandable. Appeals to the supernatural are typically not thought to be productive
when testing a scientific hypothesis. However, scientific work can be roughly divided into three
stages: testing and data-collection, data-interpretation, and theory-building. And although reverse
engineering makes extensive use of all three of these stages, only the first stage necessarily omits
metaphysical considerations. When it comes to the reverse engineering of natural systems, such
as the living cell, or large collections of cells, data interpretation and theory building are likely to
be enhanced by allowing the consideration of metaphysical interpretations. The historic Christian
worldview asserts that mankind was created by God, but suffered corruption. It is suggested that
metaphysical considerations may be helpful when conducting such reverse engineering studies.
Affordance-Based Reverse Engineering
In industry and research, reverse engineering of man-made systems has been very useful
in developing a theory for the operations, origins, uses, and purposes of such systems. Reverse
engineering not only tells of a system and its qualities; it also speaks of the methods and qualities
of the original engineer, or “designer,” of that system. All of this information may be gathered
through reverse engineering of a system, and there is a specific method, or methods, to follow
when considering a system of which one may know little about.
One method is mentioned by Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel in their paper,
“Affordance-based Design Methods for Innovative Design, Redesign, and Reverse Engineering.”
In this paper they explain that an accurate way to examine a system is by reverse engineering its
components, keeping in mind both positive and negative affordances. An affordance describes
the potential behavior of a system consisting of subsystems such as users and artifacts. 1
Affordances are typically achieved by engineering “a relationship between two interacting
subsystems such that a behavior is possible between the two that is not possible with only one of
the systems in isolation.”2
This novel approach to reverse engineering not only allows an investigator to identify the
functions of the artifact, but also to probe the reasons why the system functions in a certain way
by analyzing the affordances of the system. Looking at a system’s affordances may also open
one’s eyes to a different way of looking at the system functionality: when an affordance
originally looks as if it is a flaw or a negative attribute, it may actually turn out (given more
information) to allow for a positive outcome, both for the subsystems that make up the system
and the ultimate end-user.
Reverse Engineering as a Study in History
Reverse engineering is necessarily a historical pursuit since it deals with a system that
was engineered at some time in the past. In part, it is an effort to recreate the history of the
development of the system by the original engineer, based on analyses of the system in its
current state and the cultural and historical data pertaining to the system. A classic example of
reverse engineering can be seen in the case of the Antikythera Mechanism. This extensively
corroded and damaged artifact was recovered in 1900 from a shipwreck that is thought to have
occurred around 100 BCE. It took multiple investigators the better part of the 20th century to
determine that the complex gearing was engineered to predict the detailed motions of the
heavenly bodies. This fascinating story is expertly told by Jo Marchant in her recent book,
Decoding the Heavens. One of the key investigators was Derek de Solla Price, who had also
solved the mystery of the water clock in the Tower of the Winds in ancient Athens. In describing
his thinking during these two reverse engineering projects, Marchant writes, “When he
reconstructed the missing clock in the Tower of the Winds, Price had succeeded where others
failed by looking at things from the point of view of the ancient craftsman he was trying to
second-guess.”3 This is the typical mindset for any reverse engineering project; what did the
original engineer have in mind? In reverse engineering natural systems, this suggests that
metaphysical considerations might have a significant role to play.
Douglas Geivett acknowledges the interaction between historical studies and
metaphysical considerations in his development of a cumulative case argument for Christianity
in In Defense of Natural Theology. He writes, “Under normal conditions, historians can ignore
these sorts of background [metaphysical] considerations. Much of their work (but certainly not
all of it) is reliable whether they are naturalists or not. Metaphysical commitments make a
difference to historical results. But I don’t need a theist to tell me when and where Lincoln
delivered the Gettysburg Address. In the case of the resurrection, though, conditions are not
“normal.” In this sort of case, one should not investigate the evidence within a metaphysical
vacuum. A historian working from a position of metaphysical neutrality may get skewed results.
A historian operating from a naturalistic commitment most certainly will.”4 It seems reasonable
then to allow for the possibility that metaphysical considerations may assist in some phases of
reverse engineering as a scientific and historical enterprise.
The Scientific Method
Although the scientific method remains difficult to accurately and comprehensively
define, it may be divided into three stages: testing and data-collection, data-interpretation, and
theory-building. Science also relies on the Principle of Objectivity, which states that, “the only
objects or processes that can be properly studied by the scientific method are those that have an
empirical, objective reality (because they are the only ones that can be accurately measured)” In
other words, God is not a tangible, observable entity that can be measured and studied in the lab.
However, Michael Corey argues that God can be a part of the modern scientific method without
being involved in every aspect. Science should remain objective, and God can be considered as
the primary cause for the things we observe without jeopardizing the Principle of Objectivity.
God makes use of “secondary causation” by creating things that continue to carry out processes
on their own following the laws of physics to bring about what we presently observe. Thus
explicit metaphysical considerations may be excluded during testing and data-collection, but
welcomed (for good reasons) during data-interpretation and theory-building.5 Metaphysical
considerations have recently been employed in scientific articles to argue against an intelligent
designer for living systems, as seen in the following section.
Mankind: A Shoddy Piece of Work?
Physicist and science writer Phillip Ball recently published an article in Nature entitled,
“What a shoddy piece of work is man.”6 In this article he expounds on the idea that “the human
body is certainly no masterpiece of intelligent planning.” First of all, for someone to be “certain”
of such a conclusion, one would have to know much more about the origin and destiny of living
systems than mankind currently possesses, or is ever likely to possess. This kind of “overstating
the case” occurs on both sides of the science and theology debate. It is unproductive, often
leading to over-emotional responses, and should be avoided, and quickly corrected when
recognized. Even so, it is understandable how Ball might come to his conclusion when one
considers all the negatives factors associated with not only the human body, but also the human
condition.
Ball refers to the recent work of evolutionary biologist John Avise, who published a book
last year entitled Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design,7 and a PNAS
article entitled, “Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome.”8 Avise makes his
case by pointing out the deadly effects of malfunctioning aspects of the genome, seemingly
wasteful elements, and baroque arrangements that no conscious engineer would conceivably
produce, or even allow. Once again, it should be pointed out that in order to properly judge the
merits of such a hypothesized design, one needs more complete information concerning the
engineering objectives, and other metaphysical factors that might bear on such a design.
Perhaps Ball and Avise might consider other possibilities such as the idea that natural
systems have undergone some kind of corruption throughout their history, or even that the design
engineer allows negative factors to be introduced for the eventual good of his creatures. Instead,
Avise closes his article by asserting that “Evolution by natural causes emancipates religion from
the shackles of theodicy,” since God is no longer responsible for the “gross evil and suffering in
the world.” Avise is corrected on this point in a reply to his article by Michael Murray
(philosopher) and Jacob Schloss (biologist).9 They point out that “positing that God delegated the
task of generating life to insentient evolution merely ushers in an explanatory regress that serves
to illuminate rather than ease the problem of the evils resulting from the operation of nature.”
To Avise’s credit, he appears to receive this correction, as made evident in his response
to Murray and Schloss,10 and is humble enough to invite non-scientists into the dialogue. In
reference to “molecular faults that cause vast human suffering,” he writes, “It is now time for
theologians to step up to the plate and perhaps help us to understand the philosophical
implications of this rather disturbing reality.” This openness to cross-disciplinary dialogue with
non-scientists is a welcome development that should be applauded by both sides of the debate.
Engineers should also join the scientists and theologians at the plate since much of the discussion
involves the reverse engineering of complex biological systems. In addition, this is the kind of
dialogue that should especially be going on at Christian universities around the world. Students
in science, engineering and theology all benefit from interdisciplinary dialogue when wrestling
with the worldview implications of new discoveries. This paper derives from just such an
interdisciplinary research group of undergraduate honors students under the direction of the Dean
of the College of Science and Engineering at Oral Roberts University.11
Example: Affordance-based Reverse Engineering of the Mind Body System
The National Academy of Engineering recently announced that one of its grand
challenges for the next century is to “reverse engineer the human brain.” This is not surprising
given the widespread success experienced by those who are currently applying reverse
techniques and the engineering mindset to biological systems.12 But the fact that such systems
are so readily and profitably reverse engineered suggests that such systems were engineered in
the first place.13 The kind of fabulous engineering we see in living systems (in spite of possible
damage or corruption14) implies purpose or teleology. In addition, the affordances resulting from
the mind-body system strongly supports this conclusion. Psychologist John Pickering of
Warwick University agrees that such affordances (as detailed below) are powerful signs of
meaning and purpose.15
Although the mind-body system for human beings is incredibly complex, Oxford
Philosopher Richard Swinburne provides a lucid description of the significant affordances that
“naturally” arise.16 These affordances can be tabulated in an affordance structure matrix format
suggested by Maier.17
Figure 1. Affordance Structure Matrix for the Mind-Body System (adapted from Swinburne)
X
X
X
X
Sensors
X
X
Processor
X
Memory
Actuators
X
Info. Pathways
Knowledge
X
X
X
X
Desires
X
X
X
X
Reasoning
X
X
X
X
Purposes
X
X
X
X
Free Will
X
X
X
X
Pos. Actions
X
X
X
X
X
Neg. Actions
X
X
X
X
X
Affect World
X
X
X
X
X
Bibliography
1. Maier, J., Affordance Based Design: Theoretical Foundations and Practical
Applications, VDM Verlag, 2011.
2. Maier, J. R. A. and G. M. Fadel, "Affordance Based Design Methods for Innovative
Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering." Research in Engineering Design. 20(4):
225-239, 2009.
3. Marchant, J., Decoding the Heavens:A 2,000-Year-Old Computer and the Century-long
Search to Discover Its Secrets, Da Capo Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 145, 2010.
4. Geivett, D., "David Hume and a Cumulative Case Argument" (Chapter 14), In In Defense
of Natural Theology, ed. James F. Sennett & Douglas Groothuis, Intervarsity Press,
Downers Grove, IL, p. 312, 2006.
5. Corey, M.A., The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in our “Just Right” Goldilocks
Universe, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, p. 167, 2001.
6. Ball, P., What a Shoddy Piece of Work is Man, Nature News Online, May 3, 2010.
7. Avise, J.C., Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2010.
8. Avice, J.C., Footprints of Non-sentient Design Inside the Human Genome, Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA, 107 no. Supplement 2, pp. 8969-8976, May 11, 2010.
9. Murray M.J. & Schloss, J.P., Evolution, Design, and Genomic Suboptimality: Does
Science “Save Theology”? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107:E121, 2010.
10. Avise, J.C., Reply to Murray and Schloss: Designer Genes? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,
107:E121, 2010.
11. Halsmer, D. et al, Exploring Connections between Engineering and Human Spirituality,
presented at the ASEE Annual Conference in Louisville, KY, June 20-23, 2010.
12. Tomlin, C.J. & Axelrod, J.D., Understanding Biology by Reverse Engineering the
Control, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 102, pp. 4219-4220, March 22, 2005.
13. Halsmer, D., Halsmer, N., Johnson, R., and Wanjiku, J., The Applicability of Engineering
Design Principles in the Formulation of a Coherent Cosmology and Worldview,
presented at the ASEE Annual Conference in Pittsburgh, PA, June 22-25, 2008.
14. Halsmer, D. et al, “Affordance-based Reverse Engineering of Natural Systems with
Possible Corruption” (paper presented at the Christian Engineering Education
Conference, Vancouver, BC, June 30-July 1, 2011).
15. Pickering, J., Affordances are Signs, TripleC, 5(2), pp. 64-74, 2007.
16. Swinburne, R., The Existence of God, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
17. Maier, J.R.A., Ezhilan, T. & Fadel, G.M., The Affordance Structure Matrix – A Concept
Exploration and Attention Directing Tool for Affordance Based Design, Proceedings of
the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Information in
Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, NV, Paper no. DETC2007-34526, 2003.