Canadian vendor of Darwin’s certainties strikes back against O’Leary

Because it is a never ending “long argument”…

Breakenridge’s “ability” to argue by quoting:

He quotes this from you:

The eye spots on butterflies’ wings did not evolve to scare birds by resembling the eyes of their predators

Which he “refutes” by quoting:

By comparing among species the molecular machinery that controls wing development, the researchers are revealing how the regulation of two key genes has evolved in association with specific color patterns. The color patterns they studied vary among species, existing in a continuum including simple lines, teardrops and rounded spots.

Apparently that only refutes the “The butterflies do not have colored markings” part of your statement–which is unfortunate…because that’s not what you said. But of course, you said it “did not evolve”, which is equivalent to saying it is not there.

Besides the markings exist “in a continuum” then there is hardly much to be said for the distinct advantage of “eye spots”.

I always love it when you’re debating with somebody and they refute a point you didn’t make by reference ot something totally irrelevant to what you said or slightly helpful to your point.

“Why does he have a problem teaching [microevolution as it relates to peppered moths]?”

Because it’s fraudulent, just like Haeckel’s embryos and Piltdown Man. If scientists already have incontrovertible evidence of evolution, as they claim, why on earth do they damage their credibility by resorting to outright fraud in order to prove their theory?

From the comments: “Her abusive tone and irritating prose seem to indicate that she is suffering from kind of persecution complex combined with delusions of grandeur.”

Really? I think the same thing of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

The guy goes on an elephant hurling post citing pharyngula all the way over just to convince already convinced pharyngula worshippers.

Aha; further proof, if any were needed, that Darwinism is bird-brained in every sense of the word…

Nice work, Denyse, and others on this one - a very clear rebuttal and some excellent responses (to the latest response) beneath Breakenridge’s tirade. I’ve been equally impressed of late just how some pro-Darwinians and others (agnostics) have spoken up to say either ID DOES have something to say or Dawkins & Co are comprehensively wrong in their critique of other (i.e. religious) world views. Could it be that the tide is turning?
It most certainly needs to.

My favorite line from Breakenridge’s article is the following where he quotes Dr. Magerus:

“If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution”

(emphasis mine)

What a statement, “it provides … the proof of evolution”!

I have always puzzled over the peppered moth. Though I recognize that the photos in the text books were fabricated, unfabricated photos showing the phenomenon would not be surprising, nor in any way disconcerting to the ID perspective, or the YEC perspective for that matter.

Though we recognize that the photographs were doctored, does that prove that the peppered moth story is a myth? No, but it doesn’t give us confidence in the science. Does the peppered moth story illustrate natural selection at work? Yes.

Consider that the story is fully true. What has been proven? Has it been proven that natural selection can play a critical role in nature’s novelty? No. Has it been proven that natural selection acts as a DNA preservative. No, even though I expect that natural selection does play that role, it isn’t demonstrated in this study. Does it show natural selection as a tool for population balancing? Yes. Yes, that’s all it shows. Does it establish that natural selection is the only tool for population balancing. No!

If science proves that natural selection is a tool used by nature for population balancing, in light of all of the gifts that have been attributed to natural selection, is it reasonable to respond to this story by saying, “it provides … the proof of evolution”

DON’T BE REDICULOUS!

Does anyone else find it strange that the original Darwinist letter is published by the Herald online but then Denyse’s response is not? And then two Darwinist responses to Denyse are published online. Is there a publishing ban on anything critical of Darwin?

Two more  Darwinist letters in the Herald.

My sense is that our cultural elites have not only been indoctrinated, they live in a world apart. Their colleagues and friends are all about their own age—there is no community, not even such as Church going folks experience. They likely don’t even know anyone who thinks differently—they experience no controversy until we come along. They seldom or never go to funerals, and they seldom or never give the big questions of life any thought. They’re just too busy. They have careers, and they must spend time keeping in shape physically. They feel knowledgeable in their own narrow fields and they assume such is true of others—such as in biology. Though they have nothing but fear and loathing for “the religious right” and the US President, they really do believe in “the system”—that is, the radical elitism that conquered the academy and the culture in the Sixties.

I’m reminded of the BBC TV series, Yes, Prime Minister. The last thing the politico wants to hear is, “That would be very courageous, sir.” Protected and coddled in our democracies, courage—especially intellectual courage—is just about the furthest thing from our elitists.

And therefore I take my hat off to the likes of O’Leary and Dembski and all the others who, having the ability and education to be given a place at the table, they have chosen courage. But maybe there is some wisdom here too, for who really knows about the average run-of-the-mill elitist, and from the long view of history those who laid the ground work for the overthrow of materialism will certainly be remembered.

I think there are some inaccurate and unfair stereotypes here. The one that stands out the most is “they seldom or never give the big questions of life any thought.”

I think many of the people you are ostensibly talking about give plenty of thought to the “big questions.” Some of them come up with different answers then you do, but that’s not because they aren’t moved by the big questions.

bfast: You make an extremely important point:

—–”If science proves that natural selection is a tool used by nature for population balancing, in light of all of the gifts that have been attributed to natural selection, is it reasonable to respond to this story by saying, “it provides … the proof of evolution”

That natural selection “occurs” is beyond doubt; that is can drive the engine of evolution is well within the range of reasonable doubt. Indeed, some are beginning to say that natural selecction can do almost nothing—that it is simply an “effect,” or a “description,” or dare I say it, a tautology.

O’Leary,

I find it interesting that someone who readily attributes patterns in nature to one or more entities with goals and intelligence should complain about anthropomorphism.

Personally, I’m more worried about those who make God into people (three in one) than those who make birds into people. Making too little of God is a much worse error than making too much of birds.

StephenB,

That natural selection “occurs” is beyond doubt; that is can drive the engine of evolution is well within the range of reasonable doubt. Indeed, some are beginning to say that natural selecction can do almost nothing—that it is simply an “effect,” or a “description,” or dare I say it, a tautology.

You seem to allude to comments by Allen MacNeill. He explained that Darwin identified natural selection as an effect. ‘Tis new to thee.

The concept of natural selection is not tautological. Darwin needed a way to say that there is selection of “preferred” forms in nature as in breeding, but without a breeder expressing preference. Tautology may rear its ugly head when one tries to explain that some forms are more likely to survive than others because they are more fit.

CECO9:

Allen MacNeill is not alone. There are others who think NS is an effect, including some of the heavy hitters like Provine. I did not say that natural selection is a tautology, (though that’s not a bad guess) I said that is it one of four explanations being offered, which is good reason to suspect that three of them are wrong. That is another way of saying that we don’t know nearly as much about natural selection as we think we do.

Jack Krebs,

The ones I’m talking about are the materialists that dominate the academy. Not only have they nothing to contribute in regard to purpose, they will fight anyone who dares doubt Darwin and thus opens the door to purpose and design.

Why do you think materialists “seldom or never go to funerals, and they seldom or never give the big questions of life any thought.”

Just because one doesn’t believe in God or some other non-material aspect to the universe doesn’t mean that one isn’t going to feel the wonder of birth and of the opportunity to be alive as well as the sorrow of death. Given that materialists grow up in culture suffused with non-materialism, I’m sure many of them feel that they have pondered the big questions and found the answers given by the mainstream religious culture inadequate.

On a related note, in an earlier post, CEC09 wrote to Denyse,

I find it interesting that someone who readily attributes patterns in nature to one or more entities with goals and intelligence should complain about anthropomorphism.

Personally, I’m more worried about those who make God into people (three in one) than those who make birds into people. Making too little of God is a much worse error than making too much of birds.

I like the last line. One of the theological objections to ID has been that it makes too little of God - God as a tinkerer rather than God as a grand overarching spiritual presence for whom all the natural world (evolution included) is a manifestation of his presence. And yet most of the people here think as about as little of the theistic evolutionists as they do the materialists, and in both cases, I think, the positions of these folks (theistic evolutionists and materialists) are trivialized, stereotyped, and dismissed. I think this does a disservice to countless people who have thought as deeply and intelligently as IDists have, but have reached different conclusions about “the big questions.”

Jack,

You seem to want a conversation—which is good. But you sound like someone who hasn’t hung out here at UD very long.

I would suggest you go back and read up on why ID does not propound a theory of everything, of God and theology and Bible and Christology and angelology, of why it is that no one dictates positions on the age of the Cosmos, common descent, the validity of the Big Bang.

Also you seem not to know or understand the criticisms leveled at atheism. Read up on it and then maybe we won’t have to have the same, tired old conversations we’ve all heard a zillion times.

There’re some pretty sharp cookies here—you want we should bore them?

Hmmm. I am interested in conversation. I also think there’s a pretty good chance that I’ve hung out at UD and its precursors (ISCID and ARN) at least as long as you and most of the posters here have.

Also, I don’t think you probably know much about whether I “know or understand the criticisms leveled at atheism.” I have no interest in boring anyone, but you made some claims that, as I have stated, I think are inaccurate about materialists - whether you or anyone else wants to have an interesting conversation about that is up to whoever wants to post.

I also understand that “ID does not propound a theory of everything, of God and theology and Bible and Christology and angelology” - I don’t believe I implied it did. What I did say is that there are people, theistic evolutionists as well as people with other types of religious beliefs, who are derided here and yet who believe that it is ID that is wrong theologically. This is also a potential topic of conversation.

Even though it was your comment that prompted part of my post, if you believe that you wouldn’t want to subject others to a boring conversation with someone who is not up to speed, and hasn’t been around long enough or is not well read enough, to be part of an interesting conversation, then simply don’t engage in one. That’s your choice.

StephenB,

There seems to be a propensity for people here to quote William Provine about natural selection. So I did a search and here is one thing I found by Provine in a debate with Phillip Johnson. It is from 1994.

“Phil also argues that we cannot conceive of a natural process that can produce both diversity and adaptations. It seems to be clear that, indeed, natural selection can account for adaptations because Phil believes the Hawaiian Drosophila evolved through naturalistic processes. In those seven-hundred some odd species of Drosophila there are some of the most exquisite adaptations you would ever lay your eyes upon or understand. Indeed, they are jammed with adaptations. And so Phil obviously believes that natural selection can produce exquisite adaptations. The question is only whether it can do so over long periods of time. It seems to me that it’s a leap of faith to believe that natural selection can, but it’s a little bitty leap.

I even have faith that it’s going to get light tomorrow morning. That is nothing but pure faith, but it’s a little, bitty leap of faith. We have to keep in mind the sizes of leaps of faith.

Phil says that the evolutionists are uncritical. But Phil’s view leads, I suppose — he doesn’t talk about it very much — to the argument that God created the major adaptations in animals and plants. Now, how uncritical is that? A God comes down here to earth every once in a while, makes a few species of this and a few species of that — and makes humans independently of any shared common ancestor with chimpanzees. Notice that he doesn’t talk about that in his rebuttal. Maybe some of you would like to ask him that question.

As far as artificial selection is concerned, the point is that artificial selection is effective, not that it’s purposeless. Over long periods of time, natural selection is sure to be more powerful than artificial selection, because it can “see” more of the organism that we ever could.”

The link is http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm

Read it to make sure I am not quote mining and if you have links to other opinions, let me know them.

If this isn’t Phillip Johnson taking the same point of view I did on the other thread yesterday let me know the differences. Provine shares my view of natural selection in this debate but makes the false claim using only rhetoric that it can explain anything. Notice his use of “little bitty leap of faith.”

If Provine changed his mind since this debate 14 years ago, let me know and to what extent did he change his mind?

—–Jack Krebs: “One of the theological objections to ID has been that it makes too little of God - God as a tinkerer rather than God as a grand overarching spiritual presence for whom all the natural world (evolution included) is a manifestation of his presence.”

Yes, and it is a thoughtless objection, because is presumes to know the mind of God better than God does. Inasmuch as the same objectors have no trouble believing that God intervened in salvation history, why should they rule out the possibility that he intervened in his creation. Only the ideology of a closed mind would impeach God for being “involved” in his handiwork

Of course, the objection misses the point anyway because ID is equally at home with a God who doesn’t “tinker.” It’s just fine if God programmed the whole thing to unfold such that evolution “manifests” his presence. Just ask Michael Behe and other ID scientists who allow for a designed evolution. The difference between ID and its critics is the respective difference science and ideology. ID follows the evidence where it leads and concludes that design is real; its adversaries ignore the evidence and rules out design in principle.

—–“I think, the positions of these folks (theistic evolutionists and materialists) are trivialized, stereotyped, and dismissed.”

It is not we who will not invite theistic evolutionists into our big tent, it is they who wouldn’t be caught dead here. So, your implication that it is we who have the closed minds strains credulity. I encourage you to cultivate a greater sense of proportionality. Yes, we criticize our opponents because we are the underdog, but they slander us, tyrannize us, chill our speech, and ruin our careers. May our side be more magnanimous than they are if we ever get any power.

Jack Krebs,

Jesus said, “Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will rule over all.”

Gospel of Thomas, tr. S. Patterson and M. Meyer

I let go creationism and acknowledged that evolutionary theory made good sense as science in my freshman year at a Christian institution. In a two-semester survey of the Bible, I learned about alternative perspectives on divine inspiration of scripture, and came to see that my literalism was founded on ignorance of what is actually in the book.

In an experimental psychology course, I got an outstanding introduction to the philosophy of science. My impression of science was, and is to this day, that it speaks to nothing of ultimate importance. Anyone whose religious beliefs are challenged by the current scientific consensus on some matter either does not understand science or has built his house on sinking sand.

I agree with Denyse O’Leary that there’s a huge problem in education — but I say it’s in religious education, not science education. Churches should teach not that science is drawing the wrong conclusions, but that science is an inferior way of knowing. As for public education, if Christians were not pig-headed in resisting exposure of their children to “false religions,” public schools would offer a course in philosophy and comparative religion. This is the quickest way to get ID into the schools, and it has the added virtue that it requires no subversion of the Establishment Clause (or whatever applies in Canada, Ms. O’Leary). Personally, I think American schoolchildren should learn about one another’s religions. Isn’t that a terribly un-American notion?

Jerry, you have your quote, and I have mine. I will let the onlooker decide which one is unclear, hard to follow, and calculated to chide a debate opponent and which one is clear, concise, and impossible to misinterpret.

Here’s mine:

The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

“Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)”

We report, you decide.

A few quick replies to Stephen before I go to work:

Stephen replies to my statement that ““One of the theological objections to ID has been that it makes too little of God”

Yes, and it is a thoughtless objection, because is presumes to know the mind of God better than God does. Inasmuch as the same objectors have no trouble believing that God intervened in salvation history, why should they rule out the possibility that he intervened in his creation. Only the ideology of a closed mind would impeach God for being “involved” in his handiwork

First, I think many pronouncement about what God does or doesn’t do are presumptuous. I would hope that anyone talking about the nature of God would have the humility to understand that we as humans can’t possible know what the world looks like to an omni-everything divine entity. I don’t think stating the God is “a grand overarching spiritual presence for whom all the natural world (evolution included) is a manifestation of his presence” is anymore presumptuous and thoughtless than other, differing pronouncements about God.

Also, it is not a matter of ruling out that God has “intervened in his creation” in respect to the billions of years of life on earth as it is finding reason to believe that he has. A Christian can believe that in the special case of the spiritual nature of humankind God has intervened without thinking that similar interventions were necessary, or in fact happened, in the physical world in areas and times not related to that.

Stephen says,

It is not we who will not invite theistic evolutionists into our big tent, it is they who wouldn’t be caught dead here.

Johnson has said that TE’s are “worse than atheists because they hide their naturalism behind a veneer of religion,” and Dembski has written “TE’s are no friend of ID.” These are just a sample of the many statements that show, I think, that what you write is false. In general, the ID movement considers TE’s sell-outs to materialism.

Now of course, the flip side is that, yes, TE’s believe that ID is wrong on several grounds, so they in general are not interested in entering the big tent. But it is wrong to think that they are welcome - they are welcome only if they in fact change their beliefs, and they have clearly been told that their current beliefs are unacceptable.

StephenB,

Look at your quote. It contains the following

“Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection”

So natural selection happens according to Provine. I will have to go to the book to read the context of the quote to see just what is meant. As I said I doubt that Provine thinks natural selection does not happen or whatever you want to describe it as. He does seem to believe that evolution is a result of whatever natural selection is.

You pick the right terminology to describe natural selection and how to use it properly in a sentence.

No one is saying that it is an active agency or force or that is actually selects such that it produces something directly as in artificial selection. That seems to be all that Provine is saying. It is the result of several processes. So pick the correct description.

Nothing in your quote contradicts anything in my quote so I will still go with it as to what Provine believes and use your quote to just clarify what it is.

This whole attempt to undermine just what natural selection is seems to me to be another one of the fools errands that ID people set out on. Natural selection in no way undermines ID, yet we look foolish when we nit pick something that is obvious. Why not look sharp and outclass the Darwinists who pursue their fools errands in different ways. For example, Provine’s rhetoric in trying to justify natural selection as all powerful is an example of faulty logic and a childish argument.

Jack,

It’s a tired old contention that because we say—along with many materialists—that materialism cannot account for qualia (such as, say, “awe”), that we are claiming that materialists cannot experience the same. You see the fallacy?

Here’s a question. Would you be in favor legislation that defined ID as nonscience?

And as for TE materialism—do you think the ID Big Tent should welcome those who deny the legitimacy of ID?

—–Jack Krebs writes, “First, I think many pronouncement about what God does or doesn’t do are presumptuous. I would hope that anyone talking about the nature of God would have the humility to understand that we as humans can’t possible know what the world looks like to an omni-everything divine entity. I don’t think stating the God is “a grand overarching spiritual presence for whom all the natural world (evolution included) is a manifestation of his presence” is anymore presumptuous and thoughtless than other, differing pronouncements about God.

ID doesn’t make “pronouncements,” nor do I. TEs make the pronouncement by insisting that that God could not have intervened because an omnipotent God could not and must not create that way. TEs bring this presumption to the table, and that is their primary reason for dismissing ID evidence. “Humility,” in this case would seem to be on the side of ID, which doesn’t presume to know the answer, rather than on the side of the TE who has already made up his mind. Granted, it is not presumptuous for TEs to believe that “that the world (evolution included) is a manifestation of God’s presence,” but it is presumptuous for them to believe that it “must” be that way, or that ID isn’t science because it doesn’t slavishly accept that proposition.

—–“Also, it is not a matter of ruling out that God has “intervened in his creation” in respect to the billions of years of life on earth as it is finding reason to believe that he has. A Christian can believe that in the special case of the spiritual nature of humankind God has intervened without thinking that similar interventions were necessary, or in fact happened, in the physical world in areas and times not related to that.”

To assume apriori that something cannot be is to “rule it out.” Typically, the TE insists that [A] A good God would never have intervened in the creative process, because his design seems imperfect and allows human suffering and [B] A competent God must use secondary causes to show that he need not tinker. TEs routinely dismiss intelligent design for theological reasons and almost never for scientific reasons. That becomes evident when they visit here and prove that they are not even on speaking terms with ID arguments and definitions.

—– “Johnson has said that TE’s are “worse than atheists because they hide their naturalism behind a veneer of religion,” and Dembski has written “TE’s are no friend of ID.” These are just a sample of the many statements that show, I think, that what you write is false. In general, the ID movement considers TE’s sell-outs to materialism.”

I didn’t say that ID never criticizes TEs, so I could hardly have made a false statement. Indeed, I often do criticize them, because they ignore the science, cling to their ideology, and join Darwinists to persecute ID scientists. Who most deserves the criticism—the persecutor or the one complaining about the persecution? It is a bit much to suggest that the victims of oppression and exclusion should learn to be more inclusive and magnanimous.

—–“Now of course, the flip side is that, yes, TE’s believe that ID is wrong on several grounds, so they in general are not interested in entering the big tent. But it is wrong to think that they are welcome - they are welcome only if they in fact change their beliefs, and they have clearly been told that their current beliefs are unacceptable.”

Well, not exactly. If they arbitrarily reject ID as science, then obviously they don’t belong in the big tent. In that sense, they disqualify themselves because part of their belief system consists in excluding ID from the larger tent of the scientific community. So, in a sense, they automatically become welcome in our small tent when they allow us in their big tent. It has always been their call. Their exclusivity is primary; ours is secondary.

Rude:

And as for TE materialism—do you think the ID Big Tent should welcome those who deny the legitimacy of ID?

I’m totally with Jack Krebs on this one. I think that we IDers should be much more accepting of the TE crowd. If you read my posts over the years, you will see that I view TE as an ID position. If there was only one event that was designed, if the designer created a system that produces what we know all by itself, we are still intelligently designed. Now that one event needn’t have even been the big bang, it could have been a set of laws alone which act in a multiverse fashion to “search out” the optimal parameters with a miriad of big bangs.

Yes, the tent should be big enough to welcome the TEers in. As long as the TEers are spittin’ at the agencyers, they surely won’t walk through the welcoming doors, but the doors should be open.

Consider Michal Denton. In “Nature’s Destiny” he does a fine job of presenting himself as a TEer. Yet Denton considers himself to be an IDer as he discusses in “Uncommon Dissent”. If Denton’s TE is ID, then Miller’s TE should be also.

Just because some TEers, like Miller, make every effort to deny the lagitimacy of ID, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take the high road, pointing out that TE is a variant of ID.

Rude says,

Jack, It’s a tired old contention that because we say—along with many materialists—that materialism cannot account for qualia (such as, say, “awe”), that we are claiming that materialists cannot experience the same. You see the fallacy?

I understand the distinction, but I don’t see a fallacy. Non-materialists believe in the existence of non-material things, such as qualia, while materialists believe that the things that non-materialists identify as qualia are in fact products of the material world. Obviously materialists will never try, or even feel the need to try, to account for non-material things.

So there is no fallacy here - just a difference of opinion about a basic philosophical position.

Rude:

Here’s a question. Would you be in favor legislation that defined ID as nonscience?

A total non-sequitor of a question, but my answer is “no”.

Rude:

And as for TE materialism—do you think the ID Big Tent should welcome those who deny the legitimacy of ID?</blockquote

“TE materialist” - that’s an interesting phrase, confirming some of the points I made to Stephen in another post.

But it’s not that TE’s “deny the legitimacy of ID.” They just think it’s wrong. This is an important distinction.

Jack,

You say, “I understand the distinction, but I don’t see a fallacy.”

You mean you understand that to claim that materialism cannot account for qualia is not to say that materialists don’t experience qualia? OK, then why do materialists so often respond with, “Well, I expericnce love and awe and all those good things too!” Who’s denying this?

And who is denying that materialists—at least those who actually think that consciousness and qualia are real—explain these things as “emergent” properties of material processes?

But you’re right—we have here “a difference of opinion about a basic philosophical position”—a materialism that accepts only chance and necessity over against the traditional view that sees purpose as elemental.

So why can’t we all just get along?

Anyway, Rodney King aside, did you notice the holy horror over Paul Davies when he intimated that science too is philosophy-based. Those guys cannot see that their enterprise rests on a philosophical foundation—rather they insist that SCIENCE = ATHEISM = REALITY.

Is their hysteria based on proof?

Rude writes,

You mean you understand that to claim that materialism cannot account for qualia is not to say that materialists don’t experience qualia? OK, then why do materialists so often respond with, “Well, I expericnce love and awe and all those good things too!” Who’s denying this?

Well, it seems to me that one person denying this was you when you wrote,

They [materialists] seldom or never go to funerals, and they seldom or never give the big questions of life any thought.

This is wrong, and it is what got me posting in his thread. Your stereotyped misconception about materialists seemed to be that they don’t care about death, have no sorrow or grief when people die (”seldom or never go to funerals”), and that they don’t have any wonder or awe about the nature of the universe (”never give the big questions of life any thought.”)

So it seems contradictory to me for you to say “Who’s denying this” when in fact you are somebody doing the denying.

bfast: “I think that we IDers should be much more accepting of the TE crowd.”

We don’t have to agree with TEs on their world views to find them acceptable. In fact, we will accept any TE that will accept us as scientists. Would you have us accept those that do not. How would we begin that dialogue? —- “Although you discredit our scientists and deny the legitimacy of our research, we welcome you into our community.” Please! Their exclusion is primary; ours is secondary. The great disqualifier is “methodological naturalism,” because it creates an unbridgeable gap that is solely of their making.

StephenB:

The great disqualifier is “methodological naturalism,” because it creates an unbridgeable gap that is solely of their making.

Here again I would choose to disagree. Though I don’t believe that science must restrain itself to the methodological naturalism paradyme, I would be much happier with the state of science if it at least actively avoided philosophical naturalism — which it has not done.

As far as I can see, the dividing line between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism is bound up in the word “yet”. When we hear the scientific community state that there is no first-life theory. This is methodological naturalism. What we usually hear, however, is “there is no first life theory yet.” The yet is philosophical naturalism. While methodological naturalism would continue the search for a naturalistic explanation for first life, it wouldn’t be so cocky as to conclude that it will find one.

The same goes for the many other puzzles of biology, such as the cambrian explosion. If the biological community was honest to say that the complexity that arose in the cambrian explosion is an unsolved puzzle, great. If the scientific community says that the puzzle of the cambrian explosion hasn’t been fully worked out yet, it has stepped into philosophical naturalism.

Lets get honest, most of the ID hypothesees, such as irrediceable complexity, are primarily falsifications of neo-Darwinism, rather than primarily confirmations of ID. As long as neo-Darwinism is presented as a swiss cheese theory, a swiss cheese theory that might never loose its biggest holes, ID becomes a sensible explanation, even if it is not seen as part of the methodological naturalistic framework that scientists are limiting themselves to.

My, oh, my! Why is communication is so difficult? I’m afraid my broad brush—not meant to characterize doctrinaire materialists so much as the secular elites (materialist and otherwise) who truly do not give the big questions much thought. I was thinking more of David Brooks’ Bobos in Paradise and not hard core materialist apologists. I didn’t intend to say, as you thought, that materialists do not go to funerals because they do not care. I’m sorry. If you wonder what I meant you might have a look at Brooks’ book—otherwise why not let’s just drop this? It really is a bit tedious and—I confess—due to my lack of clarity.

—–bfast: “As far as I can see, the dividing line between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism is bound up in the word “yet”. When we hear the scientific community state that there is no first-life theory. This is methodological naturalism. What we usually hear, however, is “there is no first life theory yet.” The yet is philosophical naturalism. While methodological naturalism would continue the search for a naturalistic explanation for first life, it wouldn’t be so cocky as to conclude that it will find one.”

I think that you have framed the issue well, so let’s look at it. If only the operative word was “yet,” there might be some room for negotiation. Unfortunately, MN insists that the scientist must NEVER search for anything other than natural causes, meaning that intelligent causes are off the table. Not just for now, but for all time. So, the ID scientist, who is in the business of detecting the “effects of intelligent innovation,” is told that he may NEVER do any such thing under the aegis of scientific research. This leads to your second major point.

—–“Lets get honest, most of the ID hypothesees, such as irrediceable complexity, are primarily falsifications of neo-Darwinism, rather than primarily confirmations of ID. As long as neo-Darwinism is presented as a swiss cheese theory, a swiss cheese theory that might never loose its biggest holes, ID becomes a sensible explanation, even if it is not seen as part of the methodological naturalistic framework that scientists are limiting themselves to.”

Again, you write with clarity so we can investigate the matter intelligently. First of all, every affirmation is also a negation of something else, and vice versa. If natural selection creates all, then design creates nothing. If design creates something, natural selection doesn’t create everything. Put another way, you cannot not negate. You may not do it explicitly but you cannot avoid doing it implicitly.

But let’s discuss one ID affirmation of that does not express itself as a negation. Many do not realize that ID theory intersects with communication theory. From that perspective, the ID process involves a messenger, an encoded message, a medium, an encoded message, and a receiver. (Noise is also a factor). The presence of “specified complexity” indicates that a message has been sent and received. When “specified complexity” is expressed more fully as “functionally specified complex information,” the message also indicates purpose or function. So, the messenger has really sent two messages: “I was here” and “Here is why.” Further, the DNA molecule, while reflecting this reality, also sends its own message to the organism: “Here is what I want you to do and here is how I want you do do it.”

The ID scientist finds these messages in the information bits right at the heart of the organism, which is its molecular structure. If there is a message, he concludes, there must have been a messenger. This is a straightforward way of looking at a molecule; there is nothing negative about it, nor is there anything religious about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. We can detect design in an ancient hunter’s spear or on a caveman’s wall. A message may come from an animal, a human, a superhuman, or if you like, God. A design inference can detect the existence of messenger, but it cannot indentify the messenger.

It has always been the case where intelligence is present, its FSCI indicator is also present, meaning that the inference is empirically anchored. Further still, the message is real; it is not an analogy. It only carries a negative connotation when the materialist declares that the message must be an “illusion,” insisting that natural forces can explain everything. Of course, it seems negative to the Darwinist or the TE because it challenges his paradigm, but that is simply a phenomenological reaction to perceived bad news. Remember, no matter what the TEs tell you, ID has always been the default position throughout history. It is only in the last century or so, that Darwinists tried to make it appear otherwise. In fact, they are the ones who pursue negativity, and, with many of their TE brothers, presume to forbid design inferences and brand all such initiatives as pseudo-science. That will not do. Further, they discredit the ID scientist and try to characterize him as a religious fanatic. That will not do either.

Denyse O’Leary, whoever you are:

CEC09, whoever you are:

Fact is never an inferior way of knowing, and the reasons for doubting Darwin rest on fact.

Not to deride, but it is somewhat humorous to see two demonstrations of epistemological naïveté in two sentences. “Denyse O’Leary” is nothing but a category of observed English text. For text in that category to include a complaint about the label of another category of text is knee-slapping funny. (Of course, the reader should wonder if the the CEC09 text generator has knees.) Even the notion that a “real you” generates all “Denyse O’Leary” text is humorous, considering that the text includes claims that people pay the text generator to generate text for them.

There is no copyright protection for an author’s name. Has some entity registered “Denyse O’Leary” as a trademark? If not, my predictions of future text in the “Denyse O’Leary” category may be in gross error. There is little constraint on the generators of “Denyse O’Leary” text. One or more ID adversaries may create a “Denyse O’Leary” blog farm at any time.

Where are the facts of Denyse O’Leary? I have nothing but observations of “Denyse O’Leary.”

In scientific practice, all records of empirical observations are expressed in languages. Descriptions of how those observations were obtained are expressed in languages. What we reason about in science is text, not fact. Scientific explanation is generation of text in response to text. The explanatory text typically describes inductive inference of relations among texts describing observations and methods of observation.

What I’m suggesting is that the process of science is very much like trying to account for “Denyse O’Leary” text. The process begins with observations, not facts. It’s not a foregone conclusion that an identified category of observations has a single good explanation. It is possible that observations we categorize as “intelligence” come from “blogs” generating text quite differently from one another.

Any invocation of “facts” in science bespeaks misunderstanding of science. I infer that the “Denyse O’Leary” text generator does not understand what Bayesian epistemology has to do with science. The text generator might want to read about identity in cyberspace before going “You’re anonymous and I’m not, neeny-neeny, nyah-nyah” again.

Thanks, Rude.

All of us have subjects of interest, and one of mine is that people of varying religious and philosophical persuasions be portrayed accurately and humanely by those of other persuasions to a reasonable extent. There are bigger issues than came up in our conversation that might be worth talking more about, but I appreciate the clarification you’ve offered and am quite willing to let the whole matter rest.

The fact that Jack Krebs is still blogging on Uncommon Descent is a true testament to the fairness and good naturedness of the people who run this site.

If I were running this place, Krebs would be outta here so quick, your head would spin!

As to what I was saying about alternatives to Common Ancestry..

If you go to this article at Colliding Universe, entitled “Multiverse incompatible with naturalism”, you will find something rather interesting.

“if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range.”

So perhaps the different types of organisms did just pop into existence. Like in the Book of Genesis. Any thoughts??

http://collidinguniverses.blog.....alism.html

To PO - why would I be outta here? Just because I offer a perspective different than the main one here?

PBO:

If I were running this place, Krebs would be outta here so quick, your head would spin!

Maaannn! This site is already far to quick at kicking people off in my opinion. I recognize that some need to go, but those whose conversation is civil and thoughtful, even when they have a dissenting opinon, need to be welcomed.

Let the Amish unite to keep the world out.

Jack Krebs: For my part, you are welcome here. I don’t agree with the practice of “expelling” those whose views differ from mine.

Back to business:

—–You write, “All of us have subjects of interest, and one of mine is that people of varying religious and philosophical persuasions be portrayed accurately and humanely by those of other persuasions to a reasonable extent.

This is wonderful news. Can I interpret that as your pledge that you will finally stop misrepresenting intelligent design? Does it mean that you will provide an honest appraisal of its methods and stop characterizing it as a religious-based enterprise? Will this, at long last, be the end of the motive mongering?

I imagine we will probably disagree about what the nature of the ID movement, but I try to back up my characterizations with facts. I think there is a lot of evidence to support the contention that for many people - the majority of supporters - ID is a religious-based enterprise. I know the minimalistic, non-religious definition of ID that is offered, but I don’t think it accurately portrays what most ID supporters think ID is about.

Back to some points made by Stephen at #29:

ID doesn’t make “pronouncements,” nor do I. TEs make the pronouncement by insisting that that God could not have intervened because an omnipotent God could not and must not create that way. TEs bring this presumption to the table, and that is their primary reason for dismissing ID evidence. … Granted, it is not presumptuous for TEs to believe that “that the world (evolution included) is a manifestation of God’s presence,” but it is presumptuous for them to believe that it “must” be that way, or that ID isn’t science because it doesn’t slavishly accept that proposition.

I don’t believe this true: I don’t know of any TE who insists that “God could not have intervened because an omnipotent God could not and must not create that way.” Rather it is the case that TE’s accept the evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory within the limits of science, and find no conflict between this and their beliefs about the nature of God and his relationship to the nature of nature. There is no insistence here about how God must have acted, but rather a conclusion based on evidence as to how God has acted.

ID is not rejected because of a slavish dedication to a presumptuous belief about how God must have acted. ID is rejected because it rejects what the TE sees as solid science. An old earth, common descent, the various genetic mechanisms that produce variation, and the processes that we collectively label as natural selection are accepted as a solid description of and explanation for the history of life on earth - and the TE finds nothing in this that conflicts with his view of God’s role in the everyday affairs of the physical world.

Stephen writes,

Typically, the TE insists that [A] A good God would never have intervened in the creative process, because his design seems imperfect and allows human suffering and [B] A competent God must use secondary causes to show that he need not tinker. TEs routinely dismiss intelligent design for theological reasons and almost never for scientific reasons.

I don’t know any TE who makes argument [A] above. I don’t know any TE that argues, as per [B], that God must do anything, or that God has to try to show something. TE’s do argue that God has made a natural world that is such that God’s will can be manifested through natural causes, not because those causes operate independently from God but rather because God operates within them.

And again, most TE’s reject ID for both scientific and theological reasons: as I said above, they don’t find the putative scientific arguments against evolutionary theory nor the arguments for ID compelling. They reject ID because they think it is wrong about the science.

Stephen writes,

Well, not exactly. If they arbitrarily reject ID as science, then obviously they don’t belong in the big tent.

I know I’m being redundant here, but TE’s don’t arbitrarily reject ID as science. They reject it as science for what they consider good reasons. You may think they are wrong, but at least, I think, it would be good to accurately acknowledge and address their objections rather than saddling them with