The Psychology of Blinding Obedience to a Paradigm
| December 7, 2008 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
In church on Sunday the sermon was about Jesus’ raising Lazarus from the dead. What does this have to do with the ID/Darwinism debate? Nothing, of course. But the story does contain a remarkable illustration of what I will call the “psychology of blinding obedience to a paradigm.”
The central claim of ID can be illumined by a very simple illustration from the movie 2001, a Space Odyssey. After the opening sequences, the plot of the movie shifts to a scientist journeying to the moon to investigate an “anomaly” that has been discovered buried under the moon’s surface. Here is a picture of the anomaly. The scientists immediately reach an obvious conclusion – the anomaly was created by an intelligent being. In other words, they make a “design inference.” Why do they make such an inference? Because the anomaly exhibits complex specified information (“CSI”) that cannot reasonably be attributed to chance, mechanical necessity or both acting together. Therefore, the commonsense conclusion reached by the scientists is that “act of an intelligent agent” is the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the anomaly.
NASA plans to resume its moon missions in the mid teens. Now suppose that the next time we visit the moon, an astronaut actually finds an “anomaly” like the one in the film. Can there be any doubt that scientists would make the same design inference? Would such an inference be even the least bit controversial? Obviously not.
Lets return to earth. If you have not already done so, click on the video in the upper right of UD’s home page. This is an excerpt from “Expelled” called “Complexity of the Cell.” After watching this video you can see why the cell has been called a “nano-city.” It has a library (DNA molecules); it has streets; it has walls that open and close; it has specialized molecules that move other molecules up and down the streets as required. And the marvelous thing about all of this is that it is completely automated. The cell is, quite simply, a marvel of nano-technology that exhibits CSI vastly greater than the “anomaly” in 2001, a Space Odyssey.
There is no known natural source of CSI. In fact, all of the CSI that anyone has ever observed has been the product of purposeful actions by intelligent agents. Accordingly, ID proponents make an inference – that the CSI in a cell is also the result of purposeful acts by an intelligent agent. But unlike the anomaly on the moon, this seemingly commonsense inference is not only controversial, it is vehemently denied by the proponents of neo-Darwinian Evolution (“NDE”). Proponents of NDE vociferously and repeatedly claim that there is “overwhelming evidence” proving that Darwinian processes can account for dramatic additions to CSI. Well, I have been following this debate for a few years now, and I am still waiting to see that evidence.
And that takes us back to our starting point. Consider the last two verses of the Lazarus story (John 11:45-46). Jesus has just raised from the dead a man who has been in his grave for four days, and in these two verses John tells us that after seeing this miracle many believed Jesus’ claims, but – and here is the remarkable part – many did not. This last group included agents of the religious leaders who were plotting Jesus’ death, and instead of believing in Jesus, these agents went back to their masters and made their reports.
What can we learn about human psychology from this story? Unfortunately, some people will always be subject to the “psychology of blinding obedience to a paradigm.” In the Lazarus story the agents of the religious leaders had a stake in the continuance of the existing religious paradigm. Whether their stake in the status quo was financial or psychological or some other stake, we are not told, but one thing is clear – their stake shackled them to a blinding obedience to the existing paradigm. They were blinded even to the evidence of one of the greatest miracles that had ever been reported up until that time – a man four days in the grave raised from the dead. Because of their blindness, they literally could not see either the flaws in the status quo they were defending or the benefits of the alternative being offered.
Here at UD we see the same phenomenon in operation day after day in the ID/Darwinism debate. I am continually amazed that seemingly intelligent people, who for all I know are acting in complete good faith, simply cannot grasp even elementary principles of reasoning if to do so would require them to question the NDE orthodoxy.
For example, in a recent post I used the example of Mt. Rushmore to illustrate a known instance of intelligent design. I asked my readers to consider an investigator who knows nothing about the origin of the faces on the mountain other than their bare existence (perhaps an investigator from the far distant future after an apocalypse has erased all other records of human activity). The investigator might conclude that the faces on the mountain were the product of chance and necessity, i.e., wind and rain and other environmental factors against all odds combined to form the exact replicas of the faces of four men. Or the investigator could conclude from the obvious CSI exhibited by the carvings that they are the product of the purposeful efforts of an intelligent agent.
I then asked my readers to consider a cell, which exhibits VASTLY MORE CSI than Mt. Rushmore. An investigator could conclude that the CSI of a cell – this marvel of nano-technology – is the product of random replication errors (i.e., chance) culled by natural selection (i.e., mechanical necessity). Or, as in the Mt. Rushmore example, the investigator could conclude that the CSI was the product of the purposeful efforts of an intelligent agent.
Which is the more reasonable explanation for the CSI in the cell, I asked my readers. One Darwinist, an obviously intelligent person acting in what I trust was perfect good faith responded: “we have a plausible materialist explanation for the apparent design of life, whereas we don’t have such an explanation for Mt. Rushmore.”
It apparently never occurred to this commenter that whether the materialist explanation for the design life is more plausible than a materialist explanation for the design of Mt. Rushmore is precisely the issue in question. And the bald unsupported assertion that one explanation is more plausible than the other solves nothing. In other words, it did not occur to the commenter that his explanation was satisfying to him only because he assumed his conclusion simply had to be true.
I would have thought that our commenter’s failure to grasp elementary principles of logic was an anomaly if I had not seen Darwinists make the same type of error over and over again these last few years. The point of this post is that I no longer believe these people are stupid, and I am trying (yes, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I really am trying) to be more patient with them. I trust my fellow authors and the pro-ID commenters on these pages will join with me in this endeavor. I am not talking about obvious trolls. That is another category altogether, and we will continue to deal with them ruthlessly. But with respect to people of demonstrated intelligence and good faith who, because of the “psychology of blinding obedience to a paradigm” cannot seem to grasp simple concepts, let’s try to be a little more patient and, if anything, pity those who have imprisoned themselves in self-constructed psychological towers.
75 Responses to The Psychology of Blinding Obedience to a Paradigm
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
rib,
“If you decide not to offer refutations, that’s fine, but don’t expect us to assume that you can.”
Do not get into your notion of what a person can or cannot do, it’s an affront on the person and not the argument. I won’t tolerate it.
Clive,
Patrick does tend to make some statements that could be considered somewhat inflammatory, for example
Now, as we all know there is a very large non-random component to “Darwinism”. Selection is not random, it selects! So it perhaps might be no surprise when “darwinists”, all het up, call Patrick out on his, to them, outrageous statements.
Patrick then goes onto quote himself
What level of plasticity is “obvious” in biology? Is there a correlation between a high/low plasticity with a system designed to macro evolve? These questions and more are prompted by Patricks statements and I think it’s only reasonable to allow him to answer or not, as the case may be. If by “I won’t tolerate it” you mean “I won’t allow Patrick to be called on his statements” then I’m afraid I’ll have to reconsider my participation here! Patrick has some fasinating things to say but I’d like to see him substantiate them some more, after all is he an admin and official spokesperson for this blog.
PhilipBaxter,
Your is not a valid complaint, there was nothing at all “wrong” with what you quote from Patrick–”wrong” in the sense that I mean, being rude or anything of the sort.
Whether natural selection can do what people propose it to do, and the particulars relevant to that question, are at the heart of the matter, and that is pure argumentation, not rudeness or disrespect towards a person. If you don’t like what he has to say as far as argument goes, I’m sorry. You won’t convince me that there has been a transgression of any sort on those grounds. What I won’t tolerate is anyone making statements about another person instead of their argument.
PhilpiBaxter,
Natural selection is a RESULT! It is the result of variation, inheritance and fecudity- each is either random or has a random component. And if the inputs are random then the result is also random.
As for selecting:
The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:
highly sophisticated, multi-parallel — indeed, multi-dimensional-parallel, essentially holographic — information system?
Something like activated DNA ?
#57,
I do not disagree with Dembski. I disagree with your misrepresentation of the subject matter, whether it be purposeful or not.
#62,
I think we agree, and I elaborated on this topic at length recently. I was taking issue with some of rib’s earlier statements, not attacking Darwinists!
Like not failing to “compile” on a single minor error in most cases. Systems retaining overall functionality with small variances in components. Body plans are not determined statically like an architect’s plan for a building but constructed algorithmically in some cases. Stuff like that.
If the overall system is designed to be heavily modular the system could allow for “endless forms without end” with relatively simple changes in information. The best example that jumps to mind is the creature system in a video game called Spore. While the game is relatively simple the engineering that went into that system took many years.
In any case, a deterministic mechanism is just a chance hypothesis with a probability of 1,
What would be a design mechanism?
tribune7 [67],
How about
Just kidding!
But seriously, I thought ID was silent on mechanisms, and that ID worked by identifying moments where design was needed by showing that non-design pathways were inadequate or impossible.
But seriously, I thought ID was silent on mechanisms, and that ID worked by identifying moments where design was needed by showing that non-design pathways were inadequate or impossible.
Roy, I think that’s fair. So what would be a design mechanism with a chance hypothesis? It can’t be 1 because design can fail. OTOH, even a deterministic mechanism can “fail”, if some other deterministic mechanism skews the result.
Do we conclude that chance rules and everything must be taken on faith and become fatalist?
Or do we conclude that we never have perfect knowledge and hence must act on the most reasonable assumption?
tribune7, I think the first option is incoherent, and I don’t think it boils down quite like that. Nonetheless, the second option sounds good to me. However, Barry’s original post completely conflates what is “logical” with what is “ideologically comfortable.” Given that, it seems optimistic to believe that we’ll agree on what constitutes a reasonable assumption.
I think the first option is incoherent, and I don’t think it boils down quite like that.
Of course it would if chance rules.
Nonetheless, the second option sounds good to me.
You and I are in agreement on this one
However, Barry’s original post completely conflates what is “logical” with what is “ideologically comfortable.”
Roy, there are two Lazuruses in the Bible. One, of course, is the one brought back to life by Jesus as noted by Barry.
The other is a begger who died
Now, if someone would rise from the dead and warn you, would you listen? Read the passage to the end.
tribune7, I’m not sure what you write has to do with science. In any event, I’m pretty sure the Lazarus story in John didn’t happen, because almost nothing in the Gospel of John seems historical. It’s a late Gospel and portrays a completely different figure of Jesus than the more historical synoptic Gospels. Nobody saw Lazarus rise from the dead, because the story is John’s invention.
I’m not sure what you write has to do with science.
Nothing directly, but Barry wasn’t writing so much about science but about human nature.
It’s a late Gospel and portrays a completely different figure of Jesus than the more historical synoptic Gospels.
You accept the other Gospels?
tribune7 [73], I think the Synoptic Gospels likely contain some things that happened and some things that Jesus said, but not a lot.
tribune7 [73], I think the Synoptic Gospels likely contain some things that happened and some things that Jesus said, but not a lot.
I’m guessing that some of the things you don’t think happened in the Bible are the miracles. Now, if you saw someone rise from the dead would you credit God?
That’s one of the point of the Lazarus coming from the tomb. Many saw a clearly dead person come back to life and they still rationalized it away.