Home
» Intelligent Design » A Question for Joe Felsenstein (and Everyone Else)
A Question for Joe Felsenstein (and Everyone Else)
| January 2, 2010 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
Joe Felsenstein, and most other evolutionists, tell us that science must be restricted to law-like causes and explanations. In a word, they require the scientific method to be restricted to naturalism. While this methodological naturalism seems like a reasonable way to do science, it is an incomplete instruction. There remains the question of what to do when methodological naturalism doesn’t work. Read more
223 Responses to A Question for Joe Felsenstein (and Everyone Else)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
—Jerry: “Is the Church going to go medieval and proclaim Darwinian evolution as dogma? I already asked Denyse the same.”
Jerry, thanks for providing me with the opportunity to comment on this subject.
No, the Church will never proclaim Darwinian evolution as dogma. The Church normally issues dogmatic statements only on matters of faith and morals. At times, those pronouncements can define matters at the intersection of science and ethics, as in the life sciences, but it would not be issuing a dogmatic statement on evolution, except to put limits on it as Pius XII did in 1950, declaring as an official teaching in an encyclical that no Catholic can accept materialistic evolution. John Paul II’s comment in 1996, in which he offered support for something like common descent, was not an official teaching but rather a statement of his personal opinion. The same can be said for Benedict XVI, and his comments about the “intelligent project.” Unlike Pius XII, neither was speaking for the universal Church. There is no reason for the Church to issue a special statement on the reality of design in nature, since it has been emphasizing that point for 2000 years.
I visited the blog at First Things and reviewed the comments from P. Hampton, the blogger you alluded to. If one reduces his world view to its simplest essence, it is this: God’s design is real, but it cannot be perceived: it must be taken on faith. As Stephen Barr once put it, the “design is inherent in the evolutionary process,” meaning, as I take it, that it is real at some level, but its reality is so subtle and so difficult to ascertain that the only way we can get at it is to muddle through some discursive reasoning process solely dependent on the principles found in evolutionary biology. Is that the official teaching of the Catholic Church? No.
On this matter, the Church has always followed the teachings found in the Bible, most notably the arguments expressed in Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19. According to Scripture, design can be perceived by the senses, and its beauty can be appreciated by anyone whose disposition is open to it. Beauty is something that we see and take in through the senses; it has evidential power of a different texture than that which must be accepted through an assent of faith. To say that God’s handiwork has been made manifest is to say that God speaks through nature and that he has demonstrated the reality of his existence in a way that anyone with an open mind can apprehend. True, nature is not always what it seems, and sometimes, science contradicts our intuitions. On the matter or design, however, the Bible’s message is clear: what we see is what we get. There is no way around that Scriptural principle. It is true both at the cosmological level and at the biological level, or as Father Thomas Dubay puts it, design is evident in both the “macro marvels” and the “micro marvels.” If God communicates through nature, as Catholics believe, he does not begin his message “in the heavens,” and then cut it off “at the earth.”
That is why the Biblical passages about the evidence for design are followed by a rather startling judgment on those who refuse to acknowledge the point. As it reads, “they are without excuse.” and the reason is that they refused to accept the testimony of their own senses. They rejected that which is obvious and self evident. This is not Scripture presenting a theological statement about faith; this is Scripture presenting a philosophical statement about reason’s road to faith. The Bible is here saying that the leap of faith required for salvation is grounded in nature’s testimony about the existence of God, which separates it from other faiths, which demand a leap without necessarily having first passed the test of reason. Indeed, that is what separates Christianity from other world views—the idea that if a certain form of faith is real and worthy of belief, it must first pass the test of reason. Only then can it presume to start illuminating reason.
What, then, can we say of those Catholics, such as Hampton, who tell us, as he did in his comment, that “there is no physical element of design, only a spiritual element. Belief.” We can only say that they are characterizing their personal opinion as official Catholic teaching, which is, at best, presumptuous, and at worst, fraudulent. Do I say the same thing about the Catholics who organized the Darwinist conference last year? You bet I do. As anyone who cares knows, Aquinas, widely accepted as the Church’s official theologian, taught that we can prove the existence of God through the use of unaided reason, beginning with the simple act of observing that which goes on all around us and drawing the relevant conclusions.
If, on the other hand, we cannot perceive design at all, if God’s handiwork is not evident, and, going against his own word in Scripture, God actually hid himself in nature, as Hampton and the organizers of the Vatican conference tell us, the only way we could even know there is a design is if they, the TE’s deign to instruct us on the matter. As they would have it, we shouldn’t be atheists, nor should we be design thinkers. Rather, we should simply accept the fact of an imperceptible design on faith without evidence on their say so, and on the say so of evolutionary biologists, 95% of whom, are atheist/agnostic, and who don’t believe design is real in any event. Why would anyone want to establish a world view based on a formula like that?
Naturally, Hampton brings back the perennial strawman, telling us that God can use evolution as a tool, as if we didn’t know that already and, as if ID precludes that possibility, confirming the fact that he doesn’t even know what he is criticizing. But the irony doesn’t end there. He doesn’t even know what he believes on his own account. Consider complaint against ID As he quotes a Vatican preacher:
“Affirming the reality of an intelligent design for the creation and development of the universe is not a scientific theory, but a statement of faith, said the preacher of the papal household.”
This is very, very, strange. Earlier, he characterizes naïve faith in an imperceptible design as a good thing, now he characterizes naïve faith in real design as a bad thing. Never mind the fact, that ID doesn’t posit faith in design at all, but rather proposes an inference to the best explanation based on empirical evidence. Just as I thought that he couldn’t get any more confused, he offers this quote from Tanzella-Nitti
—-“But God doesn’t always sign His work. Human reason, unaided by faith, can indeed see convincing evidence of design, Providence, and purpose in nature, but that does not make valid every purported scientific demonstration that God has acted in this specific place or that. And it is deplorable that God’s title of “Intelligent Designer” is now widely seen as depending on highly disputable claims about the mechanics of evolution.”
How can human reason “see” convincing evidence of design if the design is imperceptible? Which is it? Do we take it on faith, acknowledging that there is no physical design, [whatever that means] as he said earlier, or to we call on reason to instruct us about that which cannot be seen but must, somehow or another, be real. Tanzella’s comments are muddled enough, but trying to reconcile them with Hampton’s other comments, as if they all add up to a coherent world view is something outside the bounds of reason.
—Nakashima: “So following her definition, if the scientists say “I see no material explanation.” they are doing science. If the scientists (not the Bishop) say “The change in the patients condition was due to divine intervention.” then they are not doing science.”
You are dancing. The question is very simple. If they violate the principle of methodological naturalism by advising the Bishop on nature’s limits, are they doing science?
Tp StephenB:
Below is an extract from Wikipedia. (Apologies if you dont like Wiki). It asks if a sickness is judged incurable. I guess this is where the doctor comes in. He will be asked to advise if the sickness is curable. If he says it is not, then bingo, the Church declares a miracle. It doesnt sound as though the doctor is doing anything out of the ordinary.
Assessing of miracles
The miracle may go beyond the possibilities of nature either in the substance of the fact or in the subject, or only in the way it occurs. So three degrees of miracle are to be distinguished. The first degree is represented by resurrection from the dead (quoad substantiam). The second concerns the subject (quoad subiectum): the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum). There is then a third degree (quoad modum): recovery from an illness, that treatment could only have achieved after a long period, happens instantaneously.
Mr StephenB,
You are dancing. The question is very simple. If they violate the principle of methodological naturalism by advising the Bishop on nature’s limits, are they doing science?
It’s not so simple, as you’ve changed it each time you pose the question.
Since you were at pains to be precise with Mr Seversky about what definition of MN was in play, I was merely following your lead. Unfortunately, the current edition of your question doesn’t follow Ms Scott’s ideas. There is nothing about nature’s limits in her definition, MN limits the process of investigation.
It seems to me to always come back to the way in which the doctors frame their response. If they say “Our knowledge is finite and provisional, we don’t know of any material process by which this can happen.” then they are doing science. If they say “Our knowledge is absolute, there can be no material explanation.” then they are not doing science.
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material…moreover, that materialism is absolute”
“If they say “Our knowledge is absolute, there can be no [im]material explanation.” then they are not doing science.”
- – - – -
I guess you are not suggesting a level playing field, but it doesn’t matter. Everyone, particularly those who have created and enforce the inequity, knows it isn’t.
—-Nakashima: “It seems to me to always come back to the way in which the doctors frame their response. If they say “Our knowledge is finite and provisional, we don’t know of any material process by which this can happen.” then they are doing science. If they say “Our knowledge is absolute, there can be no material explanation.” then they are not doing science.”
No one would ever say that their knowledge is absolute. The question is this: If they say that, in our best judgment, there is likely no material explanation for this cure, are they, as they provide this scientific opinion, doing science?
Mr StephenB.
Yes, I think so.
Mr. Nakashima, thanks for stepping up to the plate.
StephenB:
I say no, and disagree with Nakashima on this point.
First:
The statement “we have been incapable of finding a material explanation for this phenomenon” may summarize the result of legitimate scientific efforts. MN can accommodate the investigation of explananda that may be construed by as reflecting supernatural causation (such as the big bang) by those who are so inclined, as I indicated in 191 above. Sometimes explanations cannot be discovered.
“There is NO likely material explanation” (my emphasis) cannot be the conclusion of legitimate scientific efforts, because no such effort can rule out a natural/material explanation yet to be discovered. Moreover, it implies a supernatural explanans, which are excluded by MN because incapable of positive investigation.
Second:
As implied above, it is the means to the conclusions that may or may not be scientific in light of MN, not the report of conclusions or provision of opinions. No one is “doing science” when they announce conclusions. That announcement at best summarizes the outcome of science that has already been done.
Like it or not, supernatural explanans were excluded from such means long before the term “methodological naturalism” was first uttered, for the simple reason that no positive dispositive predictions can be devised to test putative supernatural causes.
Voice Call, your argument, consistent with methodological naturalism, can easily be summed up: Science may not consider or study the subject of miraculous healings—period. Nakashima recognizes this stance as an unreasonable apriori position, which it is.
StephenB:
That’s a poor summary.
Here is a better one:
Science may examine phenomena such as healing and prayer at length within the framework of MN in search of natural explanations for specific phenomena. Were such explanations nowhere to be found the researchers may say so. Those inclined to take that finding further are welcome to do so – but those further implications aren’t science. Why would you want them to be?
What MN eschews as part of science proper is the positing of supernatural explanations for those phenomena. This is a reasonable a priori decision because such posits are inherently untestable, beyond the above described search for natural explanations.
This has no bearing upon the legitimacy of such posits in a theological context.
emotions etc are currently not in the ambit of Science, but not because they are supernatural, simply because they are too complex to be understood (yet).
You are a man of faith, Graham