Naturalism is a priori evolutionary materialism, so it both begs the question and self-refutes

_{kairosfocus

October 19, 2010

Academic Freedom, Atheism, Darwinism, Design inference, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The thesis expressed in the title of this “opening bat” post is plainly controversial, and doubtless will be hotly contested and/or pointedly ignored. However, when all is said and done, it will be quite evident that it has the merit that it just happens to be both true and well-warranted.

So, let us begin.

Noted Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag in his well-known January 1997 New York Review of Books article, “Billions and Billions of Demons”:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . .

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that

we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Emphases added.]

No wonder, a few months later, noted Intelligent Design thinker Philip Johnson aptly rebutted, in First Things:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

The matter is actually as simple as that.

In the end, that’s why there is so much heat and smoke rather than light in the controversy over Evolution, Creation and Design. For, much is at stake institutionally, educationally and culturally, and yet it turns on something so simple and obviously fallacious as aggressive materialist ideology-driven begging of worldview questions presented under the false colours of science.

Now, them’s fighting words, so let us justify them by citing what the US National Academy of Science wrote in the 2008 edition of their long-running pamphlet, Science, Evolution and Creationism:

In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it. Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, 2008, p. 10 Emphases added.]

Observe that ever so subtly loaded imposition: science “must” explain by natural causes. That is, by matter, energy, space, time, their spontaneous interactions on chance and mechanical necessity, thence what plausibly derives from that on the evolutionary materialist narrative, including life and intelligence.

Immediately, we should ask: just what is “natural”? And, right after that: why is it contrasted to “supernatural” (instead of say, “artificial”)? [More . . . ]

Comments

kf and all, This new clip from a new 2010 Bill Wiese video may interest you: Bill Wiese - 23 Minutes In Hell - High Quality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5391398/bornagain77_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, don’t see it as a dilemma for ID. I think you may be confusing a stated opposition to strictly materialistic scientific explanantions with stated opposition to materialistic metaphysics. Both battles are waged by ID proponets on both fronts for sure. I think you are lumping in two disticnt arguments and treting them as one ths in your view a dilemma. Well, this is a whole other topic than what I'm getting into here. I think it's a dilemma only in the sense that ID, at least on this site, is presented largely as an opposing contrast to 'materialism' (I think it's right on the 'about' page), but now we're seeing at least nominally 'materialistic' ID proposals. (I say nominally because, again, materialism is just hard to pin down anymore.) That's all. For the record, Dembski himself says ID is open to many 'scenarios', including simulated universes and so on, so I'm aware that it's not some utterly unforeseen thing. More of a question 'Is the Big Tent THAT big?' Why not? Although that is not ID’s call is it? Well, yes and no. If Professor Z makes an ID argument and insists he's a staunch materialist and rejects ID and so on and so forth, he's still making an ID argument and ID proponents should count his views among the tent, it could be so argued. I don't object to dragging someone kicking and screaming into the big tent. Then again, I have a sense of humor about that sort of thing.nullasalus_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

null "The problem is that presents a kind of dilemma for ID, in that there is (certainly on this site) a stated opposition to materialism, with that opposition being a facet of ID itself" I don't see it as a dilemma for ID. I think you may be confusing a stated opposition to strictly materialistic scientific explanantions with stated opposition to materialistic metaphysics. Both battles are waged by ID proponets on both fronts for sure. I think you are lumping in two disticnt arguments and treting them as one ths in your view a dilemma. null "So should ID proponents bite the bullet and claim these guys for their ‘big tent’? That’s one hell of a topic." Why not? Although that is not ID's call is it? Vividvividbleau_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Who are making concessions like this? Has anyone on this site ever made such a concession? Are you saying that we are somehow conceding their impossible claims when we demand that they tell us how in the world it could be possible, understanding as we do that it isn’t. I am stating that I am at least seeing language used, repeatedly, which grants that there do exist processes which are blind, unguided, non-foresighted, etc. I don't know whether it's granted for the sake of argument (I would assume so), because of a metaphysical commitment (possibly, but I doubt it), or some other reason. But I'm reading the words and quoting them at you. I'm not the one describing various processes as blind, unguided, non-foresighted, etc. Do you deny that others are, even in this thread? And if you don't, can you explain how I should take these words? I have every confidence that you will finally tell me what you mean because I really do want to know. What 'finally'? I'm not even sure what question you're asking me here. How, in principle, a theist could see that mutation and selection are in fact guided? Are you asking me how an ID proponent can argue in favor of intervention while granting that the more mundane processes are ultimately guided besides?nullasalus_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

---nullasalus: "And that includes concessions that natural selection or mutation or evolution are unguided, purposeless, blind, unforesighted, etc." Who are making concessions like this? Has anyone on this site ever made such a concession? Are you saying that we are somehow conceding their impossible claims when we demand that they tell us how in the world it could be possible, understanding as we do that it isn't. --"I even said, go right ahead and argue that these processes cannot accomplish what they’re claimed to – but you can do that without arguing these processes are themselves (instantiated in nature) unguided, and so on." I have every confidence that you will finally tell me what you mean because I really do want to know.StephenB_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

---nullasalus, here is the language in which you expressed it the point I am asking you to follow up on: ...."some ID proponents seem to accept, or even accept for the sake of argument, that various processes in nature (mutation, selection, evolution, etc) are unguided, undirected, and so on." Now that we have the language exactly right, will you tell me why you believe this.StephenB_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Greetings all. Forgive me if I don't write exhaustively complete replies today - busy day for me, but I appreciate the polite disagreements here and wish to hit as many points as I can in one go. vividbleau, As long as the design hypothesis is compatible with materialism it will be embraced. Thats ok with me. Sure, and I think there's merit and grounding for accepting that sort of ID. The problem is that presents a kind of dilemma for ID, in that there is (certainly on this site) a stated opposition to materialism, with that opposition being a facet of ID itself. But design arguments are being made by people who present themselves as naturalists and at least materialists-in-name. So should ID proponents bite the bullet and claim these guys for their 'big tent'? That's one hell of a topic. StephenB, [a] Although we have bounced it back and forth a few times, I still find that you have provided no evidence that any mainstream ID proponent [or anyone on this thread] believes that the laws of nature were not designed. Again I ask, where did I claim this about 'laws'? My focus has been on ID proponents regarding evolution, mutation, and natural selection as 'unguided processes' and so on. And even there, my intention was not to accuse and denounce, but to say 'this is what I'm seeing you say, this is how I interpret it, and if I'm correct than this is the problem.' I'm not out to prove that 'mainstream ID proponents argue laws are not designed'. Maybe you can read me that way if you regard mutation and selection and evolution as 'laws', but that's a funny way to put it. [b] Granted that the discussions about evolution often take place at the intersection of science and philosophy, I can find no justification for your argument that Darwinists should not be challenged either on an empirical or philosophical basis. And this I have *never* said. I've been arguing the opposite - that no concessions should be made to Darwinists. And that includes concessions that natural selection or mutation or evolution are unguided, purposeless, blind, unforesighted, etc. I even said, go right ahead and argue that these processes cannot accomplish what they're claimed to - but you can do that without arguing these processes are themselves (instantiated in nature) unguided, and so on. above, Well, I'm glad someone other than me is on board with this! And Myers is hilarious - he's shredding the New Atheists even as we speak with his 'no evidence possible' schtick. Free thinking, indeed. The naturalism bit (and to a lesser degree, the physical bit) hit me like a ton of bricks when I first realized what was going on with the term. I'm also intrigued that you 'reject the supernatural/natural dichotomy', because that dichotomy is part of the bluff in my view. Again, the Barr/Behe debate touched on that - things that were 'supernatural', once they seemed to be evident, became 'natural' by fiat. I think Keith Ward has said explicitly that the multiverse hypothesis (to give an example) is supernatural by any previous reasonable definition of the term. CannuckianYankee, Nobody is pretending anything here. The point in asking for a demonstration is to show that such a demonstration will not occur. I think you are misunderstanding me. When I say 'no demonstration is possible', I'm not saying 'Well, it's possible in principle to empirically demonstrate this - but it's false so this won't happen'. I'm saying 'in principle, this demonstration is not possible'. Again, it's like 'observing something coming from absolutely nothing without cause'. It's not going to happen. Not because 'that doesn't happen'. Grant for the sake of argument that it DOES happen. That it happens all day, constantly, all around you. You still will never observe it - it is beyond empirical demonstration. Confusing people into thinking that this *can* be empirically demonstrated is the source of a lot of problems here. Even if ID becomes the accepted paradigm in science, it doesn’t do away with materialism, precisely because materialism is a choice, and not a logical conclusion based on any evidence. Materialism has everything to do with the denial of God. Actually, if ID is compatible with materialism, materialism is compatible with full-blown gods. It may not be the God of classical theism, but it sure is compatible with Zeus and Thor and the like. And I challenge any defender of the simulation hypothesis and similar to explain how Odin can be a god, but a full-blown creator of our universe is not. The only alternative is to conclude that pagans with the wildest pantheons were naturalists. The Big Bang theory didn’t lead to a logically coherent theory on the origin of the universe in wake of this materialistic noise. Instead it led to further speculation about multiverses, etc., because materialists do not want the universe to have a beginning. If the universe has a beginning, the materialists would have to concede the coherence of the cosmological argument. Multiverses do not themselves get rid of an ultimate beginning. Hawking, as far as I read, does not deny such a beginning. Neither does Dennett, as per the quote. They don't concede anything - they simply start accepting what once was regarded as absurd. Again, here's the Dennett quote tgp provided: One of my Dennett favorites is from Breaking The Spell, he says on page 244: “It (the universe) … does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo.” That's Dennett, famous philosopher from Tufts. I humbly submit that if you are expecting self-styled naturalists to make concessions in the face of either powerful metaphysical argument OR empirical data, your expectations will come for naught. They are limited only by their imaginations. Kairosfocus, When we pursue the cases on origin and body plan level diversification of life, they drastically undermine the heavily pushed notion that life on earth can be explained on matter and energy interacting spontaneously by blind chance and necessity across time, through chem evo, abiogenesis and darwinian or similar macroevo. Here we go again. There is no empirical demonstration of 'blind chance' possible - not in the sense naturalists need. And 'necessity' just rolls us back to questions of laws, which are easily argued as instances of design. Let's say they - against all odds - were able to demonstrate that there exists some accessible pathway for abiogenesis, of macroevolutionary body plans, etc. The problem is that this would be, upon the instant, a demonstration of a viable design route! It would show that the development of life, of codes, of development, was a design feature of the universe itself. I contend that the mere existence of coded language in nature, of ferociously advanced technology in nature, is evidence (even empirical evidence!) of design *regardless of how this design came about*. If natural processes wrote Shakespeare, that would be tremendous evidence that nature itself was designed. So why write or speak about 'blind' or 'unguided' anything, as if this was empirically demonstrated, or even could be? And let me make the practical argument as well: I have a low opinion of Biologos, and so far they've largely stood as a monolithic example of why ID proponents rightly are deeply suspicious of many TEs. But notice that when Biologos moved in the direction of hinting that evolution was itself a guided process, Dawkins denounced them in a rage. Notice that when Francis Collins was nominated to the position he now has, they reaction wasn't one of celebration (Hooray! An evolution-celerating Christian in a prominent position! That'll spread the word of evolution!) but terror. They are afraid, very afraid, of people making ID arguments based on evolution itself. Whether its Simon Conway Morris or Mike Gene or Denton or anyone else, it spooks them deeply. And note, I'm talking about sincere arguments in favor of a guided, teleological, foresighted evolution and nature, not the 'it's totally random and purposeless but it's still design' self-contradiction. Now, I'm not saying this is all ID should be. Frankly, if you want to argue that these processes can't accomplish what they're claimed to - again, go for it. You may well be right. But ID is a big tent, and supposedly front-loading and so on is supposed to fit under that tent - ID as a collection of ideas with a common thrust, rather than as one specific proposal and such. And if that's truly the case, again I suggest - do not make the 'blind' concession on natural selection or mutation or anything else in nature. It's not empirically evident, it's not necessary for your positions or your arguments, and it only advances what amounts to a naturalist con game.nullasalus_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Null, "Keep your eye on them. Because if ever the popular idea arose in academia that certain aspects of our universe and of nature must be explained by design, they won’t even have to give up materialism, much less reduce their opposition to those specific religions they dislike." Yes, you are quite right. Even if ID becomes the accepted paradigm in science, it doesn't do away with materialism, precisely because materialism is a choice, and not a logical conclusion based on any evidence. Materialism has everything to do with the denial of God. Because the current ID theorists are not materialists, they will somehow claim the design argument as their own and not give credit where credit is due. Or perhaps another scenario: Even now the materialists are attempting to divorce theistic assumptions from science history - Bacon, Newton et al were scientists first and theists second, and their science had nothing to do with their theism - and other such assertions. Now the IDists are accused of positing ID theory out of their a priori theism. When the tables turn, the materialists will say that it had nothing to do with their theism.CannuckianYankee_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Null, "Look at the example of the Big Bang again. Notice the pattern: When it was speculative, when it was a fresh idea, it was supernatural. Even outside the bounds of science. But when the evidence mounted, did all cosmologists suddenly convert to theism? Did most of them? Many? Or did they shift gears, re-baptize the idea as entirely natural, put their own spin on it, and try to wield it *against* religious believers?" This is an excellent point, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with your larger issue. Materialists will be materialists not because there's any physical evidence for materialism, but because they don't want to be religious. My father is a materialist. He's not a scientist, so he's not committed to anything based on science, but he makes certain assumptions about what religion is, and based on those assumptions, he doesn't want any part of it. And the interesting thing is that his 3 daughters and I are all now Christians. He spends much of his time among Christians who all have a strong witness, yet he continues to believe there is no God. The point is that materialists aren't materialists because there is no strong witness against their rationalizations from the other side, but because they choose to be so. It has nothing to do with evidence or logic. It has everything to do with choice. My dad is a very intelligent man and quite capable - perhaps more than I, of making rational decisions, but with regard to God, he chooses what he believes. Most materialists won't even deal with the issue of whether God exists. As I argued in another thread, they avoid the positive arguments for God's existence, and they focus on denialist arguments - strawen mainly. You can ask them to demonstrate that God does not exist, and they will most likely tell you that it can't be demonstrated. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't say "there is no God," rather "there probably is no God." Did it ever occur to you that it can't be demonstrated not because it is a metaphysical question, but because it simply isn't true? You can't demonstrate what isn't true. Thus to ask for a demonstration that won't have success is to help the materialist (or in this case, the atheist) to make the appropriate choice in the matter. Your Big Bang example illustrates the issue just fine. Big Bang cosmology screams for God, yet the materialists didn't hear; or they heard, and they quickly drowned out the sound with materialistic noise. The Big Bang theory didn't lead to a logically coherent theory on the origin of the universe in wake of this materialistic noise. Instead it led to further speculation about multiverses, etc., because materialists do not want the universe to have a beginning. If the universe has a beginning, the materialists would have to concede the coherence of the cosmological argument. This is why we ask the same sorts of questions with regard to cosmology. Theist: Can you demonstrate that there is a multiverse? Materialist: Well, no but it just makes sense. Theist: How does it make sense? Etc. You get the gist of where this goes. It doesn't go where you think because the theist is conceding that there could possibly be a multiverse. The theist is merely helping the materialist to make the right parsimonious choice in the matter, that the origin of the universe - everything that physically exists began at the Big Bang singularity and not anywhere else according to the evidence we have, and not according to speculation. It's the same with Darwinism. Darwinism is a speculation due to materialistic investments. We get the Darwinist to attempt to demonstrate actual Darwinian processes, and we get him/her to rule out the speculation. Will they do so? Probably not. They are still committed materialists, let's not forget. But some of them will. Some here on this blog were once committed materialists who chose to be theists based on just such tactics. Actually it's not even a tactic. God's truth speaks for itself.CannuckianYankee_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

F/N: While worldview-level core claims cannot be proved (they tend to be start-points in thinking) they can be comparatively examined by comparative difficulties with live option alternatives. And, in some cases they turn out to be factually inadequate, or logically/dynamically incoherent, or simply either simplistic or plainly such an ad hoc patchwork that they fail the test of elegantly powerful simplicity.kairosfocus_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus -“I disagree with everyone, pain in the ass that I am” I’m sorry to inform you but I agree with much that you have said in this thread. -“If you truly believe – and I say there’s great warrant to believe – that the universe is designed from top to bottom, then don’t concede evolutionary processes as unguided. Don’t even give the impression that you do” Exactly! Why grant the atheist the privilege of claiming ‘natural processes’ as his own and in term “bastardize” them into a notion ridden with metaphysical presuppositions such as unguided and purposeless? The atheist has no right to claim them as such and I agree (hence my rejection of the natural/supernatural false dichotomy). Your approach is a lot more aggressive and I like it. Concede nothing indeed! Trivia: The word stochastic has its origins from Greek (stochos). The word literally means target, which of course is a synonym for purpose. Interesting is it not? :above_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Null, "There is no demonstrating metaphysical claims in the sense under discussion. That’s the problem, and the point. No empirical demonstration for ‘not guided or designed’ exists, even for the very processes Darwinists themselves lean on. Pretending that there can be confuses the issue deeply." Nobody is pretending anything here. The point in asking for a demonstration is to show that such a demonstration will not occur. It's to help the materialist first ask the appropriate question: "does this really happen?" and then for them to answer it for themselves, because clearly they aren't asking the right question.CannuckianYankee_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Null: I am using the same precise scientific methods that the evo mat advocates say they stand on, to highlight the critical crack in their thought system's foundation. In other words, I am exposing a critical point of incoherence, once the imposed a priorism is blocked from begging the question. Per empirical reliability and induction on that, there are credible signs of intelligently directed configuration that -- though they don't show up in all cases where design may well hold in the end -- do show up in certain key cases. When we pursue the cases on origin and body plan level diversification of life, they drastically undermine the heavily pushed notion that life on earth can be explained on matter and energy interacting spontaneously by blind chance and necessity across time, through chem evo, abiogenesis and darwinian or similar macroevo. That snaps the main rhetorical wedge used by the evo mat advocates. And, when we see the tactics used to suppress that message getting out, that underscores just how serious a blow it is. Then, when we look at the observed cosmos, we see that its physics is at a finely tuned operating point that makes C-chemistry cell based life possible. Again, that points to design. But, this time, it is pointing to extra-cosmic design of the physics of the universe. Implicating a powerful, intelligent, deeply knowledgeable, technically sophisticated extra-cosmic designer. That of course strongly suggests that the laws of chance and necessity are designed, and that he initial conditions of the cosmos were also designed. All, on empirical methods that start with the commonplace scientific methods we all have learned from grade school on. Save this, we have not allowed a priori evolutionary materialism to censor our thinking and impose conclusions that beg big questions. In turn that raises serious questions about how the neo-magisterium is operating, and highlights the significance of the a priorism, and the further significance of their vaunted methodological naturalism. This resort now takes on the aspect of a thin edge of the wedge, especially as we can see that natural vs supernatural is a rhetorically loaded contrast, where the alternative long since put from the days of Plato: nature vs art [techne] is empirically well supported. So, far form "conceding" a claim, we are exposing a hidden agenda of censorship and imposition. In turn, we can further show that evolutionary materialism is not only question-begging [and too often backed up by bully boy tactics], but it is arguably self-refuting. So, the crack in the foundations of the proud edifice of evolutionary materialist secular humanism and its handmaiden ideologised science are yawning ever wider, and the building is beginning to creak and sway alarmingly. But we must recognise that, on track record, "shoot the messenger who brings bad news" is still very much with us. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus (again) -"Why shouldn’t I determine what you call ‘chance’ and ‘mechanical necessity’ to itself be the product of design, or even an instance of design? " I think Del Ratzch made that suggestion as well.above_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

@nullasalus You have explicated an idea I have been playing with for a while now. -“ Naturalism is mush. Clay. It hardly means anything anymore, and in the hands of a self-described “naturalist” the definition changes to whatever is most convenient for him.” You are absolutely correct. I could not agree with you more. Every month there is a new flavor naturalism in an attempt to either avoid the fact that reality simply does not appear to be so or to attempt and fabricate pseudo-explanations for certain aspects of reality that are incompatible with naturalism. So to correct the usually laughably erroneous pz meyers: -“[nature/naturalism]* is always vague and undefined and most annoyingly, plastic — suggest a test and it is always redefined safely away from the risk” *I substituted nature/naturalism to rid the statement of its irony and make the statement logically coherent.above_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

nullasalus, thanks for the comments. Although I disagree with your current themes, I appreciate your generous spirit. First, I would like to take a brief pause to retract a comment I made about Stephen Barr. I wrote this: "Eugenie Scott has suggested that this metaphysical language about “unguided evolution” be taken out of the textbooks as a response to public complaints from ID critics who rightly protested that Darwinists were stacking the deck in favor of Godless evolution. She was less concerned about the intellectual dishonesty involved and more concerned about the fact that the propagandistic cat had ben let out of the bag and wanted to remove the evidence. Indeed, she asked her fellow materialist Darwinists to hide their prejudices so they could be more successful in implementing their brainwashing strategy on young skulls full of mush. I suspect that if the cat could have remained concealed, Barr would have been OK with the language. It never appeared to bother him until the Darwinists got outed, and he never raised the issue until Behe raised it." If I had begun with the phrase, "I wonder if," one might be able to make the case that I had pushed the envelope to the edge and no more. By using the words, "I suspect that," I went over the top. I must learn to be more charitable to those with whom I disagree. On the other matters under discussion, I will restrict myself to two comments: [a] Although we have bounced it back and forth a few times, I still find that you have provided no evidence that any mainstream ID proponent [or anyone on this thread] believes that the laws of nature were not designed. [b] Granted that the discussions about evolution often take place at the intersection of science and philosophy, I can find no justification for your argument that Darwinists should not be challenged either on an empirical or philosophical basis.StephenB_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

null "The ID critics of today can become the ID proponents of tomorrow. And if you don’t believe that, just look at Francis Crick in his moment of weakness." null you are so right about this. The reason ID recieves so much push back is because of the metaphysical implication ( God). Take this distatsteful implication out of the equation and voila design is no longer a problem. As long as the design hypothesis is compatible with materialism it will be embraced. Thats ok with me. Vividvividbleau_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, That's okay. I never discuss expecting to convince. If we’re not supposed to ask the Darwinists to show us how unguided natural selection can lead to a “designoid,” then as stephenB rightly pointed out, we are then conceding. We are not conceding to their metaphysic by simply asking them to demonstrate it. There is no demonstrating metaphysical claims in the sense under discussion. That's the problem, and the point. No empirical demonstration for 'not guided or designed' exists, even for the very processes Darwinists themselves lean on. Pretending that there can be confuses the issue deeply. Again, look at StephenB's own example of causality. Do things really come into existence from utter nothingness, utterly uncaused? Whatever you believe, this is simply not open to empirical demonstration. Even StephenB himself realizes this - he's explicitly argued that 'ex nihilo nihil fit' is not something we learn empirically, it's a rule of reason that comes before empirical investigation. But you know what? There's quite a number of people who mistakenly believe otherwise. They do think that this is something that can be empirically demonstrated. I think that's a considerable problem. The point in this is that by asking someone to demonstrate what we already strongly and reasonably suspect cannot be demonstrated You didn't ask for empirical observation though, did you? Your argument was a philosophical one, a logical one. Would your argument have been better served if you said 'show me empirical evidence that there is no truth!' and he shot back with some quantum mysticism? Wouldn't that have confused the issue deeply? Would you have made progress with him? Do you think it's unlikely you would have gone *backward* in the discussion? I don't understand how you think I'm conceding anything. My argument here is the opposite: Concede nothing. Or rather, when your opponent is your opponent precisely due to metaphysics, don't rely on empirical observation to do the job. I'm not even saying don't rely on empirical observation at all - make the ID arguments. But do not concede points needlessly. If you truly believe - and I say there's great warrant to believe - that the universe is designed from top to bottom, then don't concede evolutionary processes as unguided. Don't even give the impression that you do. In other words, we are asking questions to arrive at certain answers, for which we might already have a strong indication that the answers might confirm what we already suspect. Look at the example of the Big Bang again. Notice the pattern: When it was speculative, when it was a fresh idea, it was supernatural. Even outside the bounds of science. But when the evidence mounted, did all cosmologists suddenly convert to theism? Did most of them? Many? Or did they shift gears, re-baptize the idea as entirely natural, put their own spin on it, and try to wield it *against* religious believers? And why could they? Because they can and will speculate about whatever they wish. They're not playing the same game as you. Consistency doesn't matter, and ideas are attached to not as points of principle but for their utility. KF is correct in my view that these things should be exposed no matter what the cost – and if you look at it, those who are doing the exposing are paying the price. They aren’t paying the price because they conceded to metaphysical materialism, but precisely because they opposed it. I know they are, though again, I don't think 'materialism' has as much to do with it as you think. Nor am I saying 'don't fight them'. If you think I'm saying that, I have no idea why. If anything I'm saying fight them on every ground, and make no pointless concessions. But since so many seem to think that this comes down to materialism, I will note something again: I brought up John Gribbin and Nick Bostrom as proposing ID ideas. Sir Martin Rees and others have openly speculated that our universe may be simulated. These guys ideas are somewhat on the fringe now, but let me give a bit of prophetic warning. Keep your eye on them. Because if ever the popular idea arose in academia that certain aspects of our universe and of nature must be explained by design, they won't even have to give up materialism, much less reduce their opposition to those specific religions they dislike. The simulation hypothesis, the Gribbin or Biocosm hypothesis, will be wide open to them. The ID critics of today can become the ID proponents of tomorrow. And if you don't believe that, just look at Francis Crick in his moment of weakness.nullasalus_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Null, I'm afraid I side with KF and stephenB on this one (probably no surprise there). I respect your position, and in fact, I have considered it at some length. If we're not supposed to ask the Darwinists to show us how unguided natural selection can lead to a "designoid," then as stephenB rightly pointed out, we are then conceding. We are not conceding to their metaphysic by simply asking them to demonstrate it. Recently a young man told me that he did not accept the concept of truth - he believes that all truth is relative to each individual. At that point I asked him to explain this rationally. Of course he couldn't - after a long discussion regarding self-evident laws of logic, he very appropriately conceded that he couldn't demonstrate this to me because it might not be "my truth," and he was quite comfortable in it being only for him. The point in this is that by asking someone to demonstrate what we already strongly and reasonably suspect cannot be demonstrated, is not a concession to what they believe. We are asking them to take what they believe and to apply it to reality in order to hopefully lead to a concession on their part that it can't be done. In other words, we are asking questions to arrive at certain answers, for which we might already have a strong indication that the answers might confirm what we already suspect. KF is correct in my view that these things should be exposed no matter what the cost - and if you look at it, those who are doing the exposing are paying the price. They aren't paying the price because they conceded to metaphysical materialism, but precisely because they opposed it.CannuckianYankee_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, Thank you for the reply. Going to work this one in reverse. Null, i hope this is able to make it clear to you that I do not START from the asumption that chance and necessity are designed and so everything is “known” to be designed. Such a view would make it seem that inference to design on signs of design is useless. I did not say you did start there, or even that you should start there (at least, not in the context of ID). My problem is that from what I'm seeing, some ID proponents seem to concede from the start that natural processes, mechanisms, and objects are not themselves designed. If they insisted on neutrality, or a ruling that such questions are themselves metaphysical in nature rather than scientific, that would be one thing. Instead I see it conceded in essence that yes, mutation and selection are in fact random, chance, unguided, undirected, non-foresighted, etc things and not designed. StephenB insists that's not the case - I say, the language certainly seems to indicate otherwise, which is why I'm bringing this up. Nor is my suggestion to say that we 'know' all these things are designed. If ID's focus is elsewhere, focus on that elsewhere - but don't make this concession. Stephen Barr, in his debate with Behe, strongly objected to allowing nature to be so marked - and Behe seemed to agree with Barr that regarding nature as such is both an importation of atheist metaphysics, and incorrect besides. p –> The signs of chance and of necessity as proximate causal factors are non-controversial: stochastic processes, lawlike regularities and the like. What is controversial is the status of those processes and lawlike regularities with regard to design. Further, both the stochastic processes and the lawlike regularities are themselves, within the context of science, models. Is the universe itself stochastic (say, at the quantum level)? That question science does not address, and (as I've seen others say) 'well most of the scientists think it is' doesn't change that. e –> There is a time and place for compromise, but there is a time where one has to stand on the hill with the pruning hook one has beaten into an impromptu spear and be willing to die for “wee bit hill and glen.” Well, that's a point I'm trying to make. You realize that the problem in question is one of metaphysical motivation, rather than one of scientific evidence. Clearly. So your response is to leave metaphysics entirely aside, or even grant certain controversial (and in my view, flat out wrong) points for the sake of argument, simply in order to make a 'scientific' argument - that your opponents don't even recognize as scientific, in large part because their metaphysics and other non-scientific concerns are running the show? This is like having to do a term paper for a teacher who deeply dislikes you personally and intends to give you an F no matter what you present - and coming up with the plan 'I'll just have to write the best essay possible!' That's the part of your reply that shocks me. You know that this is a metaphysical, a philosophical, even a theological bias on the part of that 'neo-magisterium'. You know that the problems are ultimately metaphysical in nature. So your response is to put all the metaphysical claims aside, or even yield them in some cases (Unless I read that wrong), and focus on empirical claims? I know I just gave an example here, but I'm doing it to stress a point: Why do you think Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure? Because he wasn't good enough at science? g –> This is because, precisely, they are committed to a priori evolutionary materialism, and on such premises something like Darwinian mechanisms MUST be responsible for life as we find it. As naturalists, they hold that there is nothing else “there” in reality to account for it. And this is another point where I think things are mistaken. First off, evolutionary mechanisms do not suffice to get them where they want to be. They must, and do, take that extra step and import their metaphysics, saying 'and these processes are totally random and unguided and without purpose!' The science doesn't, and can't, show that. So they simply assert it, however they can. Further, I again say that the metaphysical commitment is broader. They are committed to 'evolution' only because that's what they've invested themselves in for so long. Think of it this way... decades ago, someone may have made the argument that atheists *need* a static universe, an eternal universe - and the Big Bang is the antidote to that. Have the science indicate that the universe had a beginning, and the entire atheist mindset falls upon the instant! It would have sounded compelling at the time too, because for a long time the steady state model was king, the eternal universe model was not only assumed, but anything else was regarded as supernatural (this came up in Behe v Barr too). Fast forward to today - atheists have adapted quite well. While I won't comment on how convincing their arguments are, just look. Stephen Hawking writes a book saying that the universe popped into existence out of nothing "because laws!", basically. Dennett says the universe created itself ex nihilo. Oh, and not only is it no longer supernatural, it's natural and so is a 'mother universe' mindlessly spewing off new space-times like something out of Lovecraft. This change happened practically overnight as far as time-scales go. And essentially no science was required on their part to make this move. Can you ask for a better example of why this really isn't about evolution itself at heart? Do you at least see why I say that atheists, and the sort of 'naturalists' of which you speak, are vastly more adaptable than most give them credit for? Naturalism is the Calvinball of metaphysical positions. b –> As SB rightly observed, some seek to accommodate to that situation by speaking of darwinian processes as a part of the teleological picture in specifically Christian contexts, and dropping teleological claims in evo-mat dominated circles. I'm aware of the hypocrisy and I condemn it openly. But it's the hypocrisy I condemn. Claiming that evolutionary processes (Not 'Darwinian', since 'Darwinian' would mean taking a specifically anti-design, anti-guidance, anti-teleological stance) are themselves designed and instances of design is not the problem. The hypocrisy is, the insincerity is. Or do you disagree? Is the hypocrisy the problem, or the fact that they're opening a design front by arguing that evolution - included mutation, selection, and even macroevolution - are themselves teleological processes, guided processes? >> biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. [Elsewhere, appar. in the opening arguments of The Blind Watchmaker [and on comparing Mt Rushmore with a rock formation in Hawaii that can cast a shadow looking like JFK's profile], he defines that systems which only appear to be designed should be viewed as “designoid.”] >> You have no need to convince me that there is a deep institutional opposition to design and teleology. And frankly, I don't think much of Dawkins as a scientist. He's a good writer and little more.nullasalus_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

kf, not to detract from the obviousness of letting the evidence speak for itself, I think you will get a smile out of this: An eccentric professor, thinking to have some fun with a small boy who was reading a Sunday school paper, said to him, “Tell me, my good boy, where God is, and I will give you an apple.” The boy quickly looked up at the man and replied, “I will give you a whole barrel of apples if you tell me where He is not.”bornagain77_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

k --> But, we have an alternative. Science, in the end, is about observing and seeking empirically well-warranted, logically cogent explanations of observed patterns in the world. l --> One cluster of patterns, is that when we observe the dynamics of phenomena, we often can directly observe three distinct causal factors at work: (i) chance circumstances and related random/stochastic processes, (ii) mechanical necessity and associated natural regularities, (iii) intentionally directed configuration and action, i.e. design. m --> These come up quite frequently in experimental studies, e.g.
i: chance-related scatter is the reason why as good praxis one should do three to five runs of a titration, and average the result. ii: Similarly, natural regularities are being relied on to equate the volume run out of the buret with the volume and associated mass of standard solution reagent added to the conical flask to reach the end-point. And, iii: the functionally specific complex organisation and associated information involved in the apparatus and its set-up and operation are hallmarks of intelligent design.
n --> So, without implicating grand metaphysical arguments and debates, we can see that there are empirically detectable, commonly encountered and reliable signs of the three key causal factors. o --> The point of design theory -- as Dembski pointed out -- is to explore this observationally anchored pattern, and test the degree of reliability of such signs, then use the findings to infer to cases where we did not or cannot directly see the causal process. p --> The signs of chance and of necessity as proximate causal factors are non-controversial: stochastic processes, lawlike regularities and the like. q --> Where the controversies swirl is on the reliability of signs of intelligence as proximate cause of given aspects of an object, process or phenomenon. Signs such as CSI and its sub-set [d]FSCI in particular. r --> Strangely, it turns out that [d]FSCI, the most easily tested and directly relevant case [cell based life has DNA in it, which is chock full of digitally coded, functionally specific, complex information] is such that on billions of test cases, there are no known exceptions. (Indeed, there are no known cases where codes were invented, algorithms designed, and instantiated in machine code tailored to co-ordinated executing machines, by chance. NIL. ZIP. ZILCH. ZERO. CERO. NADA. NONE.) s --> Objectors therefore tend to try to imply that the definition is vague or ambiguous, or that things like tropical cyclones, or snowflakes or tree rings or scattered iron filings showing a magnetic field fit into it. But NONE of the proposed "exceptions" is a case of symbolically coded, algorithmically or linguistically functional coded information. t --> All of this then becomes strong evidence that the sign of intelligence is indeed reliable. So, it gives us high confidence to infer that the coded information in the heart of the living cell had a proximate intelligent cause. u --> And, whether or not random variation was used to create some degree of significant diversity [which would make sense to build in robustness in a changing environment], the system as a whole is plainly designed, as an irreducibly complex von Neumann self-replicating mechanism, simply cannot credibly be accounted for on chance plus necessity. Too much organisation, too much coded algorithmically functional information, too many implementing machines which are similarly complex. [Cf IOSE discussion, here.] v --> Of course, ever since Thaxton et al in 1984, it has been known and acknowledged that this does not point to any particular designer within or beyond the cosmos. But that is not a problem: the key, empirically warranted conclusion is that we have credible signs of design, and they point to a decisive breakdown in the Darwinian view:
Cell-based metabolism plus von Neumann replicator based life, and its major varieties -- which also require huge increments of dFSCI to account for novel, embryologically feasible body plans -- are not credible products of the Darwinian, alleged blind watchmaker chance + necessity only "methodologically naturalistic" mechanisms. Instead, they exhibit many signs that point strongly to intelligent causal factors.
w --> When we go on to look at the origin of the "observed cosmos on a fine-tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based life," in turn we see -- again on empirical evidence and inductive inference, not a priori imposition of a worldview -- that the complex functional organisation becomes evidence that the cosmos we see is itself designed, including not only the specific parameter values, but also the system of physical law, materials and energetic processes that set up the world in which we can live. x --> It it this case that points to an extra-cosmic, highly intelligent and astonishingly sophisticated, powerful designer of a cosmos set up to facilitate the kind of life we experience and observe. Which grounds the empirical claim that the laws and processes of nature are designed, including mechanically necessary and chance/stochastic ones. y --> And so, the issue is not one of battling a prioris, but the contest between a consciously empirical, epistemological approach and the imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism that begs the key questions at stake,creating the false impression of empirical warrant for what is actually an a priori: darwinian and related mechanisms, on the naturalistic view, MUST account for the phenomena of nature. z --> And therein lies the fatal crack in the foundation of the imposing edifice of evolutionary materialistic science as reigning orthodoxy today. _____________________ Null, i hope this is able to make it clear to you that I do not START from the asumption that chance and necessity are designed and so everything is "known" to be designed. Such a view would make it seem that inference to design on signs of design is useless. But in fact, there are excellent scientific best practices reasons for not begging metaphysical questions and instead recognising facts we easily observe about causal factors and climbing the ladder of inductive, scientific inference from that key start-point: the three causal factors have characteristic and empirically reliable signs. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Okay: An interesting exchange between Null and SB overnight. However, I think some context, from Dawkins, will be very revealing on what is going on (and incidentally on the underlying problem highlighted in the title of this thread): ________________ First, Dembski on the key question addressed by, the focus of and core nature of design theory: >> . . . intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? . . . Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence. [BTW, it is sad but necessary to highlight what should be obvious: namely, that it is only common academic courtesy . . . to use the historically justified definition of a discipline that is generally accepted by its principal proponents.] >> Observe the explicit definition on focus and method. Now, Dawkins, from The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p.1, i.e. the opening page: >> biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. [Elsewhere, appar. in the opening arguments of The Blind Watchmaker [and on comparing Mt Rushmore with a rock formation in Hawaii that can cast a shadow looking like JFK's profile], he defines that systems which only appear to be designed should be viewed as "designoid."] >> ________________ In the context of the original post, this contrast shows the crucial issue in the starkest terms. It also shows why I agree with SB and disagree with Null: a --> The real world context for the discussion we are having is that we are dealing with a neo-magisterium-backed, ruthless imposition of a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism, using so-called methodological naturalism as the stalking horse (or the thin edge of the real wedge). b --> As SB rightly observed, some seek to accommodate to that situation by speaking of darwinian processes as a part of the teleological picture in specifically Christian contexts, and dropping teleological claims in evo-mat dominated circles. (And, I repeat, my core thesis, defended in the OP, is: "naturalism is a priori evolutionary materialism, so it both begs the question and self-refutes.") c --> In short,t he context is not only loaded with metaphysical claims, but is also fraught with the implicit threats of the reigning orthodoxy. d --> In such a situation, as Paul showed in AD 50 in Athens [cf Acts 17], clarity and going for the key crack in the foundations of the orthodoxy are the key correctives, but to make such an argument is going to be exceedingly dangerous. e --> There is a time and place for compromise, but there is a time where one has to stand on the hill with the pruning hook one has beaten into an impromptu spear and be willing to die for "wee bit hill and glen." f --> The reigning orthodoxy's claim is that all appearances of design in biology are MISLEADING. (And, as Hawking's recent remarks show, the same now increasingly extends to the cosmological picture.) g --> This is because, precisely, they are committed to a priori evolutionary materialism, and on such premises something like Darwinian mechanisms MUST be responsible for life as we find it. As naturalists, they hold that there is nothing else "there" in reality to account for it. h --> Thus stands revealed the worldview-tinged core of the dominant research programme on origins science. i --> So also, as Lakatos warns, such a hard core will be stoutly defended, protected by an armour-belt of auxiliary assumptions, models, hypothesis, subsidiary theories, lore etc. j --> In such a context, appeals to how chance itself and mechanical necessities of nature were designed, will be at best seen as foibles of otherwise competent colleagues. At worst, after the ID folks have been seen off, it will be the next target for the ideologues. This, already, the so-called new atheists portend. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

StephenB, The context of my two paragraphs was that Darwinists make claims that cannot be verified and that they should be asked to defend those claims. You cited those two paragraphs as evidence that I don’t think that all of nature was designed. I didn’t say that, nor do I believe that, nor was there anything in those paragraphs that could justify such an interpretation. That is reframing a quote. Let me read this straight: You are demanding of Darwinists an empirical demonstration of what you take to be a metaphysical claim? As in, you want a demonstration that nature or a 'natural process' works without guidance or purpose? Regretfully, I also have to add this: You attributed the same position to kairosfocus. This represents two consecutive instances in which you have assigned to an ID proponent a position which is the very opposite of that which he holds. I'm inquiring about these very statements because that's how they read: As if you and others really think there are unguided, purposeless processes in nature. You insist that that's not what you think, and act shocked that I would even broach the question. But I have to ask anyway, and I'll ask it again with this quote from VJ Torley: I’m not asking for a detailed probability calculation, let alone a pathway or mechanism; just a rigorous demonstration that the emergence of said structures as a result of non-foresighted processes (“RM plus NS”) over a time period of several billion years has a probability of greater than 10^(-120). I think that’s a pretty reasonable request. If NDE proponents can’t even produce that, then I think they deserve all the ridicule they get. I like your writing, Stephen. I like Kairosfocus' and VJ Torley's as well. I often agree. But if I read language that seems to admit to the existence of non-guided, non-purposeful, non-foresighted processes in nature, then I have to object and say how it sounds to me. If it gets clarified upon my objection, wonderful. If not, then I've identified a problem. Teleology has always been on the table for me, as it is with ID, as it is with you. When I say that exposing the impossibility of purposeless evolution will put teleology would be “back on the table” I mean that it will loosen the Darwinist anti-teleological death grip that rules the academy. It doesn’t mean that no one believes in teleology or that the idea has been lost. Do you really think that the academy is 'anti-teleological' because of Darwin? Or that evidence really matters for the people in question? Take a look at PZ Myers talking about what evidence it would take to convince him of the existence of God, and presumably any designer of either life or the universe. If you haven't heard, that evidence is 'nothing'. And his gathered horde seems to agree. That’s right. Since they claim it has been “shown,” and can be shown, then I publicly challenge them to show it–even if it can’t be shown. When someone claims that something can come from nothing, I ask them how such a thing is possible. Here is the problem: When you ask someone 'Show me something popping into existence from nothing', it strongly implies that an empirical demonstration of this is possible and on the table - even though it's not. And that same confusion also feeds the habits of other people who act on such misinformation to say "Yep, it can happen. See, right here?" and hoodwink people. There's a reason you encounter a number of people who think something can come from nothing and that scientists have observed it - because other people, usually scientists, have convinced them such empirical observation is possible. Why do you think that mainstream ID proponents hold that the laws of nature were not created when such is not the case? Show me where I said this. To my recollection, I said that A) ID does not require a commitment on the laws of nature issue, B) that there are men who are making what I think really are ID arguments who deny this (more fringe), and C) That some ID proponents seem to accept, or even accept for the sake of argument, that various processes in nature (mutation, selection, evolution, etc) are unguided, undirected, and so on. I had little to say about 'laws of nature', unless you're equating selection and mutation with 'law' here. (I did discuss them in passing with tgp.)nullasalus_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

--Nullasalus: “I reframed nothing. I quoted straightaway, in the exact same thread, not to somehow prove what you all are thinking on this subject – but to explain what worries me about the language used and the focus had.” The context of my two paragraphs was that Darwinists make claims that cannot be verified and that they should be asked to defend those claims. You cited those two paragraphs as evidence that I don’t think that all of nature was designed. I didn’t say that, nor do I believe that, nor was there anything in those paragraphs that could justify such an interpretation. That is reframing a quote. Regretfully, I also have to add this: You attributed the same position to kairosfocus. This represents two consecutive instances in which you have assigned to an ID proponent a position which is the very opposite of that which he holds. ----“You claimed that teleology would be ‘back on the table’ if the processes in question were ruled to be inadequate – hence my pointing out that those very processes are themselves teleological and purposeful.” Teleology has always been on the table for me, as it is with ID, as it is with you. When I say that exposing the impossibility of purposeless evolution will put teleology would be “back on the table” I mean that it will loosen the Darwinist anti-teleological death grip that rules the academy. It doesn’t mean that no one believes in teleology or that the idea has been lost. ---“You’re asking Darwinists to ‘show’ unguided processes can accomplish this or that, which strikes me as very similar to asking someone to ‘show’ you that something came from absolute nothing uncaused.” That’s right. Since they claim it has been “shown,” and can be shown, then I publicly challenge them to show it--even if it can’t be shown. When someone claims that something can come from nothing, I ask them how such a thing is possible. If the Socratic method was good enough for Socrates, it is surely good enough for me. When someone claims that emergence can do the work of God, I ask them to show how that is possible. A well-conceived question can open doors that a long-winded argument could never budge. When someone makes any irrational claim, I often ask them to defend it ---especially if it cannot be defended. It is a good way of introducing a person to his own error. On the other hand, the specific question I asked of you, for which I sought a specific answer, pertains not to any irrational statement of yours, nor to any Socratic exercise, but rather to a decidedly problematic statement that you made about ID. Why do you think that mainstream ID proponents hold that the laws of nature were not created when such is not the case?StephenB_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I don’t think it takes much courage for TEs to emphasize the role of teleology when they are talking to Christians and then de-emphasize it when they are talking to the Darwinists, especially those who wield power in the academy. That really depends on the TEs in question, and I certainly wasn't saying the TEs were all courageous. What was my view of Russell's quote? What is my view of Biologos, which attempts to be TE Central? What do I think of the NCSE? You certainly know these things, because I make no attempts to hide my views on these fronts. Even in the response you're quoting, I'm qualifying this to TEs who have a spine. And I'm doing so because so many of them manifestly do not, for the reasons you stated. I think that macro-evolution could certainly take place if the process is pre-planned to produce a specified outcome. I don’t think it is possible if the process is unplanned and appeals to “emergence” as its explanatory driving force. I'm certainly not saying that the processes are unplanned, and as for 'emergence' that really depends on what's being said - precisely because it's such an airy word in the hands of philosophers and scientists speculating on the unknown. Insofar as it's the claim that holism is required in understanding nature, all I can say is "I like it. I liked it better when Aristotle discussed it." I am not trying to argue that 'God can design through undesign' or any such nonsense. I am calling the very processes, objects, and mechanisms that exist in nature themselves instances of and tools used in the process of design. Earlier, you said that the word “naturalistic” is too vague of a term on which to build an argument. I said that 'naturalism' is not bound to 'materialism', or really, much of anything save for opposition to religion, and even then particular religions. In this discussion I'm using the language of others because they take naturalistic to mean, in this context, 'unguided' and 'undirected' and 'without purpose'. Let me ask you this: Are there any processes, mechanism or objects in nature that you would say are not designed in any way - not even ultimately? Mutation? Natural selection? Given what you're saying here, maybe you'd say no - all is guided, all is purposeful, from atoms to mutation to, etc. Even while qualifying that these things being 'guided', even 'ultimately' does not mean they are, certainly not as commonly described and modeled, capable of accomplishing what many evolutionary biologists claim. However, you can’t blame me for asking both sides to back up their claims even when I know that they cannot. There is simply no other way to keep them honest and publicize the fact that they don’t have the goods. I can cite a problem in how you're doing it though, if there really is one. I've seen you argue with, at this point, probably over a dozen atheists who have insisted - against all reason and logic and experience - that things can pop into existence from absolute nothing, utterly uncaused. Have you ever asked them to 'back up their claims' with a scientific experiment or demonstration? To my knowledge you haven't, and I'd venture to guess it's because you know it's beside the point. Worse, to even *suggest* that it's possible is to make a logical, metaphysical and philosophical issue empirical without warrant, and thus to make it seem as if this is some kind of open question that science can decide. I suggest a similar mistake is made when you ask Darwinists or TEs to prove this or that can take place without guidance or design in any sense, ultimate or proximate or otherwise. I think there are better ways to expose their dishonesty (or perhaps it's merely confusion) and their ineffectualness. Maybe you disagree, and that's fine too. I disagree with everyone, pain in the ass that I am. Eugenie Scott has suggested that this metaphysical language about “unguided evolution” be taken out of the textbooks as a response to public complaints from ID critics who rightly protested that Darwinists were stacking the deck in favor of Godless evolution. You think I disagree? You should see some of my past exchanges with NCSE reps. I can smell their con-game a mile away, and the duplicity involved with Eugenie Scott, particularly in the NABT case, is stunning. As for Barr, I think that goes too far. Why wasn't Barr talking about it before? Maybe it wasn't on the radar for him and he was unaware of it. Maybe his attention was directed elsewhere, since he's a physicist and it's not as if cosmological issues aren't another topic of contention. I said myself, I think Barr is naive when it comes to the topic in general - he seems to think it's easier than it really is to fix these things, and that atheists are more sincere than they truly are. It was either guided or unguided, and it isn’t even rational to avoid confronting that point and discussing it. And I agree that the issue must be confronted, but I don't think the confrontation in question is science or scientific. That said, where did I oppose this? All I've been saying is not to yield that various processes, mechanisms, and objects of nature are 'naturalistic' - again, here so qualified to mean 'unguided, without purpose or plan'. I have stated very clearly and very emphatically that I believe both the laws of nature and life was designed. I have asked you to provide evidence of your claim that other ID proponents [the hundred or so on this site] do not believe that everything was designed. Your response was to reframe one of my quotes and one of kairofocus’ quotes in an attempt to show that we don’t believe that which we have both emphatically stated that we do believe. Don’t you think that is a bit bizarre? I reframed nothing. I quoted straightaway, in the exact same thread, not to somehow prove what you all are thinking on this subject - but to explain what worries me about the language used and the focus had. You claimed that teleology would be 'back on the table' if the processes in question were ruled to be inadequate - hence my pointing out that those very processes are themselves teleological and purposeful. Even artifactual. And hence, teleology was never taken off the table by science - it was, and can only be, taken off the table by metaphysical demonstration (no luck there so far) or smuggling (sadly, much luck there). You're asking Darwinists to 'show' unguided processes can accomplish this or that, which strikes me as very similar to asking someone to 'show' you that something came from absolute nothing uncaused. Now, if you tell me that you didn't mean an empirical demonstration of these things is impossible - that it's not possible in principle because guidance or its lack is a metaphysical/philosophical issue, and your view is that the processes, mechanisms, and objects within nature are themselves instances of design - then that's that. Points of confusion arise in these debates, and while I still worry about how others approach these issues, at least in our case it would come down largely to communication. (Still tremendously important, but obviously a different subject.)nullasalus_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

---nullasalus: “And thomists and TEs who actually have a spine say that teleology is ‘back on the table’ because it never left the table, and ‘natural processes accomplishing things’ could never hope to unseat it. This is like playing Texas Hold ‘em, having a royal flush in your hand at the flop, then angsting about whether or not you’ll get ANOTHER ace on the turn or river. It’s not necessary.” I don't think it takes much courage for TEs to emphasize the role of teleology when they are talking to Christians and then de-emphasize it when they are talking to the Darwinists, especially those who wield power in the academy. The Darwinists in power will forgive that little gambit in a minute because they know it poses no threat to their pseudo scienctific faith claims. They know where the real threat lies. That is why they persecute ID scientists, while they laugh at the TEs and YECs. If we weren’t on to something, the Darwinist herd would not be stampeding. That the TEs do not understand the significance of this dynamic is a testimony to their cluelessness. The YEC’s, at least, do get it, which places them one step higher on the intelligence register. ---“I can grant, design doesn’t need to have taken place through evolution or natural processes. Maybe there was more direct or sudden intervention, and we should certainly investigate and even speculate about that. But design can take place wholly through natural processes as well – do you deny this?” I think that macro-evolution could certainly take place if the process is pre-planned to produce a specified outcome. I don’t think it is possible if the process is unplanned and appeals to “emergence” as its explanatory driving force. Not even in theory. “Emergence” is a phantom; it doesn’t do anything.” It doesn’t even qualify as a description, let alone an explanation. - ---“I said that in spite of this it seemed to be the case that particular ID proponents took the view that those processes and objects were not in fact designed. Let me quote you.”………….. I was challenging Darwinists to show that solely naturalistic forces can produce the effects that they claim. I was not saying that I agree that it is possible. Implicit in my challenge is my belief that Darwinists are, indeed, proposing the impossible. My skepticism is based on their “naturalistic process.” If by “natural process” you mean the Darwinian process, I declare that their scenario constitutes an impossible explanation that no rational person could believe. Molecules just bouncing around going by the euphemism of random variations cannot produce anything but minor changes, and not necessarily the kind of changes you would want. If you mean some other kind of naturalistic process, let me know what it is and I will comment. Earlier, you said that the word “naturalistic” is too vague of a term on which to build an argument. Has that changed? ----“There is no possible scientific demonstration of ‘purely naturalistic’ forces accomplishing anything. The mere possibility of a plan or guidance, whether in a front-loaded or intervention sense, precludes this.” I agree. That is why Darwinists should not assign the word “science” to their un-provable faith claims that no designer is needed, and it is also why TEs should stop encouraging them by entertaining variations on that very same theme and taking seriously such anti-teleological notions as "emergence." However, you can’t blame me for asking both sides to back up their claims even when I know that they cannot. There is simply no other way to keep them honest and publicize the fact that they don’t have the goods. ---- “Barr took the position that we should be seeking out language like this in science textbooks and removing them (though to be frank, I think he’s a bit naive in thinking this would happen without a fight and duplicity.) Behe’s complaint was that, if such metaphysical smuggling was going on already, it granted license to include ID in the textbooks (you’ll note the similarity between this position and my own.) But I still took it that Behe agreed with Barr in objecting to that language, thinking it was beyond the scope of science.” Evolution itself is beyond the scope of science. It is an religious alternative to the creation story, which is also beyond the scope of science. Eugenie Scott has suggested that this metaphysical language about “unguided evolution” be taken out of the textbooks as a response to public complaints from ID critics who rightly protested that Darwinists were stacking the deck in favor of Godless evolution. She was less concerned about the intellectual dishonesty involved and more concerned about the fact that the propagandistic cat had ben let out of the bag and wanted to remove the evidence. Indeed, she asked her fellow materialist Darwinists to hide their prejudices so they could be more successful in implementing their brainwashing strategy on young skulls full of mush. I suspect that if the cat could have remained concealed, Barr would have been OK with the language. It never appeared to bother him until the Darwinists got outed, and he never raised the issue until Behe raised it. Evolution is a statement about how we got here. As such it cannot escape the realm of metaphysics. It was either guided or unguided, and it isn’t even rational to avoid confronting that point and discussing it. Evolution should be taught for what it is---philosophy. It sure isn’t science. ----Say I’m wrong here – I’d welcome that. But maybe you can at least see why I’m getting the impression that, at least in this case, we oddly enough have ID proponents either arguing against design in nature, or at least seem willing to grant that there is none in these cases for the sake of argument. (I expect you to deny this. I hope you do. Because even Karl Giberson, if I recall right, was willing to talk about the notion of evolution being guided and itself the product of a mind. And man, you do not want to be less committed to design in nature than the Biologos guys.) I am sorry, but I really do think you have things backwards. I have stated very clearly and very emphatically that I believe both the laws of nature and life was designed. I have asked you to provide evidence of your claim that other ID proponents [the hundred or so on this site] do not believe that everything was designed. Your response was to reframe one of my quotes and one of kairofocus’ quotes in an attempt to show that we don’t believe that which we have both emphatically stated that we do believe. Don’t you think that is a bit bizarre?StephenB_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus and all, you may find this recent article interesting: Rationality vs. Randomness Dr. Gerald Schroeder http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951611.htmlbornagain77_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, Could you pause for a moment and — per empirical tests — discuss the key differences between your design on purely natural processes from Dawkins’ designoid [i.e. only appearing designed but tracing to blind chance and mechanical necessity in an evolutionary materialistic world]? Well, my claim here is not that 'empirical tests' can determine design for the instances I'm talking about ('natural processes and natural objects'). Now, my own view is that neither design *nor its lack* can be demonstrated empirically, at least without bringing in metaphysics. But here's the thing: That's a point you seem to agree with anyway, at least on the particular parts of nature I'm focusing on, if I take what you've said correctly: Does that mean that he cosmos as a who9le is not designed, or that the chance mechanisms we see or the mechanical laws of our cosmos are not equally designed? No, it is just a question of empirical warrant eon publicly accessible in-common evidence. And that life on earth is designed does not tell us who did it, or whether that designer or set of designers are within or beyond our observed cosmos. This would extend even to your example of rolling a fair, unloaded die, unless you're arguing that it's impossible in principle for a designer to know the outcome of a die roll in advance. But that has the result of making our regard for even natural processes which we model in a probablistic fashion an open question re: design. Which in turn means that there's no calling these things 'wholly naturalistic' or 'unguided' and so on based on science, or at least science alone. It's a metaphysical move, and again, my impression from their debate was that both Barr and Behe agreed on these points. Keep in mind, I believe design arguments can be mounted even for these more mundane processes and outcomes. The thomists think so too, and I'm willing to grant - as StephenB has suggested - that ID does not rule this out. I can even grant that these questions are outside the scope of ID. We can say that ID is only concerned with particular kinds of design, for example. Fair enough. But then I think there's an important lesson here: It should not be granted that these 'natural' processes and mechanisms, and their outcomes, are A) not artifacts themselves, in the truest sense of the word, and/or B) not guided or purposeful. Please note: I am not saying that it should therefore be granted that these processes and mechanisms can accomplish what people claim they can accomplish. Software programming is a process, and mixing paint is a process, but it doesn't follow that these processes can account for the Empire State Building's construction. Hopefully I'm making myself clear here. I don't like to see unnecessary concessions made, much less metaphysically loaded concessions, or having it presented as if these things were scientifically demonstrable when they in fact are not, nor ever could be in principle. (An aside: Now, someone may counter that what I say is correct, but that they harbor doubts that a person sternly committed to materialism could ever be swayed by arguments on those lines, or even the obvious demonstration of science's limits in that capacity. That could be, but it's not my concern. Sometimes people are hopeless causes.)nullasalus_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Null: Could you pause for a moment and -- per empirical tests -- discuss the key differences between your design on purely natural processes from Dawkins' designoid [i.e. only appearing designed but tracing to blind chance and mechanical necessity in an evolutionary materialistic world]? Curious . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply