Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How pro-Darwin Catholic biochemist Ken Miller came to be hated one fifth as much as non-Darwin Catholic biochemist Michael Behe

Denyse O'Leary
September 10, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Bill Dembski noted that the inimitable PZ Myers has attacked Ken Miller, anti-ID Catholic poster boy, for thinking there is any evidence for theism.

I agree that PZ is having another junior moment, but it is nonetheless instructive.

National Center for Science Education’s Eugenie Scott, who knows more about retailing crude Darwinism to middle American shopaholics than anyone, has insisted, “One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!”

 (Yes, she really apparently told Science and Theology News that in April, 2002. I would be curious to know if she would say the same thing in the same terms today.)

When I first started writing By Design or by Chance?, my recent book on why there is an intelligent design controversy in North America today, I found constitutional lawyer Phillip Johnson’s comments on theistic evolution (the point of view Miller espouses) illuminating. Johnson is the godfather of the ID guys, but don’t let that deter you. He wrote that it is culturally okay to say

As a Christian, I believe by faith that God is responsible for evolution.

but

It is emphatically not acceptable to say, “As a scientist, I see evidence that organisms were designed by a preexisting intelligence, and therefore other objective observers should also infer the existence of a designer.”

because

The former statement is within the bounds of methodological naturalism, and most scientific naturalists will interpret it to mean nothing more than ‘It gives me comfort to believe in God, and so I will.’ The latter statement brings the designer into the territory of objective reality, and that is what methodological naturalism forbids.

Miller, alas, seems to have drawn some conclusions from believing in God that do not amount simply to joining a mob against ID – hence genuine Darwinists attack him.

But what intrigued me most about Johnson’s analysis was his thoughts on the hatred directed against ID biochemist Michael Behe. Behe wrote, in Darwin’s Black Box ,

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. Although Darwin’s mechanism—natural selection working on variation—might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.

That would seem to make him a theistic evolutionist. But as Johnson notes at the beginning of the passage quoted above, that is not what “theistic evolution” currently means:

The defining characteristic of theistic evolution, however, is that it accepts methodological naturalism and confines the theistic element to the subjective area of “religious belief.”

In other words, theistic evolution today means believing things for which there is no evidence. Behe’s sin is that he thinks he has evidence. He is not supposed to have evidence; he is only supposed to reassure pious old ladies that no matter what is happening in the world of science, everything is just fine, just fine, just fine.

It would also help if he would wear fake hair and a slick preacher suit instead of having the fashion sense of a research biochemist. But First Things first.

As I like to say, no wonder there is an intelligent design controversy.

Comments
PaV:"As to the “image” of Our Lady of Guadalupe, upon inspection it was found that the intensity of the image on the garment is directly proportional to the inverse of the distance from the surface, just as occurs with light." Would you have a link to that study? Just from looking at the image I can't make that quantitavive judgement. I can see several parts of the clothing that are closer to the observer than others but are not any brighter. In addition, all that depends on an exact knowledge of how far the light source was away from the garment when the image was formed on the canvas.if a quantitative measurement were possible. Finally, one would expect that intensity is proportional not directly but to the square of the inverse of the distance from the surface. ofro
Alan Fox:
But I thought you were offering evidence to contradict my assertion. Did you not want me to examine your evidence?
Why would ask for something you assert can't exist? The realm of the supernatural cannot be explored by empirical methods. No one asserts that. Many assert the existence of the supernatural. No one has "seen" an atom. But we can test for its existence indirectly. My earlier point regarding the cave paintings was meant to indicate that if we can logically infer intelligent causal agents by their effects and call it science (as in the case of cave paintings), then why is science completely shut off from detecting evidence of a supernatural intelligent being by the effect this being causes? Why the disconnect? As to the "image" of Our Lady of Guadalupe, upon inspection it was found that the intensity of the image on the garment is directly proportional to the inverse of the distance from the surface, just as occurs with light. That is, the image seems to have been produced by light itself. There is no known process to duplicate these effects. PaV
PaV wrote:
But I thought you said that science cannot deal with the supernatural, so why would you be looking for a “scientifically confirmed supernatural effect”? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms for you?
But I thought you were offering evidence to contradict my assertion. Did you not want me to examine your evidence?
Instead, you have an image–not an icon–that defies scientific explanation for its production, let alone any explanation involving known artistic methods. You also have human beings who have testified as to how it came about. Perhaps all this indicates that methodological naturalism necessarily involves methodological doubt when it comes to anything but natural causes. That is, it is a very limited view of human experience.
I would be the first to say that some things (currently) defy scientific explanation. How life got started on Earth, for example. As to your image "defying scientific explanation", Wikipedia suggests that not much careful scientific scrutiny has been done. Unless I have missed something, in which case, I should be pleased to look at any material that you can point me to. Alan Fox
pk4 paul: And one cannot invoke the possibility either in the absence of supporting data. That is the point for an empirically based discipline." Providing a potential mechanism of how a structure could have evolved is empirically at least as valid as providing an argument based on contested probabilities. At the least, the jury is still out on which mechanism has a better chance of resembling what actually happened. ofro
pk4 paul: kudos to your last post PaV
Just because a structure is observed today that gives the appearance of being irreducibly complex, one cannot exclude the possibility that at a prior time there were additional components that enabled its generation. And one cannot invoke the possibility either in the absence of supporting data. That is the point for an empirically based discipline. pk4_paul
Alan Fox:
However you will find it difficult to convince mainstream scientists that detectable phenomena have supernatural causes, since, as I said before, science has no tools with which it can examine the supernatural.
Does science have tools to examine cavemen who painted on cave walls? This seems to me to be no more than prejudice.
From a brief Google search, I couldn’t find an example of a scientifically confirmed supernatural effect in relation to the icon. Do you have a link?
But I thought you said that science cannot deal with the supernatural, so why would you be looking for a "scientifically confirmed supernatural effect"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms for you? Instead, you have an image--not an icon--that defies scientific explanation for its production, let alone any explanation involving known artistic methods. You also have human beings who have testified as to how it came about. Perhaps all this indicates that methodological naturalism necessarily involves methodological doubt when it comes to anything but natural causes. That is, it is a very limited view of human experience. Ofro:
I think you just answered the question of your second paragraph with the scenario of your first paragraph. Just because a structure is observed today that gives the appearance of being irreducibly complex, one cannot exclude the possibility that at a prior time there were additional components that enabled its generation.
I think you're a little mixed up here. I wasn't concerned in the example I gave with how the "complexity/design" of the space shuttle came about, I was concerned with how it got into orbit--a completely different question. Spandrels won't do, I'm afraid. PaV
You don’t need science’s permission to invoke design. However you will find it difficult to convince mainstream scientists that detectable phenomena have supernatural causes, since, as I said before, science has no tools with which it can examine the supernatural. Since intelligent design hypothesizes intelligent causality, rather than the supernatural, science would have detection tools. Those tools can be applied to genomic features like the genetic code and a number of coding functions to test for causality. pk4_paul
Your responses indicate to me that you have checked the bare meaning of the words just to the extent that you can make a semi-coherent and pat, regurgitated answer. The words may be pat and semi-coherent, avocationist, but I promise you, they are my own. Alan Fox
At risk of leading you to wonder just whose side I'm really on, I wonder if "methodological naturalism" can be effectively isolated from "metaphysical naturalism." Beckwith raised the excellent point above that a commitment to methodological naturalism does not provide us with an a priori exclusion of the "supernatural." But it does provide with an a posteriori heuristic for disregarding it: science that took the supernatural seriously turned out not to be good science. (I'm thinking here of scientific research into occult phenomena, which was a big thing in the 19th century.) The problem is a chicken-or-egg: if science tells us what there is, and science is always changing, then what's off the books today (ghosts and angels) could be on the books tomorrow, if there's a new development in our ability to repeatedly measure, quantify, and intervene. Yet that just leaves the content of science entirely open-ended; science is just "what scientists do." But how, then, can we tell what it is that scientists are doing? There's no way to do so, that I can think of, without a commitment to metaphysical naturalism, however minimal. Carlos
Ack! Good answers. Wise, insightful answers. avocationist
Alan, You have been given quite a few very goos answers, to which you seem inpervious. Your responses indicate to me that you have checked the bare meaning of the words just to the extent that you can make a semi-coherent and pat, regurgitated answer. avocationist
PaV: When the space shuttle is up in orbit, there are no rocket boosters to be found, since they’re jettisoned on the way up. Now, if you searched the shuttle while it was up in orbit for the means by which it got there, you would find that the fuel on board, and the size of its rocket engine are not sufficient to have gotten the shuttle in orbit. Now a closer examination of the Shuttle might show certain features that from an engineering point of view suggests that the shuttle was once attached to something. One would not be far off in inferring that some kind of a booster engine was attached. (snip) If, then, a biological structure is so precisely constructed as to exceed anything that human intelligence has been known to produce, why is it unscientific to attribute this effect to a Designer? I think you just answered the question of your second paragraph with the scenario of your first paragraph. Just because a structure is observed today that gives the appearance of being irreducibly complex, one cannot exclude the possibility that at a prior time there were additional components that enabled its generation. You could, of course, argue that this additional component was “designed” as well, but one can argue with just the same validity that it came about by an evolutionary mechanism. ofro
tinabrewer wrote:
Well, I would give the simple example of existence itself as evidence of something ‘above nature’
Current OOL theories are far from producing any convincing explanation of how life began on Earth. Professor Robert Shapiro (who has published on the subject) remarks: "I feel however that the origin of life is a topic that is more fundamental to the debate over intelligent design. The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant." I doubt we will ever have a scientific explanation of abiogenesis. There is plenty of room for religious and philosophical speculation here. Alan Fox
Mentok wrote:
In other words the conceptual framework of: “if you cannot see the “supernatural” or detect it, then it is not worthy of being investigated as having any relevance to our world” is a self defeating attitude towards empirical research i.e. if we don’t observe it now, then we shouldn’t try to observe it at all because it doesn’t exist.
I would be fascinated to learn of extra-terrestrial civilisations on other worlds. I have no idea whether such beings exist or have existed. I hope we keep looking for them and they for us. Science can make no judgement on the issue because there is no evidence at the moment. Similarly no-one is prevented from looking for evidence of supernatural design, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Alan Fox
PaV said:
Alan Fox: “This seems a fundamental divide. Do you have an example of a scientifically detectable supernatural effect?” The tilma of Juan Diego in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City.
From a brief Google search, I couldn't find an example of a scientifically confirmed supernatural effect in relation to the icon. Do you have a link? Alan Fox
PaV wrote:
So, what seems to really be the case is that scientists–invoking the scientific method in solemn tones–are saying not that God is not permitted, but that ‘design’ is not permitted. This is highly inconsistent. Why the inconsistency? Why not admit the presence of ‘design’ as an ‘effect’ seen in nature? Why is this step not permitted?
You don't need science's permission to invoke design. However you will find it difficult to convince mainstream scientists that detectable phenomena have supernatural causes, since, as I said before, science has no tools with which it can examine the supernatural. Alan Fox
Alan Fox: Well, I would give the simple example of existence itself as evidence of something 'above nature'. tinabrewer
Sorry about the previous post. I erroneously inserted a prior quote and not the quote from Alan that is found below. Alan Fox: "This seems a fundamental divide. Do you have an example of a scientifically detectable supernatural effect?" The tilma of Juan Diego in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. PaV
Alan Fox: "For the record, there is nothing about the Modern Synthesis that would mandate that only gradual accumulation of mutations can cause reproductive isolation." The tilma of Juan Diego in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. PaV
avocationist asked:
Karl said science forbids an idea, and you said supernatural effects cannot be observed. What do you mean by that? Presumably, if there are supernatural events, you could observe them.
Well, if the supernatural is affecting the observable universe in some way, then, yes, those effects must be capable of being detected. But they would be real effcts. It is semantics again. For me, whatever cannot be observed by the scientific method is the realm of philosophy, faith and belief. Science is not equipped to deal with the supernatural. Alan Fox
tinabrewer said: Second, while it is true that the instruments of science, being material, cannot detect the substance of the supernatural directly, they are certainly able to detect effects. This seems a fundamental divide. Do you have an example of a scientifically detectable supernatural effect? Alan Fox
Francis Beckwith The real test of what is detectable is repeatability. Scientific results are only considered valid if they can be repeated by others, using the working hypothesis that the properties of the universe and its contents are consistent. Alan Fox
Alan you wrote:
In my view, science is a method for studying what is detectable, observable or measurable. Anything capable of being scrutinised by the scientific method is not supernatural, by definition.
Since people detect the presence of the supernatural all of the time throughout history then according to you that is valid scientifically. Since many people claim that through the study of ID or of the fined tune universe or the improbablity of earth existing as it does by accident, that these cause the supernatural to be detectable. Therefore that is also scientifically acceptable in your definition. The yoga schools claim that through they are studying the supernatural through meditation on consciousness and mind. They claim that by following that study you will detect and observe the supernatural. So that also is scientifically acceptable in your paradigm. You then wrote:
So science cannot experiment with the supernatural. Any effects that are observable are part of the natural world. If and when the supernatural impinges on the natural world then, at the interface, so to speak, science should be able to detect those effects. I suggest such an approach could bear fruit for ID research
Science doesn't experiment with anything. People experiment. People can use the empirical method based on rejection of anything or any cause which they cannot explain by the interaction of matter alone. That is the seemingly "scientific method" which is trying to be foisted on everyone as the only acceptable way to investigate the world around us. Or people can not be bound by the confines of our own ignorance. In other words the conceptual framework of: "if you cannot see the "supernatural" or detect it, then it is not worthy of being investigated as having any relevance to our world" is a self defeating attitude towards empirical research i.e. if we don't observe it now, then we shouldn't try to observe it at all because it doesn't exist. Have we really come to the end of knowledge using that empirical basal paradigm? People say they want to know what makes this world we live in work, where does it come from, where are we going. Yet then they claim that finding out the answers to those questions will be done through our own preconceived ideology of what the answers can and cannot look like. True knowledge is gained easier when you do not predefine the boundaries of the answers to the questions. mentok
Alan Fox: In my view, science is a method for studying what is detectable, observable or measurable. Anything capable of being scrutinised by the scientific method is not supernatural, by definition. When the space shuttle is up in orbit, there are no rocket boosters to be found, since they're jettisoned on the way up. Now, if you searched the shuttle while it was up in orbit for the means by which it got there, you would find that the fuel on board, and the size of its rocket engine are not sufficient to have gotten the shuttle in orbit. Now a closer examination of the Shuttle might show certain features that from an engineering point of view suggests that the shuttle was once attached to something. One would not be far off in inferring that some kind of a booster engine was attached. The obvious point here is that just because we can't see, touch, and handle, the cause of a particular effect (as tinabrewer points out), doesn't mean that reason will not permit us to make inferences about causes based on seen, touched, handled effects. But there is a further point that needs to be made. Intelligent causes cannot be directly seen--only their effects. If a painting is discovered in a cave in France, natural selection, gravity, quantum mechanics, hydrology, etc, etc, are not invoked as the agency. Rather, human agency, or some form of intelligent agency, is invoked. If, then, a biological structure is so precisely constructed as to exceed anything that human intelligence has been known to produce, why is it unscientific to attribute this effect to a Designer? If the standard complaint is to be lodged, viz., but we don't know who the designer is, which I consider to be very lame, this only becomes an irrelevancy. If you can 'conclude' that humans (or maybe they weren't humans--we really don't know who we're dealing with) made the painting, how is the logic any different from concluding, based on a design seen in biology that exceeds anything humans can produce, that (1) an intelligent agency is involved, and (2) it is an intelligence that surpasses mere human intelligence? Notice, God has not been mentioned so far. It's not necessary to do so. So, what seems to really be the case is that scientists--invoking the scientific method in solemn tones--are saying not that God is not permitted, but that 'design' is not permitted. This is highly inconsistent. Why the inconsistency? Why not admit the presence of 'design' as an 'effect' seen in nature? Why is this step not permitted? PaV
Judge Rules Sites Can Be Sued Over Design http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/09/224204 Robo
"Non-evolved intelligence"?--human intelligence is a non-evolved intelligence in so far as Darwin can explain it. Remember--evolution is evidence! Evidence of design--for our only example of evolution in progress is human progress--and that's designed. Rude
Fross: “How do you test I.D?” Find some humans and observe them design. “I.D. doesn’t become the default answer if evolution [read: Darwin] loses.” No, but it’s back in the game. Rude
Alan, I was a bit hasty. I apologize. Karl said methodological fobids the idea of a supernatural designer. I'm not sure what he means. You said, As the scientific method is blind to the supernatural, the controversy begins when it is suggested that supernatural effects can be observed. Anything capable of being scrutinised by the scientific method is not supernatural, by definition. Karl said science forbids an idea, and you said supernatural effects cannot be observed. What do you mean by that? Presumably, if there are supernatural events, you could observe them. I don't find the notion of supernatural useful. Mats calls a non-evolved intelligence supernatural, and I agree that there is a non-evolved intelligence. The problem with the notion of supernatural is that it creates a rift in the fabric of the universe which I don't think can be. It must be a continuum. If God can have any effect on the world, indeed if God can create the universe, then there is a point of contact. And if there is a point of contact, then there is not a rift. If our reality is a whole, then it means God and what we call supernatural is part of that whole. It is just as misguided to call God's actions supernatural as it is to insist that microbes are supernatural because we can't see them. The use of the word supernatural simply means we are ignorant of how it works. Just because there may be a Being or beings who can perform actions that we cannot is not a reason to call it supernatural, any more than a tribal person should call our technology supernatural. As we are making continual progress in uncovering the deeper layers of reality we should begin to find that our universe is indeed not compatible with a materialially reductionistic one. For example, some people think consciousness research is on the brink of showing that matter is ultimately dependent upon consciousness. I think you can see the implications of that. avocationist
Smidlee wrote: "Also in human eyes a designer/ creator of life would be nothing less than a god/God. Thus methological naturalism rejects any idea of a designer in biology." I disagree. Suppose we hear next week that someone has created life in a flask at Berkeley. Will you feel compelled to worship him or her? Me neither. jerry wrote: "Karl Pfluger, You have just said that science is tantamount to atheism." No, what I said was that methodological naturalism precludes a divine designer. I did not say that science must be confined to methodological naturalism. Mats wrote: "Karl Pfluger, If the Designer could be anything rather than Supernatural, ID wouldn’t be controversial." Mats, many of your fellow ID supporters would disagree that the designer must be supernatural. Karl Pfluger
Francis Beckwith: Great going! Would that a little epistemology and philosophy were required in the schools—maybe then it wouldn’t be so easy to get away with all this obfuscation and inexcusable confusion. Karl Pfluger: “Methodological naturalism forbids not the idea of a designer, but rather the idea of a supernatural one. Johnson’s statement reveals his precommitment to the idea that the designer must be God.” WRONG! Methodological naturalism forbids the idea of any designer that might possibily be God and any suggestion that there might be purpose in our existence. Folks in ID will disagree over whether or how God transcends nature (and is thus “supernatural”). All that ID claims is that we know design when we see it—we produce it all the time—and we have never seen chance and necessity design anything. We lay our cards on the table—where are theirs? Rude
How do you test I.D? I know Behe suggested testing to see if bacteria can evolve an IC structure. But this is testing evolution, and the test he suggested would be a way to say "evolution can't do it". I.D. doesn't become the default answer if evolution loses. Fross
avocationist wrote: The comments of Alan and Karl are so shocking, so embarrassing to them, that there is little point in discussion. Alan Fox responded: "I don’t feel embarrassed, avocationist, so could you explain why you think I should be?" I'm not embarrassed either, avocationist. What faux pas have we committed? Karl Pfluger
Alan Fox: two things. First of all, ID most emphatically does NOT require the designer to be supernatural. It just attempts to detect design. THroughout all of human history and in nearly every culture, it has been held that the creator/originator(s) of matter and life were supernatural. But that doesn't mean that these beliefs were correct or justified. Second, while it is true that the instruments of science, being material, cannot detect the substance of the supernatural directly, they are certainly able to detect effects. tinabrewer
But science does not deny the supernatural. It just can’t detect it. I agree with you that, that is how things should work. The problem that has occurred, however -- and it is undeniable -- is that an establishment speaking in the name of science has made a claim that the supernatural is unnecessary -- foolish to consider even -- to explain the development of life and of the universe. And the it should be noted that technically, ID does not require the supernatural. . .I would be grateful if you could explain further. ID is about the criteria used for detecting intelligently design, not about naming the designer. The techique is not restricted by the chemcial composition of the item under investigation, whether it be an arrowhead found in the woods or a flagellum. tribune7
"In my view, science is a method for studying what is detectable, observable or measurable. Anything capable of being scrutinised by the scientific method is not supernatural, by definition." The definition that "science is a method for studying what is detectable, observable or measurable" is only detectable, observable, or measurable if it is descriptive. But a descriptive statement about a discipline cannot tell us anything about whether science will be that way in the future or whether the way it is practiced today is in fact mistaken in some instances. So, a descriptive definition cannot exclude non-natural accounts a priori. However, if the definition is prescriptive (or normative) that "science is a method for studying what is detectable, observable or measurable," then the definition itself is not science since prescriptive statements are not established by whether they are detectable, observatble, or measureable (e.g., "I just detected that `one ought to be rational" makes no sense.). The norm--"one ought to act rationally"--does not depend on any description except if that description requires a telos or purpose, e.g., the mind has a proper functon to be rational. But then we are on the turf of natural teleology. But even if we assume that definition normative, problems of ambiguity and vagueness abound. For example, what does it mean to say that something is detectable? For example, I infer my neighbor's personhood from his actions, speech, etc., but I don't have direct access to his person per se. On the other hand, my own self-consciousness is not detectable, observable, or measurable since I just have first person awareness of it. I don't "detect" or "observe" my own consciousness; it is the first principle, the starting point, at which I detect, observe and measure other things. The detecting, observing, and measuring "I" is the subject, not the object. fbeckwith
Everyone has really missed the most glaring thing about Denyse’s post. She purports to have quantified evolutionists’ hatred of Ken Miller at 1/5 that of Michael Behe. My calculations yield a result of 21.7%, not 1/5. In Denyse’s defense, perhaps she was rounding. Comment by BarryA — September 10, 2006 @ 1:48 pm Barry, my research shows that Michael Behe is of Irish extraction, and as everyone knows, whenever you find four Irishman you also find a fifth. russ
From Denyse: Yes, I was rounding. My original figure was 5 zillion.0000005 plus one half (and a half penny, and, oh yes, a disused, ugly lampshade) units of hatred. That may have been an underestimate, actually. So I divided by five to get the correct number. Why five? For every four professional Darwinists who want Michael Behe to fall off the face of the earth, one makes his living in whole or in part from flogging up the ID scare. I am not much good at math. But, listening to all the abuse, I am sure that the general idea is right. O'Leary
Everyone has really missed the most glaring thing about Denyse’s post. She purports to have quantified evolutionists’ hatred of Ken Miller at 1/5 that of Michael Behe. My calculations yield a result of 21.7%, not 1/5. In Denyse’s defense, perhaps she was rounding. BarryA
The controversy began when the possibility of the existence of the supernatural was required to be denied. But science does not deny the supernatural. It just can't detect it. And the it should be noted that technically, ID does not require the supernatural. I would be grateful if you could explain further. Alan Fox
Alan -- As the scientific method is blind to the supernatural, the controversy begins when it is suggested that supernatural effects can be observed. The controversy began when the possibility of the existence of the supernatural was required to be denied. And the it should be noted that technically, ID does not require the supernatural. tribune7
Mats said:
First, science can make experiments on the supernatural. Many people have claimed to have seen supernatural events. Since they can happen, then they can be verified, tested, falsified (directly or indirectly). Secondly, intelligence is part of nature, is it not? Therefore science cannot be “blind” concerning the enterprise which detects signs of intelligence on the physical realm. Thirdly, science is not blind to the supernatural. Naturalism is blind to the supernatural.
As so often happens, we to appear to be defeated by the semantics. In my view, science is a method for studying what is detectable, observable or measurable. Anything capable of being scrutinised by the scientific method is not supernatural, by definition. So science cannot experiment with the supernatural. Any effects that are observable are part of the natural world. If and when the supernatural impinges on the natural world then, at the interface, so to speak, science should be able to detect those effects. I suggest such an approach could bear fruit for ID research. Alan Fox
Avocationist said:
The comments of Alan and Karl are so shocking, so embarrassing to them, that there is little point in discussion.
I don't feel embarrassed, avocationist, so could you explain why you think I should be? Alan Fox
The comments of Alan and Karl are so shocking, so embarrassing to them, that there is little point in discussion. avocationist
Alan Fox,
As the scientific method is blind to the supernatural, the controversy begins when it is suggested that supernatural effects can be observed.
First, science can make experiments on the supernatural. Many people have claimed to have seen supernatural events. Since they can happen, then they can be verified, tested, falsified (directly or indirectly). Secondly, intelligence is part of nature, is it not? Therefore science cannot be "blind" concerning the enterprise which detects signs of intelligence on the physical realm. Thirdly, science is not blind to the supernatural. Naturalism is blind to the supernatural. Mats
It was inevitable, really. Testifying in Dover, Barbara Forrest shook the loop out so that it was big enough to declare Michael Behe a creationist, and, of course, every utterance of the prosecution in that case was entered into law by Judge Jones. It was only a matter of time before Miller would outlive his usefulness and would become ensnared himself. Charlie
If the Designer could be anything rather than Supernatural, ID wouldn’t be controversial. As the scientific method is blind to the supernatural, the controversy begins when it is suggested that supernatural effects can be observed. Alan Fox
Methodological naturalism forbids not the idea of a designer, but rather the idea of a supernatural one. Johnson’s statement reveals his precommitment to the idea that the designer must be God. No, that's philosophical naturalism. DaveScot
Karl Pfluger, If the Designer could be anything rather than Supernatural, ID wouldn't be controversial. Darwinists are fully aware that, if there is a Designer of biological life forms, He can only be Supernatural (non-evolved Intelligence). Mats
Karl Pfluger, You have just said that science is tantamount to atheism. If there is a God, what is role in our world. If there is no role, then He has essentially done nothing and whether He exists or not is irrelevant. jerry
"Methodological naturalism forbids not the idea of a designer, but rather the idea of a supernatural one. Johnson’s statement reveals his precommitment to the idea that the designer must be God." Yet Methological naturalism seems to support Super-MAN (Mutations And Natural selection). Also in human eyes a designer/ creator of life would be nothing less than a god/God. Thus methological naturalism rejects any idea of a designer in biology. Smidlee
Phillip Johnson: "It is emphatically not acceptable to say, “As a scientist, I see evidence that organisms were designed by a preexisting intelligence, and therefore other objective observers should also infer the existence of a designer"... [This] statement brings the designer into the territory of objective reality, and that is what methodological naturalism forbids." Methodological naturalism forbids not the idea of a designer, but rather the idea of a supernatural one. Johnson's statement reveals his precommitment to the idea that the designer must be God. Karl Pfluger

Leave a Reply