Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Methodological naturalism: If that’s the way forward, … let’s go sideways

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Having connected the dots of the vast conspiracy run by the Discovery Institute so as to include non-materialist neuroscience, Steven Novella goes on to cheerlead, for methodological naturalism – about which I will say only this:

Methodological naturalism is usually described as meaning that science can consider only natural causes. But by itself that doesn’t mean anything because we don’t know everything that is in nature. For example, if – as Rupert Sheldrake thinks – some animals can demonstrate telepathy, then telepathy is a natural cause. And so?

And so Richard Dawkins goes to a great deal of trouble to attempt to discredit Sheldrake because the hidden assumption is that nature mustn’t include telepathy.

In practice, methodological naturalism frequently becomes a method of defending bad – and often ridiculously bad.- ideas in order to save naturalism. Think of the persistent efforts to “prove” that humans don’t “really” behave altruistically. In fact, we sometimes do. Here’s a recent story, for example, about a Texas woman named Marilyn Mock who went to an auction of foreclosed homes, ran into Tracey Orr – an unemployed woman she had never met – who had come to endure the sale of her home, and …

Orr couldn’t hold it in. The tears flowed. She pointed to the auction brochure at a home that didn’t have a picture. “That’s my house,” she said.

Within moments, the four-bedroom, two-bath home in Pottsboro, Texas, went up for sale. People up front began casting their bids. The home that Orr purchased in September 2004 was slipping away.

She stood and moved toward the crowd. Behind her, Mock got into the action.

“She didn’t know I was doing it,” Mock says. “I just kept asking her if [her home] was worth it, and she just kept crying. She probably thought I was crazy, ‘Why does this woman keep asking me that?’ “

Mock says she bought the home for about $30,000. That’s when Mock did what most bidders at a foreclosure auction never do.

“She said, ‘I did this for you. I’m doing this for you,’ ” Orr says. “When it was all done, I was just in shock.”

But it was true. Mock bought the house for her and said she would accept as repayment only what Orr can afford. Why?

“If it was you, you’d want somebody to stop and help you.”

Now, a “methodological naturalist” would

(1) try to find a chimpanzee who does something similar and make up a story that explains how that behaviour was naturally selected for in primates

or (since that might take a while)

(2) assign a selfish motive for Mock that is consistent with survival of the fittest.

One might at first be tempted to conclude that methodological naturalism is methodological idiocy. But no, let’s look a bit more carefully. Notice what is not a permitted assumption: We can’t assume that some people just think they should help others – even at considerable cost. In other words, the plain evidence of human behavior cannot be accepted at face value.

Now, there is nothing especially scientific about that belief. “Scientific” means “dealing with the evidence from nature,” which includes a fair sprinkling of unselfish or not-very-selfish humans (as well as of the other type). Indeed, superior human intelligence probably explains the tendency to imagine another’s feelings (= “If it was you, you’d want somebody to stop and help you”). So we can account scientifically for why humans can behave as Mock did.

The problem is that such an account, while useful, fails to support a key false belief underlying methodological naturalism: That humans are really the 98% chimpanzee and cannot in principle have motives absent in chimpanzees. Apart from that false belief, no one would bother trying to find an exotic explanation for Mock’s behaviour.

The principle role that methodological naturalism plays right now is to enable false beliefs to pose as science and to prevent them being discredited by evidence.

By the way, speaking of generosity, thanks much to the person who recently sent a bit of money our way via the PayPal button. It is the only way we can maintain independent news desks in the intelligent design controversy. If you prefer what you read here to what you could read in United International Barf News, hey … thanks for reading and thanks for thinking of us when you have a bit of spare money.

I am a volunteer and all money goes to upgrading the site to offer you more services.

Comments
----ribczynski: “God is not even mentioned in the Constitution. This is obviously a deliberate omission, considering that God is mentioned in each of the original thirteen state constitutions (eleven of which specified religious tests for officeholders) as well as the Articles of Confederation. The Founders simply did not feel the need to invoke God’s authority to back up the rights and freedoms they were enumerating. “We, the People” was authoritative enough for them. They chose to leave God out of it.” Of course it was a deliberate omission. The point had already been made in the Declaration of Independence. Why write in the by-laws what you have written in the mission statement? But they certainly didn’t want to leave God out of it. On the contrary, right after the proclamation they instituted a day of prayer. Indeed, they had chapels right there in the congress, beginning and ending each day in prayer. God was all over the place. -----Freedoms come from the people and/or their institutions, not from God. If you think that institutions can grant rights, then our rights are dependent on the whim of whoever runs those institutions. If you think rights come from people, then the wrong person can take them away. In any case, the Founding Fathers obviously disagreed with you, inasmuch as they said so in the Declaration of Independence. It reads, “We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.” -----“They certainly don’t come from the Christian God, who (if you believe the Bible) supported kings and approved of slavery.” They come from “Nature’s God,” just as it is written in the documents. (The Bible did not “support” slavery.) -----“Even if you don’t believe any of that, it’s obvious that if God exists, he hasn’t bothered to enforce the freedoms and rights he supposedly endowed us with. Humans have lived under tyranny for thousands of years. Liberty has only begun to bloom significantly in the last few hundred years.” Liberty began when the founding fathers used Biblical principles to argue for the “inherent dignity of the human person.” This concept is found in no other world view, which explains why freedom is such a rare thing. -----“Let’s perform a couple of thought experiments. Suppose that our rights and freedoms derive from God, as you believe, and that God does not enforce them, just as he has failed to enforce them throughout history. Now imagine that nobody on earth believes that we have these rights and freedoms. Under these conditions, how many free societies do you think there would be? How much freedom would we have?” God does not “enforce rights.” In any case, if no one believes that our rights come from God, and if they do not believe in the Biblical principle that we are “created in the image and likeness of God,” then freedom will be non-existent. People are free only when they and their leaders recognize the inherent dignity of the human person. -----“Now suppose instead that God does not endow us with any freedoms or “unalienable rights”, but that people everywhere assert that they have those rights and demand that their institutions respect those rights. Guess what? Now we get democracy, freedom and liberty.” No, you don’t. What you get is a tyrant who will put those people to death. It’s called history. It’s also called current events. In any case, whose rights will be asserted? One person’s right always places a burden on someone else’s right. If we meet at a stop sign and you have the right of way, then I must yield. That’s what a right is—a claim by one person on another. By what standard do the “people” decide which persons will be privileged and which ones will be burdened if they have no universal ethic to inform them. -----“In both cases, what makes the difference is what the people say. The authority comes from them, not from God.” That is precisely what the framers did not want---tyranny of the majority. Pure democracy or mob rule is no better than tyranny; indeed, it is just a different kind of tyranny. Only the natural moral law can protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the whims of the ruling class. Also, all nations are informed by a world view. If that world view is atheism, tyranny and death will always follow. If that world view is Islam, sharia law will likely smother freedom and the natural development of culture. Even a theocracy based on Old Testament laws would be likely to create problems. Our freedoms were based Christian principles, not on some non-existent fantasy such as Christian law—I say “were” because atheists and their dumbed-down dupes our currently trying to tear down the whole edifice with no idea about what to put in its place. In fact, most of them don’t even know what they are tearing down.StephenB
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
ribczynski: First, I will deal with your perennial strawman. The statement you allude to in the treaty of 1797 was designed to assure a radically religious (Muslim) government that America would not depose that government and impose Christianity by force. Translation: that treaty was an anomaly. The 1797 treaty constantly contrasts “Christian nations” (e.g., Article VI) and “Tripoli,” a Muslim stronghold that was used as a base of operations for Barbary pirates. Muslim nations were hostile to “Christian nations.” Translation: It was a temporary act of diplomacy In 1783, at the close of the war with Great Britain, a peace treaty was ratified that began with these words: “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain. . . The treaty was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Keep in mind that it was Adams who signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. Once the 1797 crisis had passed, the treaties were restored to their original language. In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a “Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814.” It begins with the same words found in the Preamble to the 1783 treaty: “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.” Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. The 1848 Treaty with Mexico begins with “In the name of Almighty God.” The treaty also states that both countries are “under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace. . . .” The treaties of 1783, 1822, 1805, and 1848 all of which contained the same language? Are you not aware that atheists always drag out that one exception, hoping that the people they are dealing with do not know the score. This is an abbreviated explanation. If you need more information on these treaties, please let me know. More to come on the other parts of your post.StephenB
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
StephenB wrote:
I contend that the Founding Fathers linked freedom to God’s natural law. Further, I insist that you, as an atheist, cannot make the case for freedom or identify with those tho made that case. You call that “a bunch of arrogant crap.”
Stephen, It is indeed arrogant, for a couple of reasons. 1. God is not even mentioned in the Constitution. This is obviously a deliberate omission, considering that God is mentioned in each of the original thirteen state constitutions (eleven of which specified religious tests for officeholders) as well as the Articles of Confederation. The Founders simply did not feel the need to invoke God's authority to back up the rights and freedoms they were enumerating. "We, the People" was authoritative enough for them. They chose to leave God out of it. Skeptical? Look at this passage from the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1797:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
2. Freedoms come from the people and/or their institutions, not from God. They certainly don't come from the Christian God, who (if you believe the Bible) supported kings and approved of slavery. Even if you don't believe any of that, it's obvious that if God exists, he hasn't bothered to enforce the freedoms and rights he supposedly endowed us with. Humans have lived under tyranny for thousands of years. Liberty has only begun to bloom significantly in the last few hundred years. Let's perform a couple of thought experiments. Suppose that our rights and freedoms derive from God, as you believe, and that God does not enforce them, just as he has failed to enforce them throughout history. Now imagine that nobody on earth believes that we have these rights and freedoms. Under these conditions, how many free societies do you think there would be? How much freedom would we have? Now suppose instead that God does not endow us with any freedoms or "unalienable rights", but that people everywhere assert that they have those rights and demand that their institutions respect those rights. Guess what? Now we get democracy, freedom and liberty. In both cases, what makes the difference is what the people say. The authority comes from them, not from God.ribczynski
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Hazel, "It’s hard to actually get a grip on “design thinking” when there seems to be so much disagreement among design thinkers on what that means." Well if you want to get a grip on it then I suggest you read the long series of essays by Timaeus and answers to the questions posed to Timaeus. Ted Davis rarely puts himself forward on this issue though he does in this discussion in places. The real person to read is Timaeus, not Ted Davis. Timaeus is the star. Ted primarily acts as a facilitator for Timaeus and will give his thoughts now and then and occasionally he summarizes.jerry
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
it is the part about “the most rational explanation” part that I reject. I know, and the rejection is based on emotion.tribune7
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Hazel, We both agree that you believe in the freedoms that our Constitution was written to uphold. I don't question that point, though, I doubt that you can define the freedom that you claim to believe in. But never mind all that. I am simply saying this: [A] You reject God's natural moral law as their source of those freedoms, [B] insist that another source is possible, yet, [C] refuse to disclose what that source may be. I am not asking for an airtight argument. I am asking for any possible alternative source, even if you can't make a case for it.StephenB
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Stephen, you have more than adequately proved to me that you are utterly assured that you are right and others are wrong, and that there is absolutely no way anyone could "prove" something to you that you didn't want to believe. I don't believe that "proof" of the sort you think is attainable is possible. I should have learned my lesson about this in my earlier conversations with you. I am an atheist and I believe in the freedoms that our Constitution was written to uphold. Your belief that this is not logically possible is your problem, not mine. Now I'm done.hazel
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Hazel: I invite you to visit one of the many celebrated monuments in Washington D.C. and read the inscription at its base. Fill in the missing blank, “In (*** ) do we place our trust.” I contend that the Founding Fathers linked freedom to God’s natural law. Further, I insist that you, as an atheist, cannot make the case for freedom or identify with those tho made that case. You call that “a bunch of arrogant crap.” Excellent! Prove me wrong and make your case for freedom without God. The floor is yours.StephenB
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Stephen writes, “Hazel: Once again, you seem to have missed the point.” No Stephen - once again I’ve made a different point, and am arguing against your point. I haven’t missed your point - I got it, and disagree with it. You write, “It makes no sense for you to say that you accept the Constitution, which was established to implement the principles written in the Declaration of Independence, while, at the same time, rejecting the DOI’s basic teaching, which is that God grants rights. Sure, as an atheist, you can, at some level, believe in the principles embedded in the Constitution as if there were no such thing as the DOI. In that case, your faith would be without rational grounds, because the constitution draws its moral authority from the DOI.” No. For you, the Constitution draws its moral authority from its relationship from God-given rights. I have a different position about the source of its moral authority. The fact that the writers of the DOI invoked God does not mean I have to agree with them about this metaphysics - I can still agree, and do, with the principles which they embedded in the Constitution You write, At the surface level, you may well believe in all the political freedoms and democratic principles that you allude to. However, as an atheist, you cannot really make the case for freedom or identify with those who made that case.” That is a bunch of arrogant crap, sir, which goes back to my original outrage. Your position, I take it, is that only those who believe in God as you do, and as you would claim the founding fathers did, can call themselves genuine supporters of our Constitution and the freedoms which it was written to preserve, and that attitude itself is a blight upon the principles we are discussing. Over and out.hazel
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Tribune - it is the part about "the most rational explanation" part that I reject. But we've been over that enough, I think, and it's not the main point I want to discuss here.hazel
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
For instance, if design thinking merely means accepting that our universe is such that all the various parts work together to make things, including life, happen, without a claim as to the source of that design, then even I can go along with that Hazel, it is more the universe is such that all the various parts work together to make things and the most rational explanation is that it was designed to do so.tribune7
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Hazel: Once again, you seem to have missed the point. Other belief systems support the Golden Rule, so yes, of course, you can believe in the Golden Rule without accepting the Bible. Now let's examine what it is that we are really talking about. Altruistic and kindly actions are informed by and follow from Golden Rule principle. It would make no sense for you to say, for example, that you supported the kindly and altruistic behaviors that follow from the Golden Rule, while, at the same time, rejecting the Golden Rule. You accept the application because you acknowledge the principle. That being the case, it makes no sense for you to say that you accept the Constitution, which was established to implement the principles written in the Declaration of Independence, while, at the same time, rejecting the DOI's basic teaching, which is that God grants rights. Sure, as an atheist, you can, at some level, believe in the principles embedded in the Constitution as if there were no such thing as the DOI. In that case, your faith would be without rational grounds, because the constitution draws its moral authority from the DOI. At the surface level, you may well believe in all the political freedoms and democratic principles that you allude to. However, as an atheist, you cannot really make the case for freedom or identify with those who made that case.. Granted, you can protest that you “want” to be free, but there is nothing extraordinary about that. People have always wanted to be free, usual to no avail. What they were never able to do, at least until the American Revolution, was to demonstrate in morally compelling terms why they “deserved” to be free. Since you don’t agree with the framers’ conception of human nature, namely that we are made in the image and likeness of God, you cannot explain to the prospective tyrant why God’s laws of nature supersede his arbitrary laws. Put another way, you cannot argue that God designed the universe such that tyranny violates the natural moral law because you don’t believe that there is any such thing as God's designs or God's natural moral law. Further, without that ethical foundation, you cannot fully understand the very things you claim to accept. The Framer’s, for example, defined freedom as the right to follow the light of our moral conscience, which was the internal manifestation of God’s natural moral law. Since you, (along with the ACLU, Secular Humanist Association, and the Darwinist community) refuse to acknowledge any such thing as a moral conscience or a natural moral law, you can talk all day long about freedom without necessarily even knowing what it is or how to preserve it. Much less are you in a position to appreciate its role in maintaining a well-ordered society.StephenB
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Thanks, Jerry. For what it's worth, I am quite familiar with design arguments, including those that have taken place at ASA involving Ted Davis. In fact, one of the things that has struck me is that many religious people who believe in God, and therefore design, are in fact rejected by the ID movement. It's hard to actually get a grip on "design thinking" when there seems to be so much disagreement among design thinkers on what that means. For instance, if design thinking merely means accepting that our universe is such that all the various parts work together to make things, including life, happen, without a claim as to the source of that design, then even I can go along with that. On the other end of the spectrum, if design thinking claims that human beings were specially created by God, and have a special rational and moral relationship with him, I can’t. So without some specifics, it’s hard to know what design thinking even means. Returning to the topic immediately at hand, Stephen’s brand of design thinking seems quite exclusionary, and is not what Ted and others are talking about, I don’t think.hazel
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Hazel, If you are really interested in understanding the implications of design thinking then I suggest you spend a considerable amount of time reading Timaeus (an internet handle). Timaeus is a Greek scholar who has written a series of quasi essays and and answers to questions at ASA about ID. It is by far the best discussion of Intelligent Design I have ever read and that includes Dembski, Behe, Meyers, Johnson, Wells etc. It was written in the past 3 months and is in bits and pieces http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200809/author.html This is the author page for September. Find Ted Davis and his initial introduction of Timaeus to the group at ASA. You need only read the Ted Davis comments from then on through October and November as he summarizes all questions put to him. It is quite lengthy and if you are serious about understanding this topic this is the best place in the world to start. Timaeus is not a member of ASA and all his essays and responses to questions are through Ted Davis. Many people respond but it is not necessary to read them as their questions are summarized in subsequent replies through Ted Davis. The people at ASA are Christians who are scientists so the topic of religion pops up frequently but Timaeus's answers do not reflect a particular religious point of view. The members at ASA have been generally hostile to ID so he was definitely not preaching to the choir even though it is a religious oriented organization, mostly of Protestants. After reading this and it will take a while you will understand the argument from design better. The content could fill a good size book. If afterward you are still anti design, so be it. If anyone else wants to read the best exposition of ID ever written, obviously my opinion, follow the Ted Davis's links from September through November at ASA. The last post was on Monday. Timaeus is a good source since design thinking started with Plato and the name Timaeus come from one of Plato's dialogues and Timaeus is as I said a Plato scholar.jerry
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Stephen, I understand that a political and historical discussion about the Constitution is not appropriate for this site, and I have no interest in doing that. (Which means that I won’t respond to Tribune’s comment either.) But there is an appropriate issue that we can discuss here related to the implications of one’s acceptance or rejection of “design thinking.” You write, “Yes, I would submit to you that atheism and the Declaration of Independence are totally incompatible,” and you end with, “The purpose of the Constitution is to apply the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. How can one support the application and reject the principle?” Your statements contain a logical fallacy: you imply that if person X believes that A implies B and if person Y doesn’t accept A, Y can’t believe B. That is false: there can be many different justifications for accepting something. We can have very different metaphysical beliefs and come to the same conclusions about what to value and support in the world. I gave another example that is not political. I believe in the Golden Rule, and I imagine you do also. We have different reasons for accepting it as a fundamental value. Does the fact that you believe the Golden Rule from a religious perspective and I from a humanist perspective mean that my support of the Golden Rule is inferior to yours? In fact, if I were to follow your reasoning about the Constitution, you would say I couldn’t accept the Golden Rule because I don’t accept its Biblical foundation - and that would be absurd. Similarly, there are other beliefs and values from Christianity, and from other religions, that I accept. Even though I don’t accept their metaphysics I certainly see religions as a source and repository of much wisdom about the human condition. Similarly for the Constitution. The founding fathers believed in God - this was the late 1700’s, you know, and the prevailing worldview was still of a young earth as described in Genesis. They also thought about and fought for important principles that led to the democracy that I live in today. The fact that I don’t believe in the God that they did doesn’t in any way negate my support for the democratic principles they embodied in the Constitution. Invoking God doesn’t give you or anyone a monopoly on the values and actions that you see as implications of your belief because people can reach the same conclusions from different metaphysical starting points. Declaring that only “design thinkers” can believe X, or conversely, that atheists can’t believe X, is wrong, factually, logically, and morally.hazel
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
But that doesn’t mean we don’t support the Constitution - that’s my point. We just support our interpretation of the Constitution :-)tribune7
November 27, 2008
November
11
Nov
27
27
2008
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Yes, of course I meant the DOI. Well, I am going to get in trouble for developing this off-topic subject, but since I introduced it, I should probably take the heat, meaning that my comments may get deleted. Yes, I would submit to you that atheism and the Declaration of Independence are totally incompatible. Also, as you may know, all the original state constitutions were are unabashedly Theistic and Christian in their formulations. -----“You are essentially saying that anyone who is not a “design supporter” can’t support the Constitution, and that is both obviously wrong and an insult to millions of people.” I said, “design thinker,” and that is not exactly the same thing. One need not believe in the science of intelligent design to accept the Declaration of Independence, but one does need to believe in the “natural moral law,” which is a design concept. The framers appealed to the natural moral law AND the Bible as the foundation for all civil law. Neither Darwinism, the ACLU, the Secular Humanist Association, or you believe in the “natural moral law.” Do you deny this? -----“Why you believe such a divisive thing is beyond me - do you really believe that an atheist is somehow intrinsically incapable of being a true and patriotic American, dedicated to our Constitution and the principles for which it stands?” If you don’t believe that God grants rights, then you don’t believe in the Declaration of Independence, and by extension, you do no believe in the rational foundation for the Constitution. If the state can grant rights, then the state can take rights away, which means that that no right can be unalienable. -----“Let me add more: the fact that I don’t believe in the same metaphysical justification that is stated in the Declaration of Independence doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in the principles stated therein or in the Constitution that followed, any more than the fact that I don’t believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in the Golden Rule.” The purpose of the Constitution is to apply the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. How can one support the application and reject the principle?StephenB
November 26, 2008
November
11
Nov
26
26
2008
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Let me add more: the fact that I don't believe in the same metaphysical justification that is stated in the Declaration of Independence doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in the principles stated therein or in the Constitution that followed, any more than the fact that I don’t believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in the Golden Rule. People have all sorts of reasons why they think they have the beliefs they do - to me, what people believe about particular issues, and more importantly, how they act, is much more important that what they think the metaphysical justifications for their beliefs are.hazel
November 26, 2008
November
11
Nov
26
26
2008
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
But that doesn't mean we don't support the Constitution - that's my point. You are essentially saying that anyone who is not a "design supporter" can't support the Constitution, and that is both obviously wrong and an insult to millions of people. Why you believe such a divisive thing is beyond me - do you really believe that an atheist is somehow intrinsically incapable of being a true and patriotic American, dedicated to our Constitution and the principles for which it stands? P.S. The phrase you mention is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitutionhazel
November 26, 2008
November
11
Nov
26
26
2008
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
-----"I object. I support the ACLU and the American Secular Humanist Association and ALSO the Constitution, and so do many others support all three of these. Making these kind of politically inflammatory, stereotypical and erroneous comments is needlessly divisive and doesn’t help further civil discussion." I was simply describing the difference between design thinkers and non-design thinkers. On the one hand, design thinkers and supporters of the Constitution believe that God grants natural rights based on the natural moral law. That is what the terms, "the laws of nature" and nature's God" mean. On the other hand, Darwinists, The ACLU, The American Secular Humanist Association, and you all disagree with that proposition, believing that nature was not so designed.StephenB
November 26, 2008
November
11
Nov
26
26
2008
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Stephen writes, "In the same way, most Darwinists reject the Constitution, dispute the idea of natural rights, and reject God as the guarantor of rights. That’s the way non-design thinkers think. Those who agree are likely to support the ACLU and the American Secular Humanist Association." I object. I support the ACLU and the American Secular Humanist Association and ALSO the Constitution, and so do many others support all three of these. Making these kind of politically inflammatory, stereotypical and erroneous comments is needlessly divisive and doesn't help further civil discussion.hazel
November 25, 2008
November
11
Nov
25
25
2008
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
My problem is with the usage of the word "supernatural". The way most people are using the word "supernatural", it implies that the "supernatural" realm cannot affect the "natural" realm (i.e. the observable universe). If the "supernatural" CAN affect the observable universe, then by all rights, it ceases to be "supernatural" and becomes "natural", albeit mysterious. I see this as more of an attempt to relegate religion into non-effect than anything else.Novan Leon
November 24, 2008
November
11
Nov
24
24
2008
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
I think it’s also probably a fair statement to say that the majority of ID proponents are drawn to ID after they have already become established in their faiths. Sure, there are a few notable exceptions such as Berlinski, but people like Dembski, Behe, Wells and others were clearly people of faith prior to their interest in ID.
I don't know about Wells but Behe and Dembski were Darwinists before the evidence prompted them to formulate ID.
All I’m aware of are a few cases of irreducible complexity (and a diminishing number rather than a growing number some would say), some stuff about CSI, fine tuning
Diminishing? It's not as if such examples are limited to the commonly discussed like the flagellum. We focus on such systems because they are relatively simple to comprehend and are well-studied. Quite frankly, since we--meaning all scientists--do not yet fully comprehend the overall design of the code we cannot look at the majority of the code and say, "This code here makes a horse and this code a fly." CSI applies to any functional system with an IC core composed of 500 informational bits or more. As more is learned I'm sure the ID movement will adopt other examples, but for now we're sticking with the flagellum since it's still a good example that most people can understand. Also, fine tuning is more in regards to cosmology, although some call it "Cosmological ID", whereas we're generally interested in Biological ID. But that's not all. There's all the ID-compatible hypotheses and related predictions. I listed some in comment #52. Also, keep in mind that these hypotheses are COMPETING and have differing predictions (quick example: self-terminating versus non-self-terminating front-loading). As such, most will get rejected as evidence is accumulated. But there is also a certain overlap with shared predictions (which is what I usually focus on).Patrick
November 24, 2008
November
11
Nov
24
24
2008
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Re: #80 Regarding the scripture verses you quoted, is it not fair to say that these could equally apply to a YEC God, a TE God or an ID God? Sure, philosophically they can apply to ID, but in terms of 'how' God brought his creation into being, the only real indication of how that happened is in Genesis. Now it seems we are talking about ID movements and scientific ID, and that the ID movement can indeed have religious and political overtones. So, as you say, we are left to judge the evidence of scientific ID on its own merits. This is where I always get stuck, because the evidence seems so paltry, so perhaps you can help me out? All I'm aware of are a few cases of irreducible complexity (and a diminishing number rather than a growing number some would say), some stuff about CSI, fine tuning...and...well, I think that's it, right?colin_evans101
November 23, 2008
November
11
Nov
23
23
2008
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
Creation Science depends on a religious presupposition; intelligent design depends on empirical observation. Those who cannot tell the difference are either drunk on ideology or intellectually challenged. Well said.tribune7
November 23, 2008
November
11
Nov
23
23
2008
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
-----colin evans: “But isn’t this in itself useful information about the nature of the designer - that the designer has deliberately obfuscated the design process? in fact, at least at a micro level it has only been in the last 50 years that the purported evidence has even been able to be discovered. I work in IT and the development of software - it is often quite easy to determine who designed a particular piece of software because each designer will inevitably have their own design ’signature’ in how they architecture a piece of software. Why is it we have not detected similar design ’signatures’ in ID (who knows, there could even be more than one designer, right). One has to ask, why the designer is seemingly so shy in revealing very much - and why, if as many people believe, the Designer is the Christian God, why religious scriptures to do not account for ID. If the Designer is God, then it is reasonable to expect that some mention of ID should be in God’s revealed word, the Bible - yet there is nothing I know of in the Bible that directly supports an ID viewpoint (although no doubt some people could creatively conquer up one, as clearly people have made the Bible pretty much say anything they want it to say).” As it turns out, Scripture includes a number of philosophical statements concerning the fact that the existence of God is evident to reason. Romans 1:20 reads, “Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse.” Also, Psalm 19 reads, “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Notice that these passages (there are others) say nothing at all about the need for faith. Indeed, they insist that no faith at all is needed. Also, philosophy, when grounded in epistemological realism, also points to the “uncaused cause” or a “prime mover.” Once one assumes the fact of existence, a self-existent creator is the logical conclusion. Now in the area of science, things are not quite so easy. A design, after all, is a creative act; it isn’t as easy to measure as a law. To discover the laws the govern the way a piano hammer strikes the strings on a piano, for example, does not pose nearly as daunting a challenge as accounting for the way Mozart designed the composition that regulates the choice of notes. Indeed, creativity, at least as it manifests itself in physical events, may not even be accessible to science. Similarly, although science can uncover the laws of gravity, it may never solve the mystery of the creative act that gave rise to them. -----“The reality still remains that the majority of ID supporters are not only religious, but Christian. I think that’s worth exploring (rather than just trying to ignore it). I understand too your desire to try separate ID from religious influences but honestly it is a hard sell. You can present ID as a “pure” science, but it doesn’t take much research to realize there are more strong religious influences at work here. One only has to look at some of the major financial contributors of the Discovery Institute (e.g., Ahmanson) to realize this. ID, as a “movement,” does indeed have religious overtones AND political overtones. Most people who accept ID, for example, also accept the Constitution as a reliable founding document, believe in natural rights, and agree with its teaching that God grants rights. That’s the way design thinkers think. Those who agree might even provide financial support to the Discovery Institute. In the same way, most Darwinists reject the Constitution, dispute the idea of natural rights, and reject God as the guarantor of rights. That’s the way non-design thinkers think. Those who agree are likely to support the ACLU and the American Secular Humanist Association. ID as a methodology, however, has absolutely nothing at all to do with any movement. There is not one religious idea in formulations of “specified complexity” or “functionally specified complex information.” Even the “fine tuning” argument is solely scientific. Design arguments from philosophy are as old as Aristotle, and he was no fundamentalist. ID, as science, asks only to be accepted on the strength of the evidence, and the evidence is certainly on its side. In fact, only irrational people deny it. That is why Anthony Flew, the world’s most famous atheist, finally recanted and wrote a book entitled,“There is a God.” On the other hand, we know that Darwinists do not go where the evidence leads. They are on record of not only running away from the evidence but also persecuting all those in the academy who even mention the subject. -----“Sure, there are a few notable exceptions such as Berlinski, but people like Dembski, Behe, Wells and others were clearly people of faith prior to their interest in ID. In fact Wells has even said that his interest in defeating Darwinism is in the service of his religion. So in the end you can whine about how others, in your opinion, have wrongly characterized ID as a religious/political movement, but given the evidence and clear lines of influence, it’s hard not to think otherwise.” I don’t whine about those who characterize the ID movement as a movement. I do, however, bristle, when someone characterizes ID science as the ID movement. It is a cheap trick to conflate the two; it is also dishonest. Creation Science depends on a religious presupposition; intelligent design depends on empirical observation. Those who cannot tell the difference are either drunk on ideology or intellectually challenged.StephenB
November 23, 2008
November
11
Nov
23
23
2008
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
I think it’s also probably a fair statement to say that the majority of ID proponents are drawn to ID after they have already become established in their faiths. . . .It would be just as fair a statement to say that the majority of ID opponents reject ID out of hand because it is a challenge to their faith. The point is to seek truth. Does the existing paradigm -- that all biodiversity can be explained by random changes to genome guided by natural selection -- fail? Why not? Does life appear to be designed? Why not?tribune7
November 23, 2008
November
11
Nov
23
23
2008
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that both these disciplines can do provide useful information about the characteristics, methods, and attributes of the designer That's backwards. It's the characteristics of the event that leads one to conclude it was design. I think it’s also probably a fair statement to say that the majority of ID proponents are drawn to ID after they have already become established in their faiths. It would be just as fair a statement to say that the majority of ID opponents reject ID out of hand because it is a challenge to their faith.tribune7
November 23, 2008
November
11
Nov
23
23
2008
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Re: #74 Yes, I agree that archeology and forensic science will have limited value in identifying actual precise identities (although the latter has that capability). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that both these disciplines can do provide useful information about the characteristics, methods, and attributes of the designer, if not a precise identify. That is worthwhile information that for ID could guide future research and approaches. Gpuccio states in #72 that ID can give us the tools to investigate the nature and modalities of the designer. As far as I'm aware nobody has done this yet and the excuse given is that is that it too time-consuming and requires access to resources not controlled by ID. StephenB wrote: "First, ID does consider the identity of the designer important, but it does not have the ability to find out who it is. The theory simply isn’t well-developed enough to probe that deeply into origin of life issues". OK, fair enough then. But isn't this in itself useful information about the nature of the designer - that the designer has deliberately obfuscated the design process? in fact, at least at a micro level it has only been in the last 50 years that the purported evidence has even been able to be discovered. I work in IT and the development of software - it is often quite easy to determine who designed a particular piece of software because each designer will inevitably have their own design 'signature' in how they architecture a piece of software. Why is it we have not detected similar design 'signatures' in ID (who knows, there could even be more than one designer, right). One has to ask, why the designer is seemingly so shy in revealing very much - and why, if as many people believe, the Designer is the Christian God, why religious scriptures to do not account for ID. If the Designer is God, then it is reasonable to expect that some mention of ID should be in God's revealed word, the Bible - yet there is nothing I know of in the Bible that directly supports an ID viewpoint (although no doubt some people could creatively conquer up one, as clearly people have made the Bible pretty much say anything they want it to say). The reality still remains that the majority of ID supporters are not only religious, but Christian. I think that's worth exploring (rather than just trying to ignore it). I understand too your desire to try separate ID from religious influences but honestly it is a hard sell. You can present ID as a "pure" science, but it doesn't take much research to realize there are more strong religious influences at work here. One only has to look at some of the major financial contributors of the Discovery Institute (e.g., Ahmanson) to realize this. Furthermore, the majority of ID supporters are not only religious, but are Christian. Is this just a bizarre coincidence? Clearly, many, many ID supporters DO think the Designer is the Christian God (Dembski himself has acknowledged this several times, including on this blog). I think it's also probably a fair statement to say that the majority of ID proponents are drawn to ID after they have already become established in their faiths. Sure, there are a few notable exceptions such as Berlinski, but people like Dembski, Behe, Wells and others were clearly people of faith prior to their interest in ID. In fact Wells has even said that his interest in defeating Darwinism is in the service of his religion. So in the end you can whine about how others, in your opinion, have wrongly characterized ID as a religious/political movement, but given the evidence and clear lines of influence, it's hard not to think otherwise.colin_evans101
November 23, 2008
November
11
Nov
23
23
2008
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Could we not say that they are different functions within the same discipline? Depends on the point we are trying to make :-) Forensic science -- using science to address legal issues -- does include the search for the designer as well as determining whether an event was law/chance/design BUT it is important for us to remember (and emphasize) that the determination as to whether an event was designed is made by those who generally are not the same as the ones who look for the designer. AND often the event is determined to be designed but the designer is not identified.tribune7
November 23, 2008
November
11
Nov
23
23
2008
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply