E. O. Wilson on ID
| November 26, 2007 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
Here’s what E. O. Wilson writes in THE NEW SCIENTIST:
. . . Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work. The designer is seldom specified, but in the canon of intelligent design it is most certainly not Satan and his angels, nor any god or gods conspicuously different from those accepted in the believer’s faith.
Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the intelligent designers join the strict creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred) by arguing that scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to their own personal secular beliefs. This may have a kernel of truth; everybody suffers from some amount of bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible. Even a combined Nobel prize and Templeton prize (the latter designed to encourage the search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such a epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science. . . .
Two comments:
(1) ID does not argue from “Shucks, I can’t imagine how material mechanisms could have brought about a biological structure” to “Gee, therefore God must have done it.” This is a strawman. Here is the argument ID proponents actually make:
- Premise 1: Certain biological systems have some diagnostic feature, be it IC (irreducible complexity) or SC (specified complexity) or OC (organized complexity) etc.
- Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them.
- Premise 3: Intelligent agency is known to have the causal power to produce systems that display IC/SC/OC.
- Conclusion: Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC/SC/OC are likely to be designed.
(2) Wilson’s claim that proving “the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame” is disingenuous. The accepted framework of science precludes ID from the start. Wilson and his materialistic colleagues have stacked the deck so that no evidence could ever support it.
157 Responses to E. O. Wilson on ID
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
digdug 24: I apologize. My remarks were uncharitable—–and premature. It was not my intention to shut down dialogue, and I hope I haven’t. Critical questions are welcome anytime.
H’mm:
Some follow-up notes are in order, though it is also clear that the thread has drifted from the subject in the main. That subject is important enough that we need to get back to it.
Namely, a correct and fair view of ID,a nd an understanding that there is a questionable injection of materialist philosophy and associated ideological agendas into the current institutionalised praxis of science, science education and science popularisation, which is having deleterious impact through courts and policy-making.
On points of specific note:
1] Martyr
For the benefit of interested onlookers here is OED:
Historically, the word comes form the ordinary Greek word for “witness,” marturos. Early Christians, starting with Stephen [cf here Ac 6 - 8] rewrote the definition in their blood, by standing peacefully and even cheerfully steadfast in the face of threats, torture and unjust death for refusing to surrender what they knew [BTW from another Greek word, gnosis] to be the truth from having met God in the face of Christ.
The early Christians recognised this to be sufficiently specially empowered by God to identify it as a spiritual gift [a charism]. They distinguished suffering to the point of death for one’s witness to Christ from mere suffering, using the term we translate “confessor” for those who only suffered, short of actual death.
As Peter himself pointed out [cf. cite above], it is a gross — and too often cynically propagandistic — disrespect to the many, many who have followed in Stephen’s path, to conflate this with either one who has acted the part of a common criminal and, especially, one who is a murderer, whether he is Mr Rudolph or one of the 19 of 9/11, etc etc.
2] Rockyr, 150: In their oversimplification of the problem, these people see modern science as a direct threat and enemy . . . these literalists sense or know that this is a key battle about the kind of society we will live in.
Sadly, this is very understandable, as there has been a major attempt to redefine “science” — through the concept of so-called methodological naturalism — into a synonym for [evolutionary] materialism. For such, science becomes in effect the best materialist explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans.
This is an utterly unwarranted, question-begging philosophical move that is counter to the actual history and much of the praxis of science. [Cf here.] Indeed, we can get a far better “definition” by consulting even not so old, high-quality dictionaries, here OED 1990 and my Mother’s 1965 Webster’s 7th Collegiate:
But, since right now the evolutionary materialists in the main hold the institutional power centres and control the mikes, they — as Mr Wilson just did — can easily misrepresent the truth by giving that false impression [in defiance of their duties of care regarding truth and fairness] and, sadly, are abusively exploiting the prestige of science to promote their worldview and associated agendas.
In some cases, that is — as I noted above — because of major gaps in science education. But we should be hearing loud and clear from the leaders on philosophy and history of science, who have let the likes of Ms Barbara Forrest get away with distortions that are so grossly out of line with the truth that they HAVE to be deliberate lies or else reflections of imbalance that would have to be clinical.
Sometimes, silence in the face of slander is complicity.
3] we should stress and loudly keep stressing and correcting and complaining that the modern ID is NOT about such incoherent and confused literalism as Lazarus presented. Yet we should not alienate these people but try to look deep into what is good and correct about such Biblical “fundamentalism.”
I agree. Unfortunately, in the case of Lazarus, whether because of his frustration or because of his being a Sokal-style parody, he has not responded when corrected or even invited to serious dialogue.
4] 151, I don’t agree with you that all such “dreams” or precognitive dreaming is of the same kind
I never asserted such. I spoke to how we have different ways to be rational, and the ability to creatively synthesise and vislualise is a part of the picture, resting on profound insight.
5] Tesla
On Tesla, I have long since forgotten the source on that tidbit — it would have been an electronics publication for engineers or technicians from about 20 – 25 years ago. If one has sufficient experience with actual behaviour of machines, one can intuitively appreciate boundary conditions and dynamics, thence estimate their behaviour, far beyond what one can calculate. That is a part of what experience and technical judgement are about, and visualisation is a part of that process.
(It struck me then, because it parallelled Einstein’s visualisations and thought experiments, and the way that certain early IC designers would use similar visualisation to guide them in laying out the IC layers. That was before there was software that could help them do that. BTW, in the European style engineering tradition, a heavy emphasis is still made on drawing and associated 3-D visualisation, as a crucial design technique. There is a logic to such scientifically informed visualisation that cannot be effectively and intelligibly reduced to words, as any experienced person can tell you. On the more abstract side, from my own experience and observation of my own students, it was a breakthrough to be able to visualise the Laplacian s-plane through the stretchy rubber-sheet technique, allowing one to see frequency response curves and intuitively appreciate damping effects, then quantify from observation. Years later, students were still telling me about pole-spotting from time-domain behaviour of e.g. car suspensions on the roads!)
GEM of TKI
God that is a lot of reading just to get a few basic points. Try the Cliff Notes version next time KF.
First, there are many folks who would disagree with you about Rudolph being a martyr. Pure relativism at it’s finest. For the record, I don’t consider him a martyr. But it is clear that he did endure quite a bit of hardship and suffering because of his beliefs.
Regarding point 2, I’m not so convinced that there is a scientific alternative to ‘materialism’ in the methodological sense. I agree this is more about philosophy, but I don’t understand what you will replace methodological naturalism with.
3 It is telling of one’s character when they are forced to harangue a commenter once that commenter has been removed from the discussion. Can we just forget about the trolls? What purpose does it serve to attack someone who cannot answer you?
I am still hoping that you will accept my olive branch. In any case
——1) “First, there are many folks who would disagree with you about Rudolph being a martyr. Pure relativism at it’s finest. For the record, I don’t consider him a martyr. But it is clear that he did endure quite a bit of hardship and suffering because of his beliefs.”
Please make the distinction between taking someone else’s life and giving up your own. It is not a small one.
—–2) I’m not so convinced that there is a scientific alternative to ‘materialism’ in the methodological sense. I agree this is more about philosophy, but I don’t understand what you will replace methodological naturalism with.”
Methodological naturalism is the science stopper. It is not necessary to rule out “design infernece” in order to test for natural causes.
——3)” It is telling of one’s character when they are forced to harangue a commenter once that commenter has been removed from the discussion. Can we just forget about the trolls? What purpose does it serve to attack someone who cannot answer you?”
Learn from my mistake with you and don’t attack character or intelligence.
digdug24 at #156:
Sure stephen.
I am still in doubt over any useful definition of ‘martyr’ that does not have slippery slopes on either side.
Following that, I am not sure what operational benefit there is to the ‘design inference’. After that, what? It seems that one would still adopt the methodological form of science currently in use. AFAICT the only difference would be in the tangential substitution of whatever we call the thing you use to infer design, and that would only be relevant for the inference. I don’t see how this is redefines science, and I don’t see the practical purpose of the ‘design inference’. I do see the religious implications as practical and comforting but that is a different story.
Per character comments, perhaps you are right. Lets let the trolls be and let each other be. I will follow your example.
DD:
On implications of relativism [an implication of evolutionary materialism], as illustrated by attempted debates over whether the proper meaning of “Martyr” is a matter of serious controversy:
Kindly cf point 1, no 155. I note that apart from complaining that I have given details, all that has in effect been said is that there are those who would disagree with me. SteveB is right to remark:
If relativism cannot tell the difference between the victim and the perpetrator of murder — all martyrs are by definition murder victims, even where the murder is carried out under false colour of law — then it is in serious, serious trouble.
GEM of TKI