AAAS Response to Expelled
| August 22, 2008 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
I see all these scientists and science teachers in this video proclaiming they see “God’s Hand” in the universe all day long then in the same breath they say design detection is bogus.
So what exactly do they “see” that convinces them that God’s hand is all over the place? Obviously it isn’t rational evidence that can weighed, measured, or otherwise rationally evaulated because that would be science and furthermore it would be the science behind intelligent design.
Personally I think these people are either liars who are not convinced they see God all over the place or they are being truthful in becoming convinced of things with no rational evidence which technically means they are hallucinating and probably shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car lest they start seeing these big designing hands in the road and swerve to avoid them.
Sorry if I’m offending anyone but these people disgust me. They’re all like “I believe in rational inquiry, science, and bearded thunderers who live in the sky and worry about my immortal soul”. Please. Choose one or the other but not both.
This is not for Jack but for those who lurk here and wonder why we say the things we do. Jack Krebs has been closely involved in the writing of the Kansas science curriculum standards and has a background in evolutionary biology. I asked him to provide evidence for the natural origin of species that exhibit macro evolution changes.
Jack wrote
We need to lay this question to rest.
translation: I do not know an answer nor can I direct you to any place on the planet where you could find an answer.
Jack wrote: The reasons that modern evolutionary science is almost universally accepted are vast, contained in 150 years of scientific research. There is no way that I or anyone else could lay it all out to someone on an internet discussion forum even if that person were open to learning.
translation:: the reasons are so vast that I cannot think of one thing to help you nor is there anything I could summarize that would do it. I also cannot even point you to a textbook to help you since no textbook has the answers either. But believe me the evidence is overwhelming.
Jack wrote: For you to say that “I have found no one that supports the modern synthesis in terms of macro evolution that is using science so it must be them that are using just metaphysics” is not very meaningful, because all you have to do is walk into any biology department in the world (with a few exceptions) and you will find the vast majority of scientists there who support evolutionary science, including that species have evolved over time.
translation: There isn’t a biology department in the country that can answer your question either and there isn’t even one member of all these departments who can answer your question. Despite this they still believe it works even without any evidence. They do science just not on this question.
Jack wrote: Science is a consensus-making activity. At bottom, science relies on evidence, but it builds up a consensual view. I accept this consensual view. I accept that the scientific community has developed the best understanding we can have at the moment of how the physical world works.
translation: This unanimity of belief without any support just blows me away. In other words the accepted view must be a political decision because they do not have any evidence. And I with a background in evolutionary biology cannot provide any either so I accept this political decision.
Jack wrote: You can dismiss this as an appeal to authority if you want to, but it’s the reasonable approach for someone like me.
translation: Even though I help write science standards, I do not know enough about evolutionary biology even though I studied it, to make a decision on my own about its content. So I will let the political decision stand.
There are textbooks on evolutionary biology which Jack could have referred to but he did not and instead resorted to an argument from authority. Is there any other science issue that would generate such an answer by a knowledgeable person in its field. I assume Jack is knowledgeable since he has a background in the material.
So for Jack I will lay this question to rest with him as he requests. There is no reason to ask him again since he has admitted that even with his background in the area he hasn’t a clue on how to answer it. That does not mean I will not use the fact that Jack is unable to answer it in future posts where it is relevant. I just won’t ask Jack to answer the question again. So if Jack at any time in the future claims that there is information to support a natural mechanism for macro evolution, I will direct the readers to his past replies of not knowing any information.
Jack joins the long list of those with backgrounds in the area of biology and evolutionary biology that are unable to answer the question. He is not alone.
Are there any TE’s out there that would like to help Jack? We really would like an answer.
Here’s a back and forth between Johnson and TE Van Till
http://www.outersystem.us/crea.....hnson.html
Here’s Johnson’s article which drew that Van Till response:
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/cre_bw98.htm
While I’m at it, here’s Johnson’s review of TE Del Ratzsch’s book The Battle of the Beginnings.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
I thank and admire Jack for doing what he could to make himself heard. Quite a few were willing to hear him, at least, though some seem not to hear a word.
Like Jack (as I’ve said before), I do not have the time to take on nearly everyone else properly, but I must point out two things.
jerry (185) wrote: “If you can get David Opderbeck back here, I believe it would lead to some fruitful discussions.”
Agreed, Jerry. It’d be great to have David back–and several others who’ve asked interesting questions and were more than willing to engage people. David was very interested in ID, when he came to UD, but–to speak frankly and clearly–he got thrown off unceremoniously and without cause, IMO; the same recently happened to another person who was defending evolution. David is a respected law professor who understands civility and good argumentative procedures. He is a friend you wanted to make, but whether that is still possible I don’t know…
If you folks want more conversations of the kind that have sometimes happened on a few of these threads, you’re going to have to stop “expelling” people who ask good questions and who do not accept the categorizations of their views that are made by some here. ID folks resent it when others miscategorize their own views, and with good reason. That works both ways.
Why not take some of this conversation to the ASA list? Anyone can join (many are not ASA members), and though we have “expelled” a few people it’s hardly a common event. If you need some anonymity, just set up a hotmail account and pick a name. “Mike Gene,” whom many here will recognize, is a regular, and none of us has a clue what his real name is.
The ASA regulars could use a little more diversity of topics and perspectives, but so could you. There are some real scientists there (I’m only an historian and MR Krebs a high school teacher) who can actually answer some of your questions, jerry; and, there are a lot more people over there interested in and knowledgeable about theology. Few here seem to be.
As for Mr Calvert’s views on the alleged dangers of teaching that science deals only with “natural” causes, I really do wonder whether he looses sleep over all that “atheism” going on at NASA and NOAA and the NIH. Perhaps he ought to, but if his views represent ID, then I understand why Mr Krebs’ views of ID are what they are. And, seeing what Mr Calvert said about TEs, I now understand, more fully, why some of my friends from Kansas have become so polarized about ID. Mr Calvert has already decided that they are either stupid, ill informed, or cowardly. Does anyone here recall what Dawkins likes to say about people who harbor doubts about evolution? Am I getting across? Stephen, you need IMO to disown this type of rhetoric, just as I disown Dawkins; there is no difference that I can see, and I think you’re smart enough to see what I’m saying.
Finally, let me offer a succint response to Timaeus’ eloquent call for me and Jack to spell out the difference between the obvious, scientifically demonstrable deisgn in the opening scene in 2001 (artifacts of intelligence on Mars, basically) and the less obviously scientific design in biological organisms. In the former case, we know what human agents (presumed to be intelligent) can do, and we recognize our own artifacts (or those of aliens) when we see them.
In the latter case, however, we have to know something already about divine artifacts–let’s drop the stuff about a nebulous “intelligent designer”
and cut to the chase. You apparently own a copy of “Debating Design,” Timaeus. Please read the chapter by Elliot Sober. I think he’s basically right: a design argument from nature is not a scientific argument. He spells out in detail just why. If you want to argue with him, I’ll pay attention to what you say, but unless Sober decide to make an appearance here there will probably not be a reply to your points.
Kudos to Jack Krebs, appreciation to Timaeus, and best to all. See some of you (perhaps) on the ASA list?
Ted
David Opderbeck’s idea of civil discourse was to call Denyse O’Leary “pathetic” several times until Bill Dembski banned him. That is hardly “without cause” and if I find you making crap up like that again you’ll be joining Opderbeck. Got it?
#245:
What you don’t understand is that when you say “let’s cut to the chase” what you mean is “let’s use my straw man”. ID doesn’t posit a divine anything, and your assumption that we would immediately recognize alien artifacts is just that – an unsupported assumption; further, relying on intuition and recognition is a rather unscientific finishing process.
Let’s use a fringe idea that the moon is actually a spaceship parked in orbit around the Earth. If one assumes that it is a natural phenomena, then one arranges all evidence and experimentation and examination along that assumption. It directs how one constructs theories about evidence and facts concerning the moon.
If one assumes it’s a giant spaceship, then this brings online a whole different set of interpretations and possible experiements and data-gathering exercises that might support or falsify this theory. At no time has one left the venue of real scientific examination.
Similarly with biology, we are faced with things that look very much like they required design to accomplish. How is it leaving the realm of science to assume design and start interpreting evidence in order to establish further experiments and investigation to see if one’s theory of design is supported or contra-evidenced?
The fact is, ID itself is of course scientific, and of course it can lead to fruitful results, and of course it can open up avenues of research that would not be taken if one assumed non-directed causes.
The only problem is that others in science, for whatever motivation, insist that what ID is “really” about is God and so they dismiss it on ideological and statutory grounds. What it might really be about for certain advocates is a god, but the theory itself is agnostic.
Unless, of course, you’d assert that the only being that could be the builder of the moon-as-spaceship was a “god”.
Until you can admit internally that ID is not necessarily about any god, you cannot have an honest or meaningful conversation about ID.
Thanks for the kind words, Ted, and for the rest of what you had to say in 245 above.
The post by David Opderbeck (who is a law professor at Seton Hall, not the optometrist whose web site seesm to be linked to his name at the relevant entry) is number 4 in this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....r-theists/
Mr Opderbeck shows people there the revelant context for the post (by a newcomer to our list who was puzzled and asking questions) that was the basis for Denyse’s commentary. I will leave it to others to determine whether or not Mr Opderbeck’s concerns about how it was handled here were in order.
“Expelling” me for defending an expression of dissent, directed at an important blogger here who regularly (nearly daily) uses similar language to describe the views and activities of others, would only reinforce what I said in responding to jerry.
I don’t see how that would be helpful, DaveScot. But that’s not my decision, is it?
That was David Opderback the law professor. He moved his website to a new URL and some optometrist evidently became the new owner of the old URL because he liked “Through a Glass”. David Opderbeck called Denyse “pathetic” several times and that was the reason he was banned. You’re about to get banned for making me waste my time in an unconstructive argument with an asshat who is incapable of conceding a point. -ds
Ted Davis @245:
I’ll look at Sober’s article again, but I doubt anything in it will justify the sudden switch in language to “divine artifacts” that you make here.
The contention of ID is that, whatever may be the difference between human/alien and divine artifacts, they still have something in common, qua artifacts (dig that Latin!), and it is what they have in common qua artifacts that is detectable. Whether God traced out the faces on Mt. Rushmore miraculously, using his divine finger, or whether human sculptors did it using dynamite and chisels, the argument that it was designed would proceed in exactly the same manner; design by someone or something would be inferrable irrespective of any differences (which ID people gladly grant) between God and human sculptors.
In other words, there aren’t any techniques of design detection specific to divine design, as opposed to human design. Design is design. Design implies rational planning, foresight, intellectual projection, execution of an end in which the parts are arranged to conduce towards a whole in a certain way. There are techniques of design detection which can be employed to make sure that false positives (like snowflakes) can be eliminated, and not confused with true positives (like Mt. Rushmore). Thus, or so ID argues, just as one can know absolutely nothing about the aliens who carved the sculpture on Mars, yet be certain that the sculpture was no geological accident, one can know absolutely zero about the nature of God, and can even be unsure whether any being properly called “God” exists, yet can still, in principle, determine whether or not a cell or an avian lung is designed rather than the product of chance.
This claim, of course, does not mean that any particular design inference (e.g., “the flagellum is designed”) is automatically correct. It is compatible with the invalidity of every design inference so far offered by ID proponents. ID is open to having the invalidity of its particular design inferences shown. But ID proponents cannot see how design inferences as such can be ruled out of court, merely because certain religious people — not you personally, but many TEs — don’t want God’s designs to be thought of as detectable. Why would anyone decide, a priori, that God’s designs cannot or must not be detectable? The “cannot” or “must not” in such a statement is certainly not a scientific judgment; it can only be a theological one. And ID proponents wish, for the purpose of discussing design inferences, to eschew theological constraints, which in their view have no place in natural science.
We understand that TE people, too, exclude theological judgments from science. That is why we cannot understand why so many of them appear to import a theological judgment — that divine design is a priori undetectable — into what ought to be specific scientific discussions about whether or not design is inferrable in the case of X or Y. To us it seems much more natural to first determine whether there is in fact design in an organism, organ or system, and then, if design appears to be legitimately inferred, to leave the realm of science and enter into philosophical or theological speculation about the identity, nature, and purposes of the designer, divine or otherwise. Why do so many TE people deny the legitimacy of the first, non-theological step in this two-step process?
T.
Ted Davis,
I find the posting at ASA somewhat mysterious. Is there anywhere that explains how one goes about it? It looks like emails as opposed to filling out a comments or response box and then clicking “submit.”
Also I am not a scientist and most there have some advanced degree in science or are like you have a degree in the history of science. Also I have no desire to discuss religion or theology and that is the most common element at ASA. For example, a thread on ID/TE turns into a discussion of Adam and then goes on forever.
jerry–
To subscribe to the ASA list, send a message to [email protected] with
“subscribe asa” (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Timaeus–
As I say, if you want to refute Sober’s points I think that would be very interesting; I for one would love to see a live exchange between you and him, although I realize that won’t happen here.
Among many things, Sober says (p. 109f), “When we behold the watch on the heath, we know that the watch’s features are not particularly improbable, on the hypothesis that the watch was produced by a Designer who has the sorts of *human* goals and abilities with which we are familiar. This is the deep disanalogy between the watchmaker and the putative maker of organisms and universes. We are invited, in the latter case, to imagine a Designer who is radically different from the human craftsmen with whom we are familiar. But if this Designer is so different, why are we so sure that this being would build the vertebrate eye in the form in which we find it?”
Incidentally, Sober also applies the same scepticism to Gould’s theological assumptions about what God would do, later in the essay.
Timaeus, in response to the referral to Sober’s article, writes,
Yes, this is the contention of ID, but whether it is valid is precisely the issue under discussion, and with which Sober disagrees.
Timaeus–
In a rare free moment this afternoon, let me respond to your comments on QM, “randomness,” design, and divine sovereignty/foreknowledge/providence in four ways.
(1) Yes, there are at least some physicists who like Bohm’s “hidden variable” interpretation of QM better than the standard Copenhagen interpretation, and to the best of my knowledge there is no way to tell experimentally which one is correct. A very fair point, Timaeus. However, (also to the best of my knowledge), in both interpretations it would be impossible for human observers to “prove” divine action at the quantum level. The theology would be different, perhaps (I haven’t thought about that enough to have confidence); but in both cases, divine action is just invisible to us, in terms of having a visible “gap” in the causes. In one case, there is no causal gap, but we can’t tell since those causes are real but invisible (they are *hidden* variables); in the other case, there are no causes at all, and so we can’t find them for a different reason.
Both Polkinghorne and Bob Russell like to appeal to “fuzziness” in the physical world as a possible locus for divine action, but their approaches are not identical. Polkinghorne puts more stock in chaos; even though chaos is actually deterministic, I think he believes that we’ll someday come to a larger view of chaos in which the determinism is softer. But QM is part of his picture as well. Russell is much more committed to QM, for his part. And, Polkinghorne is definitely an “open theist”; he does believe that God does not know some things about the future, although God knows everything that can be known about all things. (And his view here is not motivated by his acceptance of evolution, as far as I can tell. Nor should anyone confuse it with process theism, in which open theism of a very radical sort is coupled with a radical rejection of omnipotence–and P absolutely believes in a God powerful enough to make the world and raise the dead.) Russell, as far as I can tell, is not an open theist. Indeed, he believes that God controls all things, including QM, so he would reply to your questions about God by affirming divine providence and foreknowledge in very strong terms.
As for the founders of QM, at least one very prominent founder–Arthur Holly Compton–wholeheartedly embraced the possibility that *human* freedom (he doesn’t discuss divine freedom) had a basis in QM. Absolutely, he believed that we are truly free agents, regardless of what science says; he advised people to have more confidence in our experience of freedom than in the validity of the second law of thermodynamics. And, he absolutely welcomed, even embraced, Heisenberg’s view that classical certainty is dead. Robert Millikan also believed most of what Compton believed on this point. And, finally, both of them might well be classified as ID supporters, if they were alive today–but I won’t go into that right now.
(2) Sober isn’t the only one to make the type of argument briefly stated above. Former TDI Fellow Robin Collins, while he was a TDI Fellow, gave essentially the same argument against the validity of Dembski’s design inference, in “An Evaluation of William Dembski’s The Design Inference: A Review Essay.” Christian Scholar’s Review, April 2001. Robin was, and still is, highly friendly toward ID, but he does not believe that one can make the design inference in the types of cases we’ve discussed without positing something about the specific identity of the designer. The generic designer argument, in other words, is logically flawed.
Now, it’s only fair to say that Bill disagrees with Robin about this–obviously. But it’s equally fair to say, that there are well intentioned, friendly, and fair-minded people who just don’t agree that the design inference is simply at the level of science. I am in this category myself.
[I fail to see how peer pressure or ignorance would explain the existence of someone like Robin, or myself. Perhaps I'm just stupid, as Mr Calvert suggests TEs are, but Robin certainly is no less intelligent than many leading ID thinkers; ditto Elliot Sober. We simply disagree that the explanatory filter works as well as it is claimed. All I ask here, is that it be admitted that some TEs don't agree with crucial details of the main ID argument, and that this disagreement has nothing to do with defects of character or even theology.]
(3) Let me just ask a theological question, Timaeus, a question that comes from Dick Bube, the Stanford physicist who taught a course on Christianity and science for a quarter century, before the thought police caught up with him. If God were to “turn himself off” for a little while, what would happen to us and the world? I think you will see that this isn’t just pulled out of thin air.
(4) Finally, if we can’t even give a coherent account of how we can move our own arms, in terms of the causal joint between “we” and our own arms, then we ought to expect a certain amount of imprecision from TEs, when they try to explain how God governs the “random” process of evolution. I would be more hesitant than you, Timeaus, to point to conceptual problems with versions of TE when it comes to this particular area. They are certainly there, but I think there are very good reasons why that is–reasons unrelated (again) to stupidity, ignorance, or courage.
I have long felt that ID should have begun (many years ago) not with criticisms of “evolution” or “Darwinism,” but with a positive theory of how agents like ourselves impose order and intelligence on our own bodies. Then, perhaps, everyone would have clearer ideas about what intelligence is, and how an “intelligent designer” (however generic it might be) injects form into matter.
Good bye, at least for a few days.
Ted
The entire TE position against ID is that design is not unambiguously detectable in nature.
Let’s test your belief.
If we came across a dead sea scroll that described DNA and defined a cipher that translated codons into Aramaic and we subsequently found that the book of genesis is encoded into the gemone of every living human would you agree that would constitute unambiguous evidence of design?
If you agree then you have in fact given up the assertion that design is not detectable. If you disagree then you have in fact given up any pretense of rationality.
It’s like the old joke where a guy says to a girl “Will you have sex with me for a million dollars?”, she says “Yes”, then he asks “Will you have sex with me for ten dollars?” and she says “No! What do you think I am?” and he replies “We’ve already established what you are. We’re negotiating a price.”
So Ted, if there’s absolutely no hypothetical case where you’d acknowledge a valid design inference then you are simply irrational and your irrational ideas deserve no furhter consideration (so get lost). If there IS some hypothetical case where you’d acknowledge a valid design infernece then you are an IDist but you simply have a higher standard of proof than the rest of us.
Which is it?
I don’t believe the general TE position is “that design is not unambiguously detectable in nature” in the sense of there being no possibility of the type of thing you describe.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the arguments that some aspects of nature are designed in ways that can not be explained in terms of natural causes are flawed, or at the very least have not been demonstrated using the techniques described in those arguments.
I doubt if any theist would claim that God could not have embedded the type of evidence you describe, or that he could not dramatically and unarguably make the power of his presence known in ways that clearly contravened the laws of nature.
So it’s not a question of what God can or cannot do, but rather one of whether the arguments and evidence put forth by ID advocates are sufficient to claim that design as defined by ID advocates can be and/or has been detected.
I hope this distinction is clear.
I have never said, DaveScot, that design is not detectable in nature. What I have said is, that the logic involved in drawing that inference is not valid, unless something about the nature of the “intelligent designer” is already known or hypothesized.
In other words, the inference is not scientific, pure and simple. Scientific information is certainly part of the process, but so are metaphysical or philosophical or theological information or beliefs.
If you believe this is an “irrational position,” such that I should “get lost,” then you can take it up with Elliot Sober or Robin Collins–or any other philosopher who agrees with them. I find their position on this persuasive and you don’t. If you want to respond directly to their points, then (as with Timaus) I would be more than happy to hear what you have to say. I’m open, in other words, to being convinced that their view is “irrational” and that therefore I shouldn’t hold it.
If you are really interested in having a “big tent,” DaveScot, then why do seem so eager for me to go away? If you think that I’m a raving idiot, such that it’s a waste of time to talk to me, then just ignore me. But neither Robin Collins nor Elliot Sober is a raving idiot, and if you want to ignore them you won’t persuade me.
***
If ID simply involves the claim that the world is purposeful, that it was designed for certain purposes by the Creator, and that some scientific information supports that inference, then you can call me an IDist. I certainly believe all of those things, and I’m not bashful about saying so–here or anywhere else, whether or not it enhances my prestige for anyone within earshot.
If however ID involves the claim that design in biology and cosmology (as vs design in archaeology or anthropology, where we are dealing with human designers, whose purposes are readily known to us) can be proved scientifically, without bringing in further claims about the nature or character of the designer, then I am not an IDist.
Just as I am better qualified than you are to state my own position, you are better qualified than I am to state the ID position. Does my position above match your understanding of ID, DaveScot?
I’ll go silent now but I’ll read any answer you may make.
Ted Davis: “Stephen, you need IMO to disown this type of rhetoric, just as I disown Dawkins; there is no difference that I can see, and I think you’re smart enough to see what I’m saying.”
Let’s get back to basics.
The scientific study of origins helps us to probe the roots of our existence. Unfortunately, Darwinists and theistic evolutionists have recently undermined this effort by trying to re-define science. Put simply, they have devised an arbitrary rule called “methodological naturalism, which imposes materialistic conclusions on the evidence even before the facts can speak. Conversely, the science of intelligent design allows the evidence of experience to speak for itself. The evidence tells us that some patterns in nature exhibit functionally, specified complex information and that its source is intelligence.
That is the point at issue. I would be one thing if this was simply a matter of disagreement, but you and I know that it goes much deeper than that. Both you and Jack Krebs seek to institutionalize your materialistic bias on science by making it a rule in the academy, and, if possible, to pass state laws to enforce it. I submit to you that such injustice does indeed call for rhetoric, and I, for one, am not impressed by those who worry more about the rhetoric against the injustice than the injustice itself. Especially since neither you nor Jack can provide any evidence at all for the position that you hold to so tenaciously, namely that the Darwin engine can drive macro evolution.
Ironically our fiercest critics do not take the trouble to learn about the very things they speak out against. If, for example, you or another theistic evolutionist has an argument to make against ID, then, by all means make it. If the argument is coming from one of your colleagues, fine; but don’t just tell us about it, reduce it to its simplest essence and then share it with us. If it can’t be summarized, then it may well be incomprehensible, an all too common occurrence. In that case, sending us to the author will not help.
Meanwhile, the relevant point remains: ID is science, and all the motive mongering in the world will not change that fact. Since neither Jack Krebs, you, nor I have any idea at all whether John Calvert knows anything about ID methodology, there is no reason to inject his name in this discussion. Let me summarize the science by way of example:
Most paragraphs that you write will contain at least 500 bits of functionally specified complex information. That it was composed by an intelligent agency is obvious beyond any reasonable doubt. It would be equally obvious if the same message was found on the planet Mars. Through the use of probability models, science can confirm this. You will find similar patterns in nature, especially in a DNA molecule. Our experience teaches us that each time FSCI presents itself, intelligence was the cause. Whether the innovator may have been human, superhuman, or Divine, the observable fact remains the same—FSCI is present.
You and Sober have every right to question the conclusions arrived at by ID scientists, but you have no intellectual warrant for saying that what they do is not science. It is not we who need to read more of your literature; it is you that needs to read more of ours.
Jack Krebs @256:
Your position here sounds reasonable, and in fact sounds very much like the ID position — i.e., let’s settle this on the basis of the science — but I’m sorry to say that many TE writers have said things that sound very different from this. At various points, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala and others have strongly suggested that ID should be rejected by Christians for theological reasons. They have argued that the ID God is too much like a mechanic or tinkerer, which is not a worthy conception of God, that the ID God makes God directly responsible for evil in the world, which is theologically unacceptable, that the ID God makes God’s action detectable, which makes Christianity depend on reason rather than faith, and that the ID God is vulnerable to “God of the gaps” falsification, which could put Christianity at risk if the gaps are ever filled.
The theological concerns animating all of these arguments are quite plain. If you have been reading TE authors carefully, you cannot be unaware of the frequency of these sorts of arguments. Further, none of these arguments, even if theologically valid, addresses the scientific arguments involved in particular inferences put forth by ID theorists. Logically speaking, these arguments commit the same error as the argument that Darwinism must be false as biology because it has led to bad ethical and political consequences. If Darwinism is correct biology, ethical and political theory will just have to deal with the fallout, however unpleasant, and if design in nature is detectable, then Christian theology will just have to live with the consequences, however unpalatable those consequences may be for certain Christian theologians.
Regarding the question of design detection, are you willing, here and now, to disavow the propriety of such theological arguments? And are you willing to say that TEs ought to allow that design MAY be detectable (because nothing in Christian theology forbids this possibility), and that when criticizing ID they should concentrate on the scientific analysis and criticism of specific design claims, as you have suggested above? If so, I don’t think most of us here will have anything more to quarrel with you about.
T.
—–Ted: “I have never said, DaveScot, that design is not detectable in nature. What I have said is, that the logic involved in drawing that inference is not valid, unless something about the nature of the “intelligent designer” is already known or hypothesized.”
—–“In other words, the inference is not scientific, pure and simple. Scientific information is certainly part of the process, but so are metaphysical or philosophical or theological information or beliefs.”
——“If you believe this is an “irrational position,” such that I should “get lost,” then you can take it up with Elliot Sober or Robin Collins–or any other philosopher who agrees with them. I find their position on this persuasive and you don’t.”
There is much confusion here. One cannot detect design in nature if the logic involved in drawing the inference is invalid. That is what design detection is—a logical inference. If the logic is flawed, then no detection of any kind can be made. Design is not merely “conceived,” it is “perceived.” That is what the Bible means when it says that God’s handiwork has been made manifest. That means that it can be detected through the use of unaided reason—no faith or presupposition is necessary.
Further, it is not at all necessary to know anything about the designer’s essence to detect the designer’s existence. This confusion is widespread among TEs and Darwinists. A design inference begins with an observation. It depends on no presuppositions except for these three: {A} we have rational minds, {B} we live in a rational universe, and {C}there is a correspondence between the two. (Obviously, that would include that law of non-contradiction and all the other foundations for logic.)
In keeping with the above, most ID critics confuse a religious presupposition from a design inference. Some of the confusion comes from having been steeped in Kantianism, which assumes that there is no substantial connection between the images in the mind and corresponding realities outside the mind. In other words, Kant denied the correspondence {C above} between our rational minds and the rational universe. Adler completely refuted Kantianism, but of course Darwinists and TEs didn’t get the word. The academy thrives on skepticism.
In any case, I am sorry that you find Sober and Collins persuasive because they are very confused. You are reading the wrong people.
This somewhat disjointed message seeks to comment on points raised by various folks in several posts. I need to be writing papers about mussels, so I can’t take too much time to keep up with the discussion here.
bFast suggested four options:
“1 – There is no God.
2 – God intends to hide himself from science — to “not be put under a microscope” so to speak.
3 – Science actively avoids finding God (not unreasonable considering the determination of science to hold to methodological naturalism.)
4 – The scratch marks left by the hand of God at work must be detectable.”
This provides a useful starting framework. However, the meaning of a couple terms needs to be explicit, and additional options may exist (depending on how broadly or narrowly the categories are interpreted.)
Two terms that seem important to the present discussion are “methodological naturalism” and “detectable.” What is methodological naturalism, how does it affect things, is it appropriate? It seems most reasonable to me to identify methodological naturalism as the use of natural methods. (“Natural” being used here in contrast with “supernatural” to mean “in accord with normal physical laws and patterns”. Theologically, both the natural and supernatural are under God’s control, direction, etc.) The premise that natural methods are likely to be useful arises from several different philosophical positions. Obviously, anyone who thinks that the natural is all that there is will think that methodological naturalism is the only method to use. However, firmly theistic considerations such as the idea that God made a creation that behaves in a regular manner (even though He is able to intervene miraculously, too) suggest that natural methods will work pretty well most of the time. For example, most Christians accept the premise that, in case of medical need, you both pray and contact a doctor. Also, a purely empirical approach shows that natural methods work well for a lot of things a lot of the time. There is nothing inherent in methodological naturalism that leads to philosophical naturalism. This is particularly evident because advocates of ID advocate methodological naturalism. ID does not claim, e.g., “Go to a psychic and he’ll tell you that things were designed.” ID claims “Go do natural science studies on things and you will (or may, depending on the version of ID) discover design.” It is possible to investigate a non-natural claim using methodological naturalism, as long as that claim asserts that a particular “natural” result is produced by the supernatural agent. For example, you can take the newspaper horoscope and determine that it does not provide better predictions for people born at certain times than those born at others. Self-identified psychics are no better at guessing what connection a weapon had to a crime than are undergraduate volunteers. The really interesting supernatural claims, however, aren’t amenable to such study. We can confirm that people normally stay dead, but it’s unethical, theologically reprehensible, and not physically possible to try to crucify Jesus again just to get a better statistical sample.
Methodological naturalism seems to be part of what we think of as science. Although scientists sometimes get ideas in odd ways (the dream that suggested the structure of benzene, for example), the ideas are not considered science until there’s some evidence that they match up with the real physical world. If science is defined as committed to natural _explanations_, that would exclude ID from being entirely science, but natural _methods_ do not exclude ID. (I wouldn’t define science as committed to natural explanations, but more importantly the fact that something is not purely science does not mean that it is wrong or even inferior to something that is purely science-it just means that it partially falls into another category.)
What types of detection are allowed? (Definition of “scratch marks” comes into this as well.) The immediate context suggests that only scientific detection is in view. This is important because there are many non-scientific ways of detection, and as God is a spirit one might reasonably expect spiritual methods to be more useful than scientific ones at detecting Him. How to detect also depends on what type of “scratch marks” you expect, and this must be based on assumptions about how God implements His designs. As He’s omnipotent, this is hard to narrow down. In particular, He’s smart enough and powerful enough to use or not use evolution as much as He likes, so there’s no a priori reason to expect or absolutely rule out miracles in, e.g., the assembly of complex biochemical systems. (The fact that miracles seem to be relatively rare, and function specifically in the Bible as signs pointing to God versus alternatives, suggests that we shouldn’t expect them to be commonplace in general.)
At least two categories of options don’t fit neatly into the listed four:
A. Although God probably has left scientifically detectable traces of His activity in the physical creation, science is not yet able to identify them. For example, arguments both for and against specified complexity depend on estimating probabilities for which we don’t really know the values.
B. Science is inherently incompetent at detecting God’s fingerprints. We need to look to other approaches in order to detect them. It’s not so much that God is hiding from the microscope as that He doesn’t fit under it.
Overall, I’d tend to favor something like B. This means that I find the suggestion that something could be undirected as far as the science goes but directed theologically to be quite reasonable. After all, to find out what I mean by this post, you don’t get a physicist to analyze the behavior of the electrons in the computers and wires involved. You read the words.
Do Ps. 19 and similar passages asserting that God’s glory, etc. can be seen in creation entail that there should be scientifically detectable traces in creation? No, these passages seem to reflect an existing belief in the speaker that all things are parts of God’s creation, so everything amazing, beautiful, etc. is recognized on theological grounds as pointing to God.
What about Romans 1:20, which specifically asserts that unbelievers are rejecting what they ought to know from creation? Well, what is it that the unbelievers ought to know? The following verses (21-32) list idolatry and immorality as examples of what unbelievers know better than but do anyway. Neither of those are things that science can get at. Science can give a physical explanation of something, but it can’t tell us whether we ought to worship it or in fact anything about what we ought to do. It can tell us about likely health and social consequences of particular behaviors, but not whether those are good or bad. Conversely, 2:14-16 highlight the conscience as a positive example of what may be known from creation. In Acts 14:17, Paul appeals to God’s regular provision of rain and crops as an evidence of God accessible to the local pagans (also cited in Jeremiah 5 as evidence against the apostasy of Jews), yet I don’t think anyone accuses the weatherman of atheism for talking about how physical factors produce the rain. Thus, it doesn’t seem as though these verses imply that there will be scientifically detectable gaps in the working of the physical world. (Nor do they imply that there aren’t any.)
Some posts have asked for examples of macroevolution. Macroevolution must be defined. In biological usage, it refers to the role of factors other than ordinary population genetics (including effects of selection) in the origin of species and higher categories. However, in antievolutionary contexts, “macroevolution” typically means “evolution I reject”. This makes it impossible to pin down, as any given example of evolution can thus be dismissed as merely microevolution. It also covers up major differences of opinion. For example, there are claims that ID accepts microevolution but rejects macroevolution. In reality, the take on evolution ranges from several of the more popular advocates claiming that one species cannot give rise to another (even though there are numerous examples of it happening in lab and in the wild) to the position advocated by some young earthers that things can evolve within about a family to Behe’s position of extensive evolution, occasionally needing a boost at the molecular level, to Denton’s full endorsement of evolution as an example of design. Thus, a request for an example of macroevolution requires a clear definition of what you want. Would the transition from reptiles to mammals be of interest, or is it too gradual? Would an artificially produced new genus (Raphanobrassica) be of interest? (Of course, the existence of examples of macroevolution doesn’t prove that evolution has no gaps, and full acceptance of biological evolution does not exclude the possibility of seeing design in it and/or elsewhere.)
Randomness is a frequent issue of confusion, for people with all sorts of views. This reflects both not grasping God’s providence and confusion between different senses of “random”. Random can mean a mathematical pattern best described by the laws of probability, such as many quantum events, the odds of a given mutation, or casting lots. It can also mean something that is not humanly predictable, like the long-term course of the history of life, the path of human history, or precise long-term weather. There is also a more metaphysical sense in which random means purposeless or unguided, like the random shot that hit Ahab. In all three categories, I have included things identified in the Bible as under God’s control. Evidence of randomness in the first two senses is all that science can provide. There is no basis to extrapolate from those to metaphysical randomness. Purpose, guidance, etc. also depend on what level you examine. If I make a decision by flipping a coin, neither the coin nor the laws of physics governing its motion have any inherent goal or purpose in the activity, but I do. Biological study of evolution fails to discover inherent goals or purposes. Very good! This not only accords with the idea that evolution is merely a pattern of nature used by God, rather than some sort of supernatural entity with its own goals, but also it means that all philosophical systems that try to invoke evolution in support of their ideas of progress are wrong. Communism, eugenics, social Darwinism, Nazism, etc. all do not match up with an ateleological understanding of evolution. Likewise, gravity is ateleological. Things on the ground are not better than things up on a shelf.
I don’t think one can theologically rule out the possibility of inferring miraculous design based on scientific data. I think there are good theological grounds for thinking that it is unlikely, based on the function of miracles in the Bible as signs and the way that their use seems minimized (e.g., water turned to wine but had to be served in the ordinary way, thousands fed from a few loaves and fish but then 13 fed on leftover bread and fish for a while afterwards, axe head flaoting but having to be repaired in the ordinary way, etc.) This contrasts sharply with apocryphal and pseudepigraphical material, tales of the saints, pagan myths, etc.
However, as popularly proclaimed ID tends to claim that there must be scientifically detectable miraculous design and that its absence implies atheism. This is a god of the gaps. It is also exactly what Dawkins and his ilk want to claim so as to “disprove” God from science.
Also, ID as popularly advocated tends to put more weight on whether you accept ID (often equated with rejecting evolution) than on one’s view of Christ. This is a grave mistake, as reading Galatians will emphasize.
Finally, the quality of arguments made by popular ID, especially arguments against evolution, is often quite poor. Poor quality is not a proper Christian approach to doing anything. For example, the degree of complexity does not indicate design. In reality, a truly random item has the greatest complexity because it cannot be described simply. Other complex molecules can readily form naturally, such as clay minerals. It is true that full evolutionary explanations do not exist for a lot of things. However, the amount of ongoing work and rate of new discoveries makes it injudicious to assert that no explanation will be found. After all, efficient DNA sequencing is barely 20 years old.
I agree that the concept of ID is not in itself theologically bad, but the popular practice of ID does tend to deserve theological criticism.
Ted
I’d like you to answer the question I posed here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-295275
If you will categorically not accept empirical evidence of design in nature then you simply do not belong on this blog. Discussions with close minded people are not constructive and I won’t have them cluttering up the place when there are people who are open to reason concerning evidence of design in nature.
Jack
I was asking Ted, not you, and I’m getting a little irked at you jumping in and me needing to correct your mistakes. The case I proposed to Ted required no supernatural intervention. The claim that ID is all about a supernatural designer is a straw man. This is your last warning.
—-mussel “Do Ps. 19 and similar passages asserting that God’s glory, etc. can be seen in creation entail that there should be scientifically detectable traces in creation? No, these passages seem to reflect an existing belief in the speaker that all things are parts of God’s creation, so everything amazing, beautiful, etc. is recognized on theological grounds as pointing to God.”
You are reading your preferences into the passage, because that is not at all what it says. The message is that design can be “perceived” through the use of unaided reason. It does not refer in any way to an “existing belief.” On the contrary. It teaches that no faith is necessary at all. That is the whole point.
—-What about Romans 1:20, which specifically asserts that unbelievers are rejecting what they ought to know from creation? Well, what is it that the unbelievers ought to know? The following verses (21-32) list idolatry and immorality as examples of what unbelievers know better than but do anyway.
Not at all. Romans 1:20 could not be more clear. It refers to the invisible things made evident by the things that are seen. It points out that design is empirically detectable. So much so, that those who deny it are “without excuse.” Verse 21 begins to explain the REASONS why people deny the evidence which is evident to the senses, which include vanity, idolatry, and a darkened mind.
—–“In Acts 14:17, Paul appeals to God’s regular provision of rain and crops as an evidence of God accessible to the local pagans (also cited in Jeremiah 5 as evidence against the apostasy of Jews), yet I don’t think anyone accuses the weatherman of atheism for talking about how physical factors produce the rain. Thus, it doesn’t seem as though these verses imply that there will be scientifically detectable gaps in the working of the physical world. (Nor do they imply that the
The passage begins with, “nevertheless, he left not himself without testimony,” which makes it obvious that what follows is to be interpreted as evidence of God’s activity. To give testimony is to send a message, is it not? The issue is whether the rain and the various seasons were designed to help make life livable, which would be part of the “priveleged planet” hypothesis. In any case, the first sentence is the tip off that the Bible is making yet one more case for the evidence of design.
If you want to argue against design, which you seem determined to do, the last thing you want to do is use the Bible for support.
Screw this.
Jack Krebs and Ted Davis are no longer with us. Arguing with TE’s is like beating your head against a brick wall.
If anyone wants to carry on their conversations with them then do it on their websites.
After reviewing Timaeus’ last several comments and finding the word “God” in them over 100 times (I stopped counting at 100) I decided he needs to take it to a site where the topic is God. He is now no longer with us either.
—-What about Romans 1:20, which specifically asserts that unbelievers are rejecting what they ought to know from creation? Well, what is it that the unbelievers ought to know? The following verses (21-32) list idolatry and immorality as examples of what unbelievers know better than but do anyway.
Not at all. Romans 1:20 could not be more clear. It refers to the invisible things made evident by the things that are seen. It points out that design is empirically detectable. So much so, that those who deny it are “without excuse.” Verse 21 begins to explain the REASONS why people deny the evidence which is evident to the senses, which include vanity, idolatry, and a darkened mind.