The arsonist’s tale: Misconceptions about intelligent design
| March 28, 2007 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
When people examine a new idea for the first time, they often approach it from a basis of older, assumed ideas which cause confusion. They can’t really evaluate the new idea properly until the source of confusion has been identified.
In discussing the intelligent design controversy with people, I sometimes hear the following comment:
If scientists conclude that something is designed, then they are just taking the easy way out, and they won’t be able to find out anything more about it.
The comment – actually, more often a passionate outburst – come at such an oblique angle that it requires a bit of unpacking – all the more so because it is frequently followed up by other, similar ones. On rare occasions, time is permitted for a thoughtful response, so here’s one:
Let us look at a real life example: Suppose we say: If the fire marshall’s office (FMO) concludes that a fatal fire has been set deliberately, then they are just taking the easy way out, and they won’t be able to find out anything more about it.
What’s wrong with this picture? Clearly, the question of whether the fire was set deliberately must first be addressed as a question of fact. There is no other way to determine the origin of the fire than to address it first as a question of fact.
Perhaps the origin cannot be determined at all. But only an intensive investigation can demonstrate that.
If the FMO concludes that the fire is arson, far from losing the ability to find out anything more, it is in a position to focus on key details (Where was the fire started? What accelerant and how much? What was the pattern and timing of spread?).*
(*Many other questions can later be asked by the police – for example, were the charred victims intended to die in the fire? Or was their presence unforeseen and accidental? Or were they unlucky arsonists engulfed by flames?)
Assuming that the FMO can render a decision on these questions based on fact, in what sense would it be taking the easy way out?
Not in any sense I can think of. If the police investigate the circumstances surrounding the fire and lay charges, the FMO must defend its verdict against the lawyer for the accused, who will attempt, as one strategy among many, to cast doubt on the FMO findings, imply that the FMO routinely bungles cases or – in a pinch – that virtually any pattern of accelerants can be accounted for by random events or that it is never possible to determine the cause of a fire with certainty. (The analogies to the intelligent design controversy require no unpacking.)
If her client’s case looks pretty bad, the defense lawyer may even try arguing that arson is a natural cause because people are, well, “just natural animals”. (This defense will work better if her client has looked and acted, throughout the proceedings, like a large rodent crammed into a dress suit, and appears truly unable to grasp the moral significance of the accusations against him.)
At any rate, this analogy from everyday law enforcement helped me think of how to respond to the somewhat confused outburst captured above:
Design must first be addressed as a question of fact. Evidence pro or con can only be acquired by investigation and anywhere design turns out to be a fact, it must be factored into further fruitful investigation.
Should scientists refuse to consider design a possibility because they are “objective”? Well, how about this: Suppose the FMO gets a call from a leading local politician announcing that he wants the arson investigation called off because the FMO has no business assuming that someone might have wanted that building torched?
If the FMO thinks it has reasonable grounds for pursuing its present line of inquiries, should it meekly accept that argument? Should we assume that the politician obstructing the investigation is “objective”? Or rather that he is trying to defend somebody or something? In the same way, materialists attempting to suppress ID-friendly scientists are hardly “objective” in the matter.
The reason the outburst above is confused is that the speaker assumes that design is not a conclusion that can be arrived at by considering evidence and moving on to identify patterns. Underlying that assumption is a lifetime of steady indoctrination by materialism.
65 Responses to The arsonist’s tale: Misconceptions about intelligent design
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
the Pixie:
All I claim is that anything you can offer as evidence of design will give us some clue as to how it was designed/created.
And all I am saying it depends on what it is and what level of detail you want.
the Pixie:
Look at the front of most cars you will see a symbol or emblem; might say “Ford†on it, for instance. That will tell you the name of the company that designed and created it. A big clue I think.
“Ford” is meaningless unless you already know about it. Duh.
the Pixie:
Vague notions about it, eh? So we do have some clue, then.
We may and then again we may not.
the Pixie:
If you can tell me how you know it was murder, and not give me any clue about how it was done, I wll concede the point. I bet you cannot.
I believe I have covered this already. The more complex a scenario the more difficult it will be to make any determination about it other than designed or not.
It took TIME and study to figure out the vague notions we do have about Stonehenge. And Stonehenge is nothing compared to biology.
And as I have also stated the how can be ascertained while making the “designed or not” inference.
“The God’s Must Be Crazy”- A coke bottle drops from an airplane flying over a remote part of Africa. The main character never saw a Coke bottle before. He didn’t know what it was but he knew it didn’t come from Mother Nature. He didn’t have to know Coca-Cola. He didn’t have to know anything about glass-blowing or glass-blowers.
But anyway- on set scenarios:
“The Privileged Planet” puts it in print. That is scientific observations and predictions based on them.
the Pixie:
No one knows for sure, but most physists agree on the broad outline, and would say our Sun conforms well to the “main sequence†for a star of its size, which puts it at a few billion years old.
Relative to what?
the Pixie:
Given how little we know of other star systems, I am not sure how anyone can tell this one is not typical.
We know more about other star systems than we do about what makes an organism what it is beyond what Dr Sermonti stated.
the Pixie:
Hey, if you want to trust the science of a guy who has written books relating alchemy to fairy tales, well, I guess we have left the real world anyway.
So scientists have to be limited in what they write about? Do you even understand what alchemy is? Not the nonsensical version popularized today but the alchemy of Newton? Do you known about that alchemy?
the Pixie:
Great, so Katy Human thinks it has been refuted, as well as you. Is Katy Human a biologist, what else has she published of note (you claim her as an authority on this subject, can you sggest why I should consider her an authority)? What does she base this claim on, wishful thinking, or real science?
The book is part of a reviewed series on the current status, ie the scientific consensus, of biology. Look it up.
the Pixie:
The data is there.
Some of it anyway.
the Pixie:
YECers have decided where it leads them.
I disagree. They decided the data has to conform with scripture. And that it will.
the Pixie:
Mainstream scientists have decided where it leads them.
Again I disagree. “Mainstream” science disallows a design inference a priori.
the Pixie:
IDists, well I guess we are still waiting.
We do have some clue and it is in print.
Pixie: “All I claim is that anything you can offer as evidence of design will give us some clue as to how it was designed/created.”
Joseph: “And all I am saying it depends on what it is and what level of detail you want.”
Great. Sounds like maybe we agree hat any evidence design is also some kind of evidence for how it was designed/created.
Joseph: “Ford†is meaningless unless you already know about it. Duh.
Yeah, but I do. You can look the company up on the web.
Joseph: “We may and then again we may not.”
So before you said we had vague notions, and now you are not so sure. I see.
Pixie: “If you can tell me how you know it was murder, and not give me any clue about how it was done, I wll concede the point. I bet you cannot.”
Joseph: “I believe I have covered this already. The more complex a scenario the more difficult it will be to make any determination about it other than designed or not.”
Come on, just one specific example to prove me wrong. Simple or complex. Say what the evidence is that would lead you to conclude design, and I will see if I can tell you anything about how it was done.
To the Pixie:
Murder has been determined in the absence of a body. In those cases murder was determined without being able to determine how.
And then there is Lacy Peterson. Murder determined before the how was (if it ever was determined how she died).
Joseph: “Ford†is meaningless unless you already know about it. Duh.
the Pixie:
Yeah, but I do. You can look the company up on the web.
IOW you can’t follow along. I see.
the Pixie:
So before you said we had vague notions, and now you are not so sure. I see.
You really need helping following along- don’t you?
you said:
Vague notions about it, eh? So we do have some clue, then.
Ya see vague notions are not clues. They may be derived from the data but they may be wrong.
The figures on Easter Island were determined to be designed before it was determined how they were designed and how they were moved to their final position.
The figures on the Nasca Plain were determined to be designed before it was determined how they were configured.
Stonehenge was determined to be designed before it was determined how it was constructed.
Do you need more examples?