Letter from Darrel Falk
| June 27, 2006 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
Below is a letter to me by Darrel Falk, a biologist on the faculty at Point Loma Nazarene University. Darrel and I have known each other for several years, and even though our views on ID diverge, we respect each other. The letter here is in response to my recent blog entry at UD on Ken Miller and Francis Collins’s possible openness to ID at the origin of life (go here). Note that Francis Collins wrote the foreword to Darrel’s book Coming to Faith with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, a book for which I also wrote an endorsement (although I have my differences with the book, I think it is one we need to engage).
In giving me permission to post this letter, Darrel remarked, “I have always greatly admired your sincerity. I have sensed a number of times how much you really want ID to be a true scientific force and not just a political force. Most recently this was clearly (and sincerely) evident in your statements in the Phillip Johnson Festschrift [i.e., Darwin’s Nemesis]. I believe you really have a vision that Intelligent Design should be of the highest quality biology. It is with that in mind that I hope you (and those who read your blog) will take my comments in the form of constructive criticism. I hope that people within the movement don’t become defensive, but will simply ask the question, ‘Does Falk have a point worth considering?’†To this he added, “I personally hope that Intelligent Design will evolve into a force that partners with science rather than a force which opposes it. If it would do that, I believe its influence would live on in ways that extend beyond the positive things it has already done.â€Â
Here, then, is the letter (unedited; the ellipses were there in the original). I’ve interspersed comments in backets using boldface.
======================
Hi Bill,
I am responding to your blog entry of last evening in which you ask the question of whether people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller are ID as it relates to origin of life. The same question could be asked of many people who take the theistic evolution stance and who extend God’s involvement to all of creation: including myself, in Coming to Peace with Science, and the position espoused so eloquently by Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett in Evolution from Creation to New Creation. There are many people who believe that God is not ever removed from creation, and thereby believe that the history of the creation of life is a manifestation of God’s design. Those people believe in intelligent design, but have significant concerns about elements of Intelligent Design.
[I’m not convinced that having two versions of ID, one writ small and the other writ large with initial letters underscored is all that helpful. It seems that ID has now staked out a clear position, being defined as the study of patterns in nature, and especially in biology, that are best explained as the result of intelligence. Detectability of design is therefore built into this definition. The writ large version is now the standard version of ID. To write it in this peculiar way suggests that it is a strange or marginal version, which it is not. This way of writing it seems to me no different from putting scare quotes around the term. As for intelligent design writ small, it obviously conveys that there is some purpose behind any thing to which the term “intelligent design†is applied. As a theological or metaphysical predicate, this usage is meaningful. But it seems to me no different from any number of other predicates that bespeak purpose. How is “X is intelligently design†in the writ-small sense, any different from “X was intended,†or “X was conceived by a mind†or “X is the product of a wise God†or “X is the result of a telic process� Until intelligent design in the writ-small sense is given some definite scientific content, it seems to me that this alternate use of the term confuses rather than clarifies.]
Intelligent Design has had an important influence on science. Increasingly, I believe, the world of science has come to see that it reached outside of its bounds in a way that is espoused most clearly, I believe, by Michael Ruse (e.g. “My analysis is that we have no simple clash between religion and science but between two religions.†The Evolution Creation Struggle, 2005). From this day onward, the scientific establishment is going to be much more careful about statements regarding life arising by “blind chance.†Increasingly, thanks to Intelligent Design, the scientific establishment is becoming aware that many of its leading spokespersons moved from beyond science into a form of religion. This has been a most important correction to how the normal science (in the sense articulated by Thomas Kuhn) is done. Consider, for example, the closing words of The Plausibility of Life by Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart: “The question of faith remains…†Were it not for the ID movement, these leading scientists, writing one of the most important mainstream biology books of the past twenty-five years, would never have closed their book with such an admission. That shift in how normal science is done in evolutionary biology needed to occur and for that we who are believers (regardless of our perspective regarding the ID movement), all have you to thank.
[Thanks, Darrel, for highlighting ID’s role in keeping science honest. As for the Kirschner and Gerhart book, I don’t hold it in quite as high regard as you do. See the following UD blog entry where the book was briefly addressed: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/415. Their theory of facilitated variation depends on various modules of genes working in concert to radically change organisms. But whence organisms with such modules that facilitate their evolution? And what is the evidence that such modules, when appropriately modified, will induce macroevolutionary changes? It seems to me that Kirschner and Gerhart leave too many vital questions unanswered for their book to be a real contender as the key to a new general evolutionary biology.]
However, Intelligent Design does not stop there. It calls into question the basic rules by which science has operated for the last 150 years. It calls upon science to include in its hypotheses the existence of the supernatural. This is a call to redefine science and to make it into a discipline that includes not just a study of the natural, but the supernatural as well. It calls not just for a correction in how normal science is done…what it calls for is a paradigm shift (a la Thomas Kuhn) that would now include the search for divine activity using the tools of science. This makes belief in Intelligent Design a whole different ballgame than belief in intelligent design.
[I would agree that intelligent design writ large is a different ballgame from intelligent design writ small, but not because it fundamentally violates science. Rather, it is a different ball game because it genuinely is trying to make design a part of the natural sciences whereas intelligent design writ small is content to reside in the realm of theology and metaphysics. The conflation of ID with supernaturalism is inappropriate. What’s at issue is the nature of nature. Is nature the sort of place where telic organizing principles can operate? That’s all ID requires. It does not require supernatural designers who operate outside nature. Intelligence can be a PERFECTLY NATURAL aspect of the physical world. Where ID runs into problems is with a materialistic and reductionist understanding of science. Such an understanding was never written in stone. It is historically contingent, and the ID community argues that there is no reason to retain it. I’ve addressed the fact that ID is not a supernaturalist theory in my book THE DESIGN REVOLUTION, devoting a chapter to it. You can also read about this in my expert witness rebuttal report to the Dover case here, section 2.3 on “methodological materialism.â€Â]
Now I come to my most important point. Intelligent Design makes the claim that irreducibly complex structures in biology lead to “the resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence.†(Darwin’s Black Box). At this point the movement begins to address the field of biology on its own terms. It searches the scientific literature and concludes, for example: “We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.†(Darwin’s Black Box). Whether this was true ten years ago is certainly up for debate. However, a recent review of the origin of the immune system lists 160 articles in its bibliography (see Reconstructing Immune Phylogeny: New Perspectives, Nature Reviews/ Immunology 5:866-879, 2005). Despite this the Afterword of the tenth anniversary edition of Darwin’s Black Box concludes: “The papers I cite here on the cilium, flagellum, blood clotting and immune systems are the best work by Darwinists on the origin of complex molecular machinery available since 1996 in the science literature.â€Â
Only one paper on the immune system was cited and none of the 160 papers discussed in the above review of the origin of the immune system were cited. Bill, that is not the way that good science has ever proceeded. In science, we give very careful analysis to the arguments of the other side. We discuss the papers, explaining what we agree with about them and what we think is still lacking… and we do so in detail. However, we don’t ignore them. ID is simply not proceeding a manner that is consistent with how good science is done.
[Darrel, good science also does not proceed by data dumping, simply citing lots and lots of papers, as though sheer numbers can establish an otherwise unsupported claim. Behe’s addressed your point in his response to the Dover trial (go here). At the trial, in parallel with your 160 journal articles, the ACLU attorney dumped in front of Behe 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9 books and several immunology textbook chapters on the evolution of the immune system. Behe’s main point in response was this: “The Court here speaks of ‘evidence for evolution.’ Throughout the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the word ‘evolution,’ and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism. I said in my testimony that the studies may have been fine as far as they went, but that they certainly did not present detailed, rigorous explanations for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection -- if they had, that knowledge would be reflected in more recent studies that I had had a chance to read.†Darrel, it’s a question or relevance and what these studies prove. Yes, there seems good evidence that the immune system evolved. But did it happen through an unguided materialistic process (e.g., the Darwinian mechanism)? Or is there evidence of design working through this evolutionary process?]
So do people like Francis Collins, Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris… some of the leading scientists in the world today (and they are believers!!) subscribe to intelligent design? Absolutely. However, Intelligent Design goes well beyond a belief in intelligent design. It has come to be synonymous with a call for the upheaval of science…. for a divorce between Christianity and science. I’m all for a divorce if the call was coming from carefully laid out biological arguments from people who really understand biology. However, that is not the case.
[Darrel, the divorce we are talking about is between Christianity and an ideologically charged materialistic conception of science that stunts inquiry into the full range of causal powers that may be operating in nature. It’s a divorce between science falsely so-called and Christianity. Science without the metaphysical baggage of materialism is not being challenged. Nor is ID guaranteed to succeed once this baggage is jettisoned. It may be, once design is allowed on the playing field of science, that the evidence of biology will not demonsrate design -- the methods of design detection that ID theorists have proposed do not guarantee that design will be found. As for your charge that ID proponents are not carefully laying out biological arguments and do not really understand the biology, this seems to me unfair and mistaken. Steve Meyer’s 2004 article titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories†in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was peer-reviewed. You can find it here. Meyer understands as well as anyone the application of information theory to genetics. His piece, it seems to me, is a counteraxample to your claim. And there are many such counterexamples.]
I wish that the Movement could shift gears now … that it would stop its anti-scientific rhetoric until (or unless) it has real scientific data to support its cause. Truth wins out in the end and I am absolutely convinced that mainstream science is simply discovering how God has worked in creation. The Plausibility of Life is a magnificent book for a believer to read, as is Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll. I wish we could celebrate and worship in the light of what they reveal about God’s creation … recognizing nonetheless that God has likely worked through processes so subtle that we’ll never be able to pull out that which God has done, independent of God’s own natural laws, and be able to prove this supernatural activity to the world at large.
[No, the rhetoric, rather, is against a certain materialistic construal of science -- see the last comment. It seems that you are happy for God to work undetected through material processes that give no evidence and exhibit no need of his activity. That may be the way God acts, but how could we know it? And how could be know whether God or some designing intelligence has acted detectably? You have your own predilections here, preferring a God a who works so subtlely that “we’ll never be able to pull out that which God has done.†In place of your wish, let me therefore offer another: I wish theistic evolutionists like you and Ken Miller and Francis Collins would shift gears now and stop dismissing the evidence of design in biology because you prefer a designer God who acts undetectably.]
Again, I want to thank you for the fact that you really have impacted the world of science in a way that will live on long after we have both moved on to a better place.
In Friendship,
Darrel
P.S. I recently expressed some of this in some talks I have given in Australia. If word gets back to you that I’ve been hard on the ID movement, please know that my concerns are no different than those which I outline above.
[Yes, a contact in Australia informed of the hard line on ID that you took there -- it’s a small world after all. Thanks for your letter and for being willing to share it.]
47 Responses to Letter from Darrel Falk
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To idnet: “Would it not represent, in theory, a case of science verifying a supernatural process, which is supposed to be excluded by the definition of science?”
Yes. But don’t forget, that science would stop there.
Furthermore, what I have tried to say is that there is no a priori reason to expect that the God of the Bible, our Creator, has worked (or currently works)in a manner that will be detectable and provable by the tools of science. Probably the example that you use is a case in point.
Ironically, the example that you use is that which brings new life to each of us. We owe our existence to our own resurrection as new creations…but even that precious as it is, is probably not amenable to scientific proof.
All I’m saying is that I’m not optimistic…and so far all that I as a biologist have seen put forward by ID folk, has other natural explanations, just as the new life you and I enjoy in Christ has other explanations to the unbeliever. You and I both know that it happened (and happens!!) because of Christ. So also you and I both know that “in him all things were created…and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1). But should we be optimistic that this is provable through the tools of science? Probably not, in my opinion…and certainly, in my opinion, the issues raised by ID are not standing up to scientific scrutiny so far. There are natural explanations to go along with that which you and I believe to be true, which is: “In the beginning was the Word…through him all things were made, without him nothing was made that has been made.”
Could it be that God wants to keep it a little mysterious? Could it be that Christ wants there to be an element of faith involved in our following him? After the storm struck on the Sea of Galilee (Mark 8), Jesus asked the disciples, in essence: Where is your faith? Perhaps faith and respect for the mysterious are a desired quality in followers of Jesus. Perhaps when Jesus says “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear,” he is saying that it will always require careful listening, the kind that isn’t amenable to scientific proof.
Enough preaching, sorry.
Darrel, do you think the parting of the Red Sea would have been scientifically detectable? Or how about Jesus feeding 5000 from 5 loaves and fishes? Or his death & resurrection? Your assertions that the God of the bible is undetectable by science seems to be denying the possibility of witnessed miracles. Is that right or if not right how do you reconcile all the recorded miracles with a God that works behind a cloak of indetectability? -ds
Darel Falk,
I said above this discussion has taken place before on other threads. I made the comment above on the nature of God and the implications of ID which had taken place before. There was another comment from the same thread that is relevant to parts of your last comment and it has to do with faith.
“Several years ago I was a college professor and shared an office one semester with an elderly Jewish man who was an adjunct professor. We talked about a lot of things and a little about religion. One time we discussed the concept of faith. He said that faith only exists when there is doubt. For example, we do not have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. That is a belief based on fact not something of faith. Thus, he said faith only has meaning when there is the possibility that what we have faith in may not be true.
We discussed specifically whether there was a God or not and he said there will always be the possibility that there is no God because to know for certain that He exists like the sun rising each day would make life meaningless. We would be just automatons. Continuing he said that God would make sure that was true could be found and that God would also give us enough evidence to find him. Now that was his definition of faith and for him it meant that the world must appear essentially the result of random events to have meaning.
I am not actually sure but someone said Ken Miller has made the comment that God has not left a “smoking gun.†This would be consistent with this view of the world.
I am reluctant to leave a comment like this here because it will get people off on a tangent of God, faith, meaning of life when the mission at hand is to bring the truth about Darwin to the general public and the educational curriculum. All these diversions are interesting but are counter productive on this forum. So please no one start discussing definitions of faith since I did not say this is my definition or tried to make a case for it but only used it to show why some may believe the world has to appear random.
Of course the Darwinists will say the reason the world appears random, is because it is random and we come back and say that the reason some of it appears designed is because it is designed. We have the easier task. All we need is one incontrovertible instance.”
I assumed the point the Jewish gentleman was trying to make was that if life become too certain than we will lose our ability to use our free will and everything will become prescribed and life’s actions will lose meaning.
I personally am not anxious to get ID as the accepted part of our education science curriculum as I am to get Darwinism out of it. I think design is a far better explanation than randomness for some aspects of our world but that neither should be part of the science curriculum in grammar and high schools.
Also as I said above when religion couples itself with Darwinism or any other naturalistic explanation it is a Devil’s bargain.
Jerry,
It appears from your comment that the purpose of this forum is simply to spread the truth as you (and others) see it and not to explore the nature of truth further. For example, how could the question of whether the designer purposely desires to foster a sense of mystery, be a tangent that needs no further discussion in a forum like this?
This illustrates my concern as to whether ID is really science as opposed to politics. Science involves a search for truth. Politics pushes an agenda. If ID is really science, it will explore issues like this. If it is a political movement, it will attempt to squelch discussions related to a search for understanding. With all due respect, I felt I was raising an important scientific question. I was taking Bill D. at his word when he said that ID’ers need to engage the issues I raise in “Coming to Peace with Biology.†If you and others feel that the issue I raised is not in keeping with the purpose of this forum, I’ll bother you no further.
In Him and with respect,
ID has both scientific and political aspects. So does global warming, stem cell research, experimenting with animal subjects, construction/operation of telescopes & particle accelerators, fusion energy research, and God only knows how many other lines of scientific inquiry. Why do you think it has to be either/or? That appears to be a very naive assertion but I’ll give you a chance to show me it how it isn’t naive. -ds
Darel Falk,
How many books are in the Library of Congress that attempt to deal with the nature of truth? How many different opinions might there be on a forum such as this? If we actually did a serious discussion of this here we might as well close down the thread since we will get a major subset of those opinions expressed and they won’t be short. So I am not sure that this is the proper place. Now that is just my opinion and I also know that my beliefs differ substantially from others here so when I express a reluctance to discuss such topics, it is not from a desire to suppress anything but just that it is unlikely it will get anywhere and be contentious. With all those books in the Library of Congress and no consensus in today’s world what are the odds that anything would come out of such a discussion here.
I did find something else interesting in your reply. Namely, that the implication of my comment meant that we seem to be interested in squelching discussion. First of all, it is my comment and not anyone else’s. I have given my reasons for not discussing this topic. It has nothing to do with lack of interest or the suppression of anyone’s opinion. Certainly this thread could be continued to discuss such a thing and I have no problems with that but a recent thread got into some very personal religious discussions and it was decided to stop that type of discussion. The nature of truth could also lead to many very personal opinions.
I would like to close with a slight paraphrase of your second paragraph.
“This illustrates my concern as to whether Darwinism is really science as opposed to politics. Science involves a search for truth. Politics pushes an agenda. If Darwinism is really science, it will explore issues like this. If it is a political movement, it will attempt to squelch discussions related to a search for understanding.”
I happen to think my paraphrase is closer to the truth than the original. It is one of the main reasons we are gathered here. To spread the truth. Maybe “as we see it” but let others judge. At the moment ID is being squelched by a very organized movement who call themselves scientists.
DS,
You have raised two very good points:
1.What about all of the recorded miracles, how does that jive with a God who desires his activity to be undetectable?
First of all, I want to acknowledge that you have a point well taken. The miracles that you outline would have been obvious to all, and indeed they were performed so that the faith of the people would have been enhanced. God does speak to us, the resurrection did occur, people are healed, all of these things are commonly held tenets of most Christians, including myself. However, does it carry over from there that God would have created in ways that would be detectable through scientific tools all these years later? We cannot prove scientifically that the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand took place, because it was a singularity. Even today, is there scientific proof for our present miracles and current answers to prayer? I am not saying that by definition, God will be undetectable. I’m just saying that I suspect that it will always be enveloped in mystery and perhaps that’s the way that God prefers it to be. For sure, however, a tenet of my faith is that God communicates with each of us as individuals, or as small groups (the nation of Israel in the case of the Red Sea crossing; the 5,000 in the case of the miraculous feeding) in ways that strengthen our faith. Scientific proof of a universal nature? That’s another matter.
2. Don’t most scientific fields include political as well as scientific components?
Absolutely. I guess I had raised a point that I felt was fairly central, and as a newcomer I felt I was being told that the most important thing about this ID forum was to get Darwinism out of the science classroom…not to explore questions of the sort that I have posed.
Dave, this is a personal response to you. You should not feel it necessary to post this unless you feel it adds something to the discussion. Thank you for all of your work in moderating the forum and for raising key points. Both of the ones you have raised of me are outstanding, and I have appreciated many other aspects of what you have done as I’ve looked over this blog in recent days.
Given that you were an invited writer you haven’t been subject to any moderation at all. Who told you the most important thing about this forum was to get Darwinism out of the classroom? I certainly want no such thing. I want the possibility of intelligent design and the rationale behind it IN the classroom alongside “Darwinism” so the student knows neither hypothesis (I consider RM+NS in macroevolution to fall far short of being a theory) is written in granite and perhaps might be tempted inquire into the matter in greater depth in university or perhaps even become a researcher into the question. Teaching that evolution and origin of life is nothing but chance & necessity working over deep time, and teaching it in a vacuum as if it’s settled science like basic physics and chemistry, inhibits more in depth study. Not teaching anything at all about chance & necessity similarly discourages further study – one isn’t inclined to further study things that one doesn’t know even exists. -ds
This seems to me to be patently untrue. If scientists were to witness a resurrection, science would look for natural explanations for how a dead man could return to life. If they were to witness the phenomenon, then isn’t it by definition a natural event? If it is a natural event, does it not by definition have natural causes? If it is a natural event with natural causes, is it not, by definition, amenable to scientific investigation?
DS,
I am not sure I agree with you on putting ID and Darwinism head to head in the classroom. I am pretty sure who would get the most votes if there was an honest comparison but the obstacles to get that comparison are rather large at the moment. ID has become a lightning rod and the ACLU, the scientists, the press will use it immediately to bring up the bogus religious issues which will then dominate the discussion. Look at the travesty in Dover. However, if Darwin could be stripped from the science curriculum except for the trivial areas it has relevance, it would be just as great a victory.
To equate Darwin with trivial would be a fantastic achievement. And the best part about it, is that it is the truth.
It will be interesting to see what happens during the Cornell course this summer where they are going head to head. We are allowed to contribute as kibitzers to make sure the presentation is not one sided. I am not sure anyone has done that yet.
Darrel,
Thanks for spending time patiently answering questions on this blog: I have a couple more questions if you are happy to answer:
Firstly, is there any empirical difference between the ‘theistic evolution’ view of evolution and the view of say, Richard Dawkins? ie are there any differences besides the metaphysical conclusions drawn from it? If not, then surely the ‘theistic’ part of theistic evolution is superfluous? If so, for example humans are the ‘inevitable outcome’ of evolution (as Simon Conway Morris has suggested) then surely this is teleological and therefore in the same broad tent as ID?
Secondly, you indicate that you are not persuaded by the arguments of Michael Behe. If we take the well known example of the bacterial flagellum, do you think that pointing to the existence of the Type III Secretory System is sufficient to establish that flagella evolved in a Darwinian manner? Given that as yet there is no clear evolutionary history of these structures, what makes you confident that in future it will be shown that cellular structures like these have evolved in a gradual, Darwininan manner?
Thanks,
antg
PS in my second question, I am not suggesting an argument from ignorance, that is, I am not suggesting if it is not Darwinian it is therefore ‘design’.
Antg: “Firstly, is there any empirical difference between the ‘theistic evolution’ view of evolution and the view of say, Richard Dawkins? ie are there any differences besides the metaphysical conclusions drawn from it? If not, then surely the ‘theistic’ part of theistic evolution is superfluous?â€Â
Thank you, antg, for your comment and for the spirit with which you ask it. I am not quite sure I know what you mean by “the theistic part of theistic evolution†being superfluous if there is no testable (emphasis on testable) difference between what Dawkins sees in the history of life and what I as a Christian biologist sees. I believe that God worked through influencing natural selection whenever and however God wanted (and wants) to do so. So since I believe this is the way that God works, not only do I think it is hardly superfluous, it is the very place where I as a Christian biologist feel that I am on holy ground…in the very Presence of God. However, perhaps I misunderstood your question. If so, sorry about that.
Antg: “What makes you confident that in future it will be shown that cellular structures like these have evolved in a gradual, Darwinian manner?â€Â
I have not done much work or reading on the biology of the bacterial flagellum. On the other hand, I have done more reading on the origin of the immune system, an area that “Darwin’s Black Box†indicated was full of unanswered “origins questions†that biologists have not addressed. Although it is technical and leads into even more technical literature, I would highly recommend ID biologists consult the review: Litman, Gary W., John P. Cannon, and Larry J. Dishaw, (2005), Reconstructing Immune Phylogeny: New Perspectives, Nature Reviews/ Immunology 5:866-879. This paper does a tremendous job of showing what has happened over the past 15 years and refers to the over 150 papers that explore many of the questions that Michael said had not yet been broached in 1996. They have been now, and the data that has come in is truly amazing. Michael still says, of course, that they haven’t shown Darwinian evolution, something that will surprise none of the readers of this forum. But for those who really follow this kind of literature carefully, the evidence, many of us who are Christian biologists believe, is that God has created even the immune system in a step-by-step manner over hundreds of millions years and, based on the data, there is no reason at this point to believe that God did not use natural selection as his tool.
Again, antg and others, thank you for your patience in reading an opinion that is likely different than your own.
Darrel,
I guess what I was trying to get at was is that I have never understood when a theistic evolutionist says ‘God influences natural selection’, whether that statement based on empirical data or is it based on a theological view. The question to me is whether scientifically there is a difference between ‘God influences natural selection’ and ‘God does not influence natural selection’.
Anyway, I speak as someone who has no theological stake in how evolution happened and would agree that God can work any way he pleases. However, for me these things, among others, suggest that teleology is real and detectable in biology:
- the semantic information present in DNA, that is not reducible to chance and necessity
- massive evolutionary convergence at many levels, suggesting high-level patterns
- the presence of Hox genes suggesting a pre-ordained system architecture
- the difficulties of abiogenesis research in getting a plausible story of the origin of the first cellular life, suggesting that we will have to take life itsself as an axiom.
To me, all these threads are just waiting to be tied together. I am sceptical that ‘blind’ natural selection can produce this. It seems to me that evolution is a purposeful unfolding of life, similar in the way that, say, a human develops from a single fertilised egg (as others in this blog have suggested). I think it would be incredibly exciting if theistic evolutionists would begin to consider evolution in this way.
If, however, Dawrwinian natural selection is a good explantion for all this, as you suggest it is for the evolution of the immune system, then so be it…!
Dr. Falk,
Thanks for fielding questions here. Like antg, I also am confused by your remarks. Now you say, “I believe that God worked through influencing natural selection whenever and however God wanted (and wants) to do so.” Would this include not influencing natural selection at all? However, earlier, you said,
It seems to me that all the first sentence of that quote means that is that theistic evolutionists believe that the ‘information and complexity of life in nature’ cannot occur without intelligence. And that is essentially in accordance with Dr. Dembski’s “fundamental claim of ID”: “there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” (However, that the intelligence is God does not necessarily follow, and the question of whether there must be an ongoing presence of intelligence is a separate issue, dependent on the evidence. )
Let me point out that the claim is falsifiable. All that must be shown is that such features can, indeed, be generated by undirected natural forces. If it weren’t falsifiable, than neither would it’s converse be falsifiable.
Do theistic evolutionists believe that life requires intelligence, or not?
From this I take it that Darrel believss that God used natural selection as his creative tool. From this I suppose we can deduce that natural selection is a creative force. Can someone please explain to me in what sense natural selection is a creative force, either guided or unguided? What does natural selection create, and how?
Does God also use genetic drift as a creative tool?
Dr Falk,
Thank you for visiting Australia it was good to hear and meet you. You are a credit to the faith you profess. Thanks for visiting this blog, and for your patience with us.
I have read your excellent book and have a selection of your blog statements with comments.
“Could it be that God wants to keep it a little mysterious? Could it be that Christ wants there to be an element of faith involved in our following him?”
You will gather from other posts that ID is not the exclusive property of Christians. Should ID be established as scientific orthodoxy, there will be no less need for faith. There is no likelihood that Christian churches will suddenly fill up. (which sub brand should be building extensions?)It will simply mean that the loud “brights” of this world will look somewhat dimmer.
“The Darwinists will say the reason the world appears random, is because it is random …
we come back and say that the reason some of it appears designed is because it is designed. We have the easier task. All we need is one incontrovertible instance.”
The Bacterial Flagellum remains one piece of, as yet, incontroverted evidence. Yet you say.
“I have not done much work or reading on the biology of the bacterial flagellum.”
There is nothing at all central to ID that says over what period of time the Designer enacted the design process.
“God worked through influencing natural selection whenever and however God wanted”
We would consider this a form of small i small d. You seem to feel that this will always require your spectacles of faith to perceive.
As you have rightly assessed, big I big D as a scientific enterprise is about whether it is in principle, possible to detect design using the tools of science.
You seem to have a clear philosophical predisposition to the opinion that the God of the Bible would not make His designs detectable. You may be right, you may be wrong.
ID is putting evidence on the table. ID is standing back and looking at the birth of things like systems biology and design biomimicry and asking questions that a child would ask.
I have to wonder if Darrell Falk believes in miracles. I have to wonder if Darrel Falk believes in answered prayer.
I have to wonder, if God prefers or chooses to remain hidden, why did he appear in the person of his son, Jesus Christ?
I have to wonder…at the handiwork of God.
I have been enjoying God’s creation in Sequoia National Park for the past five days, hence my lack of reply to several comments. So even, though I don’t imagine anyone is still checking this thread, I’ll try to address the comments that followed my last one, just in case.
First of all, “antg†(comment 41) and I are on almost exactly the same page. I like how (s)he indicates that it is faith in God that ties the various mysteries of God’s creation together (e.g. information content, Hox genes, etc.). The heart of the issue, however, is antg’s statement:
“The question to me is whether scientifically there is a difference between ‘God influences natural selection’ and ‘God does not influence natural selection’.â€Â
The answer (as I see it) is that so far there is not scientific data to lead one to conclude that God influences natural selection. In other words, I can’t put together a set of scientific facts which prove by the same criteria that are used for other scientific theories that “God influences natural selection.†If I could I would not just be a person who believes in intelligent design, but I would believe in Intelligent Design (i.e. be a supporter of the ID movement.
I believe that the above paragraph also addresses the question by “j†in comment #42. I do believe that life requires and originates because of an intelligence: “In the beginning was the Word…†There is nothing more central to my life than that.
Thirdly, Mung has asked in what sense natural selection (guided or unguided) is a creative force. I guess I’m not sure what Mung means by this question. To me, the story of life (i.e. biology) is a manifestation of unparalleled creativity. Since life is a product of natural selection working within the context of God’s Presence…it is the ultimate example of what happens as a result of this “creative force.†I must have misunderstood Mung’s question because the answer seems so obvious to me as a person who has been privileged to spend the past 30 years teaching about God’s creativity as manifest in biology.
I appreciate the comments from ID Net Australia. Again as ID net has said the key question is what he thinks to be my predisposition to undetectability. I appreciate why he (and others) would think that I am predisposed in this manner. However, I don’t think it’s true. Its just that if I scrutinize the data raised by ID proponents with the same stringent criteria I (like other scientists) have used all of my career…I don’t agree that there is strong scientific data that proves (in a scientific sense) an external designer….not of the same sort that points to the fact that DNA is the hereditary material, that DNA is replicated semi-conservatively, or that protein molecules are manufactured on ribosomes.
Finally, Mung (Comment 45), chose to question my belief in a God who works in supernatural ways. I believe in the God of the Bible, that God does work in supernatural ways and that God does answer prayer. I really wish he would read my personal account in Coming to Peace with Science, before he would judge the quality of my faith. I’m not sure he has been fair by calling that into question here.
Thank you to all of you who have taken the time to read all of over the past 10 days. May John 17 remain central in our lives as it was in the mind of Christ in the moments preceding the most sacred time in the history of the universe: “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one…so that the world might believe that you have sent me.†Jesus was praying for us. May we be sure that we are living out the answer to his prayer. God bless each one of you.
Hopefully some are still reading this thread. My apologies to Darrel Falk. I was employing a rhetorical device, perhaps one of my own making, perhaps one known to people who track such things. I did not meant to question in the sense of asserting that you did not accept these things to be true. The intent was to bring them forward for consideration to see if, accepting them as true, as you do, they are consistent with your doubts about ID. I in no way meant to judge the quality of your faith.
As far as the creative capabilities of natural selection, it is my understanding that all that natural selection does is “cause” the retention and spread of some traits and the decrease and disappearance of other traits. So in what way is it a “creative” force? It doesn’t create anything. The traits it spreads come from somewhere or something else.
Here’s one of my favorites from John, along the same lines:
NAU John 17:22 “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;