Bradley Monton — Important Article on Dover
| January 5, 2006 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
Bradley Monton, a Princeton-trained philosopher on the faculty at the University of Kentucky, has an important piece on Dover here. Though Monton is not an ID proponent (he is a philosopher of physics who in his professional work is quite critical of fine-tuning as evidence for God), he exhibits little patience for the reasoning in Judge Jones’s decision. Note especially the following paragraph from his article:
There is a problem with this idea that science should change its methodology in light of empirical confirmation of the existence of a supernatural being [[a point that Pennock had conceded in testimony]]. How does this empirical confirmation take place, if not scientifically? By Pennock’s lights, there must be some other epistemic practice that one can engage in where one can get empirical evidence for some proposition. What epistemic practice is this, and why doesn’t it count as science? Pennock doesn’t say. Also, note that the scientific status of that epistemic practice will presumably shift: at a time before one gets the empirical evidence that a supernatural being exists, the epistemic practice is unscientific, but after one gets that empirical evidence, the methodology of science changes in such a way that the epistemic practice (presumably) counts as scientific.
The lesson, which should be obvious to Pennock and Forrest if only it didn’t provide such a wide opening for ID, is that methodologies are tools for assisting inquiry but cannot define (or confine) inquiry.
51 Responses to Bradley Monton — Important Article on Dover
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Keiths
supernatural adj. 1. Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material
artificial adj. 1. Contrived by art rather than nature
Which bits don’t you understand?
DaveScot,
Here’s what I don’t understand. You say that Darwinians “use the word ‘supernatural’ when they should be using ‘artificial’.”
The problem is that making the substitution would render the discussion nonsensical, because a phrase like “a supernatural designer” would become “an artificial designer”.
Keith writes: “I’m sure you can guess my next question: If design ends up being illusory, how does the concept of ID remain “very importantâ€Â? Do you simply mean that we’ll continue to “reverse engineer†living systems whether their design is apparent or real, or do you mean something else?”
The concept, itself, is important because if a biological system looks designed by an intelligence, the burden is on science to demonstrate that evolution is a more plausible alternative. Understand, it’s possible to recognize the import of ID as a concept and still believe that the unintelligent evolution of all life is true.
keiths
I think “supernatural designer” is nonsensical. How can one make sense of something that doesn’t exist in nature, cannot be observed, and cannot be explained? Supernatural designer is a strawman created because Darwin apologists can’t argue effectively against intelligent agency because intelligent agency doesn’t imply deities or religion. Evolutionists are helpless against ID if they cannot frame it around religion. Write that down.
Irreducibly complex cellular structures like the ribosome were artificially created not supernaturally created. There is the difference. Write that down too.
DaveScot writes:
“I think “supernatural designer†is nonsensical.”
Dave,
You might think it’s nonsensical, but almost everyone else supporting ID does not (including Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, and Phillip Johnson).
Consider this strongly-worded quote from Dembski (Intelligent Design, section 8.5):
“Unlike design arguments of the past, the claim that transcendent design pervades the universe is no longer a strictly philosophical or theological claim. It is also a fully scientific claim and follows directly from the complexity-specification criterion…Demonstrating transcendent design in the universe is a scientific inference, not a philosophical pipedream…Once we understand the role of the complexity-specification in warranting this inference, several things follow immediately:
1. Intelligent agency is logically prior to natural causation and cannot be reduced to it.
2. Intelligent agency is fully capable of making itself known against the backdrop of natural causes.
3. Any science that systematically ignores design is incomplete and defective.
4. Methodological naturalism, the view that science must confine itself solely to natural causes, far from assisting scientific inquiry, actually stifles it.
5. The scientific picture of the world championed since the Enlightenment is not just wrong but massively wrong.”
Also see the Dembski quote in my reply to Josh in an earlier comment on this thread.
Here Behe responds to Robert Pennock:
“The second philosophical objection in Tower of Babel is that design violates ‘methodological naturalism,’ which means roughly that science must act as though the universe were a closed system of cause and effect, whether it really is or not. ‘Without the constraint of lawful regularity,’ Pennock lectures, ‘inductive evidential inference cannot get off the ground.’”
“Methodological naturalism proves at last nothing more than an artificial restriction on thought, and it will eventually pass. Despite would-be gatekeepers like Pennock, the argument for design is gaining strength with the advance of science and for a simple reason once described by the physicist Percy Bridgman: ‘The scientific method, as far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing one’s mind, no holds barred.’”
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_godofscience.htm
And here’s Phillip Johnson:
“My colleagues and I speak of “theistic realism” — or sometimes, “mere creation” –as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology. We avoid the tangled arguments about how or whether to reconcile the Biblical account with the present state of scientific knowledge, because we think these issues can be much more constructively engaged when we have a scientific picture that is not distorted by naturalistic prejudice. If life is not simply matter evolving by natural selection, but is something that had to be designed by a creator who is real, then the nature of that creator, and the possibility of revelation, will become a matter of widespread interest among thoughtful people who are currently being taught that evolutionary science has shown God to be a product of the human imagination.
“Our movement is something of a scandal in some sections of the Christian academic world for the same reason that it is exciting: we propose actually to engage in a serious conversation with the mainstream scientific culture on fundamental principles, rather than to submit to its demand that naturalism be conceded as the basis for all scientific discussion.”
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
DaveScot again:
“Evolutionists are helpless against ID if they cannot frame it around religion. Write that down.”
The ID pioneers started framing it around religion long before we evolutionists did (see above). Tattoo that on the back of your hand.
The funny thing about this discussion is that each of us is arguing for the opposite of what a casual observer might expect. You’re an ID supporter who thinks that the phrase “supernatural designer” is nonsensical, in contrast to most of your fellow IDers. I’m an evolutionist who thinks that science can legitimately deal with limited forms of the supernatural (if they exist), unlike most evolutionists who think that it must be constrained by methodological naturalism.
Feederbottom writes:
“…you’re right, we don’t “see†quarks. But we also don’t “see†any other fundamental particles.”
We do “see” other fundamental particles in the sense that we can tell that a single particle in isolation has interacted with a detector, and we can measure the particle’s characteristics. This is not true for quarks, whose existence is inferred rather than directly detected, and whose attributes come from theory rather than direct measurement.
“But, the existence of quarks makes testable predictions. And those tests have passed, as far as we know.”
That’s right. And I argue that supernatural entities, if suitably constrained, can likewise be testable (although I personally don’t see any persuasive evidence for the existence of the supernatural).
This is not to say that a supernatural entity could necessarily be exhaustively studied by science. It might have attributes or functions that could never be inferred because they don’t produce observable natural consequences.
I think the YEC example shows that at the very least, the claimed existence of certain supernatural entities is testable by science (and in this case it has already been falsified, though YEC advocates would obviously disagree).
“In a way, ALL of our measurements are indirect. That is not a problem for science.”
And if we can study “unseen” natural phenomena via indirect measurements, why can we not do the same for supernatural phenomena which have regular, observable consequences (if any such phenomena exist)?
KeithS
ie comment 38
The word “supernatural” doesn’t appear in any of the quotes that follow from the named individuals. Oops.
KeithS
I haven’t seen any empirical evidence of the supernatural yet so I fail to see why it should come up in any discussion unless of course it’s merely being used to further a personal/political agenda. When I do see empirical evidence of the supernatural I’ll let you know. I expect you’ll return the courtesy. Not a single thing yet discovered about the nature of life requires a designer to break any laws of physics in its design or implimentation. There are almost assuredly artificial structures in the machinery of life but no supernatural structures or supernatural mechanisms required to create said artifices.
You evidently acknowledge this but are unwilling to divorce the supernatural from ID and insist that ID must take on the question of who designed the designer. That question is a strawman. ID (at least Dembski’s latest, most refined works) is about design detection, not designer characterization. Please either restrict your arguments to design detection and take your arguments about the nature of the designer somewhere else. This is your final warning about harping on supernatural designers.
DaveScot writes:
“The word “supernatural†doesn’t appear in any of the quotes that follow from the named individuals.”
Phillip Johnson:
“the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science.”
God = supernatural.
Michael Behe:
“…methodological naturalism…means roughly that science must act as though the universe were a closed system of cause and effect, whether it really is or not…Methodological naturalism…will eventually pass.”
Methodological naturalism will pass = universe is an open system = intervention from outside = supernatural.
Bill Dembski:
“Demonstrating transcendent design in the universe is a scientific inference…”
transcendent = “existing apart from the material universe” = supernatural.
Dave again:
“Please either restrict your arguments to design detection and take your arguments about the nature of the designer somewhere else.”
Are you telling me that Bill Dembski’s own words about “transcendent design” are not a legitimate topic on his very own weblog?
keiths is no longer with us.
Well…keiths might be gone now but I thought I’d respond to at least one point.
“ID isn’t trying to change the definition of science either.â€Â
Josh, if I were playing your game I would ask why you are accusing Bill Dembski of lying. Instead I’ll just ask, why would Bill make the following statement if he didn’t want (at least eventually) to change the definition of science?”
What you claim is only true if methological naturalism IS the definition of science. And as I said earlier: “These methodologies are good working models, not necessarily a hard and fast rule, so equating a single methodology to BEING science seems a dodge more than anything else.”
On a side note, I’m attempting to search the net for a good history on methodological naturalism and not having too much luck. Most articles discuss what it is and its relation to topics like ID, etc. I’m especially looking for when philosophers started to say in writing that in order “to explain the natural world scientifically, scientists must restrict themselves only to material causes (to matter, energy, and their interaction)” as Eugenie Scott phrases it. I suppose I’ll have to purchase a book…any suggestions?
BTW, saying that methodological naturalism, pragmatic naturalism, etc. are “methodologies” is probably a bad choice of words. “Philosophical stance” would be more correct (unless a resident philosopher wants to correct me?).
Why was keiths kicked?
Keiths was booted for disagreeing with DaveScot and supplying the evidence to back it up. Heil DaveScot!
This blog is a sham.
In Dave’s defense, it does not logically follow that because nature bears marks which we recognize as being attributable to intelligence, a supernatural entity must be responsible for them. Keith was given a fair warning.
“Methodological naturalism will pass = universe is an open system = intervention from outside = supernatural.”
As for the idea that ID requires a designer that can supercede natural law (aka devine intervention) I suggest you read Dembski’s explanation of how an unembodied designer can influence the natural world by co-opting random processes (indeterministic quantum states) and inducing them to produce specified complexity. Unfortunately I cannot remember off the top of my head which book that’s in. I briefly tried searching my little library but I haven’t found that section yet…
Also, I’d have to check with Dave but keiths was probably booted for continually asserting that ID proponents are saying something other than than what they actually are saying in order to continue his arguments.
keiths was axed mostly for refusing to stop using the “but who designed the designer” argument. Anyone that bores the moderators with trite arguments we’ve all heard so many times we want to hurl and won’t stop when asked is going to get axed.
I suggest you check out this game
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....monium.swf
and check out the Panda Gallery. The first and weakest Panda says “But who designed the designer”. The game is compendium of most of the trite and soundly defeated arguments the Darwinian narrative apologists throw at us. Think of it as our FAQ and don’t use any of those arguments here more than once. KeithS must’ve used the first argument in various different wordings a dozen or more times.
[...] Imagine my surprise when I, reading ID critic Bradley Monton’s article, “Is Intelligent Design Science?” (HT: Uncommon Descent), found this: While I understand the reasons for the limitations of legitimate subjects for scientific exploration only to “natural” causes and, moreover, emotionally am sympathetic to them, I think there is no real need to apply such limitations, and a definition of science should not put any limits on legitimate subjects for the scientific exploration of the world. Indeed, although science has so far had no need to attribute any observed phenomena to a supernatural cause, and in doing so has achieved staggering successes, there still remain unanswered many fundamental questions about nature. Possibly such answers will be found someday, if science proceeds on the path of only “natural” explanations. Until such answers are found, nothing should be prohibited as a legitimate subject of science, and excluding the supernatural out of hand serves no useful purpose. Mark Perakh, Unintelligent Design (Prometheus Books, 2003), pp. 357-8. My emphasis. [...]
keiths is no longer with us.
Comment by DaveScot  January 9, 2006 @ 8:13 am
Thank heavens!
“There is none so blind as he who will not see.”
Keiths was booted for disagreeing with DaveScot and supplying the evidence to back it up. Heil DaveScot!
Comment by Feederbottom  January 9, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
#
This blog is a sham.
Comment by Feederbottom  January 9, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
#
No, feederbottom.
You are the sham; yours was the very first post on this thread and you began with deception: “I’ve always wondered… What other methodologies are appropriate for inquiry?…I’m not imaginative enough to come up with any other options. I would prefer … a description of the methodology would help. Thanks.” That whole statement was balony. Several people stepped up and gave you answers; you refused to accept reasonable and documented answers. You had NO intention of real inquiry; you wanted an argument. Shamful.