Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID for Materialists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Teleology in biology is unavoidable.  Dawkins was surely correct when he wrote that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”  He even characterized that appearance as “overwhelming.”  Of course, Dawkins does not believe living things were designed, and his entire project has been to convince his readers that the overwhelming appearance of design is an illusion.

The problem with the “it is all a grand illusion” position is that as science has progressed – even in the relatively short time since Dawkins wrote those words in 1987 – it has become increasingly more difficult to believe.  Advances in our understanding of genetics have revealed a semiotic code of staggering elegance and complexity, the replication of which is far beyond the ability of our best computer programmers.  The more we know about the cell, the more it becomes apparent that it is a marvel of nano-technology.  Origin of life researchers, when they are honest, admit that even the most simple life is miraculously complex, and the likelihood of living things having arose spontaneously through chance interactions of matter is vanishingly small.  I could go on, but you get the picture.

What is an honest materialist to do?  One approach is to jettison materialism altogether, as famous former arch-atheist Antony Flew did.  Flew insisted that while he did not believe in a personal God, he was nevertheless driven to deism by advances in origins of life science.  He wrote that “[t]he philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and ‘coded chemistry’?”  That question remains unanswered.

Another approach is to retain one’s materialism while positing the existence of yet-undiscovered natural telic laws.  This is the approach Thomas Nagel took in his Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.  It occurred to me recently that this approach may well be the most likely way for honest, curious and courageous materialists to accept the evidence on its own terms and at the same time find common ground with ID proponents.

RDFish is one of the most voracious proponents of materialism (which he prefers to call monist physicalism) ever to appear in these pages.  In one of his comments he argued that biological ID is committed to dualism.  I responded by arguing that while biological ID is certainly consistent with metaphysical dualism, it is not necessarily tied to it, and it can be accepted even by physicalist monists.  See here.

In the linked post I argued that a physicalist monist can accept a version of ID through the following reasoning:

  1. Design, meaning the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose, exists as a category of causation.
  2. The capacity to arrange matter for a purpose can be reduced to any force that is capable of arranging matter in the present so that it will have an effect in the future.
  3. There are at least two candidates for causal forces that have the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose. (a)  intelligent agents who have an immaterial mental capacity; (b) an impersonal non-conscious yet-to-be-discovered natural telic force.
  4. The monist rejects the existence of intelligent agents with immaterial mental capacities, because the existence of such agents obviously entails dualism.
  5. Instead, the monist can resort to the natural telic force.
  6. If such a natural telic force exists, the existence of design as a category of causation is no obstacle to accepting the truth of monist physicalism.

This get us to:

  1. If monist physicalism is true and a natural telic force exists, it is nevertheless possible objectively to infer design.
  2. Therefore, design may be inferred under monist physicalism using the explanatory filter.
  3. Therefore, ID does not depend on dualist metaphysical assumptions and can be accepted by a monist.

Which brings us back to Nagel.  In his book Nagel argued that Neo-Darwinism has failed to account for the data and is therefore almost certainly false.  But Nagel is an inveterate atheist and he is unwilling to give up on atheistic monism.  For Nagel, rejecting Neo-Darwinism does not entail embracing a dualist conception of ID.  Instead, he has posited what can be called a monist conception of ID by proposing the existence of natural telic laws.

In his book Being as Communion Bill Dembski writes that Nagel’s conception of teleology is completely consistent with ID writ large:

Nagel proposes to understand teleology in terms of natural teleological laws.  These laws would be radically different from the laws of physics and chemistry that currently are paradigmatic of the laws of nature.  And yet, as we shall see, such teleological laws fit quite naturally within an information-theoretic framework . . . his proposal, given in Mind and Cosmos . . . connects point for point with the account of information given in this book.  Indeed, Nagel’s teleological laws are none other than the directed searches (or alternative searches) that are the basis of Conservation of Information . . . of this book.

When orthodox Christian theist Bill Dembski says that he and vigorously atheistic materialist Thomas Nagel hold views that can – at a fundamental level – be reconciled, the rest of us should sit up and take notice.  And Dembski is not alone among theists in noting how Nagel’s views are compatible with their tradition broadly construed.  Christian philosopher Edward Feser writes:

[Nagel] rightly suggests that theists ought to be open to the idea of immanent teleology of the Aristotelian sort.  He may not be aware that medieval theologians like Aquinas were committed to precisely that.

Of course, Aquinas believed in the immanent teleology inherent in all things.  The only difference between Aquinas and Nagel is that Aquinas believed that God infused those things with immanent teleology; whereas Nagel believes the teleology results from a natural telic law.  But for our purposes isn’t the obvious teleology – that even Dawkins recognizes while denying – the important thing, at least as an initial question about the objective nature of things?

If theists and materialists can agree about the objective existence of teleology in nature, can we not also agree that – at least while we are doing science – questions about the ultimate provenance of that teleology can be held in abeyance?

I see a number of advantages of this approach for both sides.  For the materialists, the advantages are obvious.  They will be able to accept on face value the common sense conclusion their materialism has until now forced them to deny.  Teleology exists.  And at the same time they will not be forced to allow Lewontin’s dreaded “divine foot” in the door, because a “natural telic law” is not even an agent, far less a divine (or even conscious) agent.  For theists, as I have argued all along, ID can be adopted to both a monist and a dualist metaphysics.  And I, when I am not doing science, will continue to argue that God is the best candidate for the provenance of the teleology.  At the same time, by allowing for the possibility of a natural telic law, we ID proponents will not have the doors of science slammed in our face on account of the “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” argument.

Comments
GA's are not for modeling emergent levels of intelligence, caused by the behavior of matter. For that you need to know the basics of how any intelligence works. I first learned that from David Heiserman: http://robots.net/article/3428.htmlGaryGaulin
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Mung: GA’s are used to explore various designs, the vast majority of which are never manufactured. Genetic algorithms are represented by digital states in physical computers. That's how we determine the results, of course. However, we're not talking about computer algorithms, but the claim that someone or something designed and physically instantiated living organisms.Zachriel
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
GA's are used to explore various designs, the vast majority of which are never manufactured.Mung
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Axel: But the fact that it was implemented in physical form is neither here not there Of course it's here and there! That's the whole point. Organisms are physical entities. They exist in the here and there. Axel: Something functional of any complexity produced by the mind can only be produced by a mind. Any who, what, why when and where are totally irrelevant. Your own example undermines your position. Sure, the artist envisions a sculpture in his mind. If it ended there, it would leave no evidence, nor would be expect to find any. But carving the stone is a physical process. It moves matter from here to there. It requires energy, a steady hand. It leaves residue. If the claim isn't that life is the physical implementation of a form held in the mind by a designer, then the claim is of no relevance to biology. But if the claim is that the physical form is an implementation of a thought, a plan, an imagining, then that entails who, what, when, where, why, and how.Zachriel
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
But the fact that it was implemented in physical form is neither here not there, Zack. There may be a concept of historical science, but surely not of metaphysics. Something functional of any complexity produced by the mind can only be produced by a mind. Any who, what, why when and where are totally irrelevant.Axel
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Axel: When I think of a painting, I evidently have to conceive in my mind’s eye. It doesn’t mean I have to replicate it in embodied form, like the artist. Sure. However, we wouldn't be having the discussion of whether life was "designed" if the claim didn't entail that the design was implemented in physical form. Axel: I believe one famous sculptor said that he conceived in in his mind’s eye, and cut away everything that was superfluous. And the process of cutting away entails who, what, when, where, why, and how.Zachriel
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Use your noddle, Zack. You're supposed to be a scientist. When I think of a painting, I evidently have to conceive in my mind's eye. It doesn't mean I have to replicate it in embodied form, like the artist. That's just two dimensional, but the same clearly holds for three dimensional designs, the so-called plastic arts of sculpture and the like. KF was being imprecise, as he was concentrating on a different perspective, the perspective of their embodiments, I believe. I believe one famous sculptor said that he conceived in in his mind's eye, and cut away everything that was superfluous. As completely irrelevant aside, I couldn't scuplt a single part of a single body-part without botching it, and having to start again and again with a new 'block'. Design = mental activity, product. There is no 'design' that is even partially effected physically ; Manufacture = by derivation, making by hand ... as in the French word, 'main'.Axel
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: design is design, it points to fabrication Glad you agree. Mung had claimed otherwise, saying "The claim of intelligent design does not entail manufacture." And that raises the entailments of who, when, where, why, and how.Zachriel
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Z & VS: design is design, it points to fabrication and can often be detected through reliable, tested signs in the result of intelligently directed configuration. The design inference on tested, reliable sign is not vacuous. Ponder, please, how deeply an ideological determination not to acknowledge such signs shapes thought in the teeth of evident facts. KFkairosfocus
January 30, 2016
January
01
Jan
30
30
2016
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Mung: The claim of intelligent design does not entail manufacture. Well, that explains it then. There's an idea, a plan, but no implementation. No one and no thing manipulates matter into the purported artifact. Someone had the idea in his mind for the Empire State Building, but no one built it. ID is vacuous.Zachriel
January 30, 2016
January
01
Jan
30
30
2016
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Mung But you’re conflating design with manufacture. Your are simplifying design to exclude manufacture, in human design the parameters of manufacture provide feedback in the design process.velikovskys
January 30, 2016
January
01
Jan
30
30
2016
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Zachriel: The claim of “Intelligent Design” entails manufacture. The claim of intelligent design does not entail manufacture.Mung
January 30, 2016
January
01
Jan
30
30
2016
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: So we must answer all questions before we can answer any? No, but you can't ignore obvious entailments either. Mung: But you’re conflating design with manufacture. No. The claim of "Intelligent Design" entails manufacture.Zachriel
January 30, 2016
January
01
Jan
30
30
2016
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
From the OP, Barry Arrington says: "And I, when I am not doing science, will continue to argue that God is the best candidate for the provenance of the teleology." Just so I am clear, what science is it that you are doing?timothya
January 30, 2016
January
01
Jan
30
30
2016
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
Zachriel: If you can’t answer where the materials and energy came from, how they were manipulated, then you haven’t answered “How?”. But you're conflating design with manufacture.Mung
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
It’s easy to paint a horse pink and slap a party hat on its forehead. It might be easy, but I'm still not sure I'd do it.Mung
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Z:
It’s easy to show that replicators can evolve, in vivo, in vitro, in silico.
It's easy to paint a horse pink and slap a party hat on its forehead.Phinehas
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
We simply point out that there are entailments in the claim that an object is designed, and that those entailments include causal links from the manufacture. If you can’t answer where the materials and energy came from, how they were manipulated, then you haven’t answered “How?”.
So we must answer all questions before we can answer any? You just killed science. Nice job. And if the topic arises that representations are required to organize the cell from memory, will you be telling us again that RNA may have the potential to transcribe itself.Upright BiPed
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: you insist that we consider a paradigm that doesn’t even get you to the representations that are fundamental to the effect. We simply point out that there are entailments in the claim that an object is designed, and that those entailments include causal links from the manufacture. If you can't answer where the materials and energy came from, how they were manipulated, then you haven't answered "How?". Upright BiPed: Over and over, again and again, you present this explanation as a meaningful response, without even a care in the world that it doesn’t answer every question that could be asked of it, much less answer the central question of how the representations originated. We understand that you claim there was "plan". However, when someone asks how the pyramids were built, they are asking about where the stones were quarried, how they were moved, how they were lifted into place. Similarly with Who? When? Where? If you say none of this matters, then that is the very problem with your position.Zachriel
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Phineas: Of course we would, since we were reasonably certain it was designed. Better. So now you are "reasonably certain" the object is designed. Then you search for the artisan, try to date the manufacture, determine where the materials came from, etc. And with the pyramids, these answers quickly become evident. With biology, that evidence is not to be found, and other hypotheses have been proposed that explain the evidence found in everything from rocks to molecules. Phineas: We also have the possibility of pink unicorns. It's easy to show that replicators can evolve, in vivo, in vitro, in silico.Zachriel
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
That’s fine, but that isn’t sufficient to answer “how”, much less the other entailed questions.
Zach, but you insist that we consider a paradigm that doesn't even get you to the representations that are fundamental to the effect. Over and over, again and again, you present this explanation as a meaningful response, without even a care in the world that it doesn't answer every question that could be asked of it, much less answer the central question of how the representations originated. Hypocricy much? The bottom line is that we can physically identify the system, and the only other instance where such system can be identified is as an unambiguous product of intelligence. - - - - - - - - - - - - - EDIT: Don't get me wrong here Zach, I am not appealing to your sense of fairness. I recognize that you can't afford to have any.Upright BiPed
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Z:
With self-replication, we have the possibility of evolutionary processes.
We also have the possibility of pink unicorns. We've little to no evidence of either.Phinehas
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Z:
That’s right. We wouldn’t say, “It’s designed”, wipe our hands and go home. We would attempt to find evidence of the who, what, when, where, why, and how.
Of course we would, since we were reasonably certain it was designed.Phinehas
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: That would indicate to me that energy was used to rearrange matter. What it would not do is alter the requirement that matter be arranged to bring representations into being. That's fine, but that isn't sufficient to answer "how", much less the other entailed questions. Phinehas: But consilience between different lines of evidence isn’t required in order to draw a scientific conclusion. Lack of evidence of an obvious entailment would certainly call into question the claim. Phinehas: Rather, we would begin seeking other possible designers, since the artifact entails an artificer. That's right. We wouldn't say, "It's designed", wipe our hands and go home. We would attempt to find evidence of the who, what, when, where, why, and how. Phinehas: We’d likely reevaluate our knowledge concerning when humans might have first appeared. Or we’d suppose that aliens may have been involved. Or propose other hypotheses. With self-replication, we have the possibility of evolutionary processes.Zachriel
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Z:
No. They are inextricably linked by a chain of causation, and it’s the consilience of the evidence that lends confidence to scientific conclusions.
Lends confidence, yes. But consilience between different lines of evidence isn't required in order to draw a scientific conclusion. As HeKs pointed out elsewhere, if pyramids or other artifacts were found that pre-dated humans, they would not then be relegated to natural phenomena. Rather, we would begin seeking other possible designers, since the artifact entails an artificer. We'd likely reevaluate our knowledge concerning when humans might have first appeared. Or we'd suppose that aliens may have been involved. The same would happen for the discovery of tools that pre-dated our knowledge of tool-users. We wouldn't conclude that the tools were natural phenomena. Rather, we'd change our view on when tool-users first appeared in history. Why? Because things that are designed obviously entail a designer, even if we have to invent one where one did not formerly exist.Phinehas
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Energy is required to rearrange matter, not mere thought.
That would indicate to me that energy was used to rearrange matter. What it would not do is alter the requirement that matter be arranged to bring representations into being.Upright BiPed
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: It makes no difference whether there is some causal link ... That explains a lot about your position. Eric Anderson: Is x designed? Who designed x? No. They are inextricably linked by a chain of causation, and it's the consilience of the evidence that lends confidence to scientific conclusions. Mung: The existence of an artifact entails the existence of an artificer. It's the claim that it's an artifact, while ignoring the links of causation from the artifact to the art to the artisan, that is faulty. Mung: Need evidence of the artificer? Look at the artifact. So what can you tell us about who, what, when, where, why, and how, for organisms? Upright BiPed: The general “how” is already known. The use of physical representations is the how; the capacity to specify something in a material system. Energy is required to rearrange matter, not mere thought. And action occurs in a time and place. Even the Bible provides a mechanism.
Genesis 2,7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Zachriel
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
The general "how" is already known. The use of physical representations is the how; the capacity to specify something in a material system. That is the utility that intelligence uses to implement design, and that is how the cell came to be organized.Upright BiPed
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
The existence of an artifact entails the existence of an artificer. No amount of handwaving by Zachriel can change that. Need evidence of the artificer? Look at the artifact. Duh.Mung
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Zachriel: It makes no difference whether there is some causal link, whether we would love, from the bottom of our sincere hearts, to know the why's, who's, when's, how's and so on's. This is a simple matter of logic 101. Is x designed? Who designed x? These are two separate questions. Period. It makes no difference how adamant you are and how much you stomp your feet. It doesn't matter whether they are related in some fashion. They are two separate questions.Eric Anderson
January 29, 2016
January
01
Jan
29
29
2016
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply