Michael Heller, this year’s Templeton Prize winner, on ID

_{Barry Arrington

March 17, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Michael (Michal) Heller is a Polish cosmologist and Catholic priest and recipient of this year’s Templeton Prize. Here he is over at FT bashing ID.

Adherents of the so-called intelligent design ideology commit a grave theological error. They claim that scientific theories that ascribe a great role to chance and random events in the evolutionary processes should be replaced, or supplemented, by theories acknowledging the thread of intelligent design in the universe. Such views are theologically erroneous. They implicitly revive the old Manichean error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design. There is no opposition here. Within the all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation.

Comments

rockyr at 18 Vatican Observatory 2005 notes: HELLER Gave the paper "Noncommutative Unifi-cation of General Relativity and Quantum Mechan-ics" on 4 February at the Physics Institute of the Prague University, Czech Republic. Spoke on "Emergence and Structure" 16-17 May at the IX Kracow Methodological Conference, Poland, which he also helped to organize. 11-16 September at the Congress of Polish Physicists in Warsaw pre-sented the paper "Einstein, the Universe and Our-selves." 26-27 September at the symposium "ScienceReligion History," held at the Catholic University of Lublin, Poland, gave the paper "On the Structural Understanding of Science." At a workshop on the "Controversial Relationships be-tween Science and Philosophy," 30 October to 1 September at the Pontifical Gregorian University, gave the paper "Unification Theories of Every-thing. Philosophical Aspects." 14-17 October, at the symposium, "Relational Ontology in Science and Theology," Athens, Greece, gave the paper "Is the Universe a Self-Contained Structure?" See: M Heller Google Scholar. e.g., Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion (2003)DLH_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

[...] In regards to Dave Scott’s opinion– fair enough but don’t you think then that... tribune7: Good grief, I’m so tired of theologians telling us, Darwinism and theology are not [...]ERIUGENA - a 9th century advocate of “intelligent design” | Uncommon Descent_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Good grief, I’m so tired of theologians telling us, Darwinism and theology are not incompatible, therefore quit fighting it. The assumption is, the only problems we have with Darwinism are theological. The problems I have are logical. Well said, Granvilletribune7_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

bFast says, "If you look at human technology as the prime example of human ID, you will find that there seems to be a huge number of transitionals." But certainly not enough transitional forms to justify a step-by-step climb up Mount Improbable. The differences between, say, a 1967 Corvette and the 1968 model are striking and abrupt in many ways -- and I think it safe to say that very few of the thousands of possible intermediate forms were ever manufactured, even in prototype form. I've written a great deal of software, also, and while my finished programs are indeed the result of thousands of individually coded and tested extensions, each of those extensions is typically a "leap" in the program's capability. Inserting a single IF statement, for example, will usually add hundreds (if not thousands) of new bits of information to the program -- and in just the right spot! bFast says, "Though there is a phenomenon of making things appear “antique”, it is definitely a sub-phenomenon of human ID development." That's not what I had in mind when I said, "appearance of age". I was thinking more of a novel where the characters are full grown on the first page of the first chapter; or a painting where the flowers are created in full bloom. The element of sequence enters here too. The youngest character in a novel may have been "thought up" long before the older ones, and the flowers in a painting may have been rendered a day before the sun above them. Intelligent Design enthusiasts often seem to forget that not all creative activities result in mechanical devices.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Fr. Heller is one of the TE "Vatican Observatory" group, which was represented by fr. Coyne: http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/AReports/ARep2005.pdf Heller supposedly wrote 30 books and 400 papers: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801398.htm Heller's comparison of ID to Manicheanism is really odd. I would not have expected something like that from a person like him. It does seem to show a bias or a prejudice against ID, I suppose, due to his ignorance of ID. But at least now we know where John Paul II was getting his ideas about evolution from. I did a quick online search but have been unable to find anything substantial about what Heller wrote. Has anybody read anything by Heller? Which books or papers of Heller deal with chance, evolution or ID? "If one wants to determine whether an event is of low or high probability, one must use the calculus of probability, and the calculus of probability is a mathematical theory as good as any other mathematical theory. " It seems to me we have to know more about his understanding of chance and of probability calculus. But if I had to venture an educated guess, I would say it is likely he is wrong somewhere in his reasoning about chance and nature.rockyr_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Borne:
Since the Designer, being, contrary to humans, of fathomless genius would hardly need to try and try again - the reason why humans have so many stages in developing new things, I can’t your point.
Are you sure you aren't overlaying a preconceived, possibly religious, notion of the nature of the designer over top of the evidence. The evidence that I see indicates that biology contains a serious component of experimentation. For example, during the cambrian explosion, many phila were generated, shortly after that, most of these phila dissappeared. Why? The data looks like experimentation to me.bFast_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

bFast - "If you look at human technology as the prime example of human ID, you will find that there seems to be a huge number of transitionals." Since the Designer, being, contrary to humans, of fathomless genius would hardly need to try and try again - the reason why humans have so many stages in developing new things, I can't your point. Humans go through transitional stages in creating things simply because we so often don't know what will actually work best from the start. An infinitely intelligent designer would not work with trial and error. Heller says: "...all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation". This is meaningless to the issue. He is here making it a theological point by introducing the mind of God and something he presumes about him - something ID doesn't do. Underlying his statements is the implication that IDists all see the designer as the same god he refers to. Not so. His statements are moot proving nothing either way. If that's the way he preaches I would fall asleep trying to listen to such meaningless dribble disguised as religious wisdom. The mention of any "Manichean error" has no relationship to the real issues at all. We all know there is both chance and design. The whole issue is about where to draw the line between them. Imo, He should have just kept his mouth shut instead of opening it and looking like an ill reasoning dummy.Borne_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Heller wrote: "[A] Adherents of the so-called intelligent design ideology commit a grave theological error. [B] They claim that scientific theories that ascribe a great role to chance and random events in the evolutionary processes should be replaced, or supplemented, by theories acknowledging the thread of intelligent design in the universe. [C] Such views are theologically erroneous. [D] They implicitly revive the old Manichean error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design. [E] There is no opposition here. [F] Within the all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation." In [B] Heller charges us of replacing chance theories with ID theory, a "grave theological error" [A, C]. So we are who *do* deny chance. In [D] instead we are who do *not* deny chance because we "postulate the existence of two forces (chance and design) acting against each other". First contradiction. In [F] Heller says that "random events are well composed into the symphony of creation". A symphony is entirely designed then its events are not random at all. In fact in [E] he denies opposition (how could there be opposition when there is one term only?). So, after having accused us of denying chance, what does he do? Exactly denies chance! Second contradiction. Heller cannot have both ways: if the "Mind of God is all-comprising" [F] then events are not random (ID is true); if events are really random (evolutionism is right) then the "Mind of God is *not* all-comprising" [not F].niwrad_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Heller's definition of chance is the following:
It is an event of low probability which happens in spite of the fact that it is of low probability.
He then condemns ID as theologically unsound because ID doesn't see chance as part of God's arrangement. The problem here is that Heller's definition of chance is not what ID means when talking about chance. In ID chance is not something of low probability, it is something which is without intent. So really he is making a straw man argument.mentok_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Gerry Rzappa:
Well, I don’t know if you’d count this as a theological or a logical problem (or both)
How could you perceive this as a theological problem? 1. We do so in discrete stages, without smooth and uniform transitions; If you look at human technology as the prime example of human ID, you will find that there seems to be a huge number of transitionals. I remember watching a documentary on the early development of the automobile. It seems that for every stage of development, there is a stage inbetween. If one looks at the tighter parallel of computer software development, it is much more finely graded than the releases would indicate. As Microsoft makes a new version of Windows, it does so by making individual enhancements one at a time. By time its packaged, it looks like a large (sometimes too large) group of changes, but from the inside, not so much.
2. We employ tools and techniques that do not appear as part of the finished product;
It would be interesting to discover specific tools used by the designer(s) in the development of life. However, the designer(s) may not let his/her/its tools out of the shop.
3. We frequently implement components out of sequence;
Any evidence that a component was implemented serously out of sequence would be a very strong case for ID in deed. That said, the front-loading boys seriously hypothesize that such has been found. It would appear, for instance, that fish have bone structures in their fins that serve a marginal purpose at best, until quadrupeds were developed.
4. We often make things with an illusory appearance of age;
Though there is a phenomenon of making things appear "antique", it is definitely a sub-phenomenon of human ID development. This phenomenon appears to be intended to make products that appear to be like previously existing old stuff. Ie, if the previously existing old stuff didn't exist, the "looks like it" wouldn't either. Most manufactured stuff, by far, is not made with the appearance of being old. Instead it is intended to look anything but. Stuff is even intentially made to look new only once. Once it is taken out of the package, it cannot be put back in -- by intent.
5. We typically spend much less time creating than using our creations.
One day Microsoft wrote an operating system. The world then used it. NOT!!bFast_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

It might help Heller to read up on: Manichæism
As the theory of two eternal principles, good and evil, is predominant in this fusion of ideas and gives color to the whole, Manichæism is classified as a form of religious Dualism.
Note that Manachaenism holds:
Opposed to the Father of Grandeur is the King of Darkness.
i.e. both include "intelligent" agents. Heller would do well to also read up on Intelligent Design. ID includes evidence for intelligence within the fine tuning of the universe. ID considers "inert matter" as not "intelligent" in itself. Heller:
Within the all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation.
This could easily be interpreted as: Pantheism
The view according to which God and the world are one.
DLH_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Heller is just the latest in a series of TE partisans who will do or say anything to militate against ID. I am embarrassed to say that, like me, they are all Catholic. Before commenting on Heller, I would like to provide a little background on this movement. First, Miller and Barr muddied the debate waters with their “bad design” argument. Recently, we had to endure Edward Oakes and his accusation that ID confuses “design” with “final cause.” Now we get this. Here is my assessment of their pitch: causality can maintain its integrity only if God created a sustained explosion in a paint factory and waited for all the pretty pictures to develop. Presumably every thing we observe and experience MUST be the result of secondary causes. For a while they twisted poor Aquinas like a pretzel to support their ideas, arguing on behalf of their perception of his teaching on causality. I can only assume that they have yet to stumble on Aquinas own view of the matter as expressed in (S. T. 1, 94, 3): “I have no doubt that the world was created in the beginning with such perfection as it possesses, in such fashion as the sun, the earth, the moon, and the stars have existed from that time. And the earth not only had in it the seeds of the plants, but indeed the plants themselves covered a part of it; and Adam and Eve were not created as infants but as mature human beings. The Christian religion wills that we understand things thus, and natural reason completely convinces us of this truth. For if we consider the omnipotence of God, we ought to judge that all He has made has had from the beginning all the perfection that it ought to have.” Oh, well, why should I expect these guys to probe that deeply into the matter? They only do this for a living. I understand Miller and Barr’s mistake. They assume that since God can create some things through contingency, He creates ALL things through contingency. Also, I think I understand Oakes’ mistake. He believes ID presumes to probe the ESSENCE of the final cause when, in reality, it only considers the possibility of its EXISTENCE. I wish Oakes would be more specific and explain exactly how the explanatory filter intrudes on the idea of a final cause. It is remarkable how these folks labor incessantly over irrelevant nuances while ignoring the ones that really count. Consider Heller’s curious foray into the subject of ID and theology: -----He writes: “They (IDers) claim that scientific theories that ascribe a GREAT role to chance and random events in the evolutionary processes should be replaced, or supplemented, by theories acknowledging the thread of intelligent design in the universe. Such views are theologically erroneous.” No, ID would challenge paradigms that ascribe an EXCLUSIVE role to chance. The difference is all important. It would help if Heller understood the subject matter a little better. -----Again, he writes, “They implicitly revive the old Manichean error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design. There is no opposition here.” No, Manichean dualism is not the same as theistic dualism. The former holds that spirit is good and matter is bad. Theistic dualism simply acknowledges two realms of existence, spirit and matter. ID innocently considers the point the matter may have been influenced by something other than matter, namely spirit (mind, soul, God, human agency, whatever) There is no Manichean intrusion in that. Just as Miller, Barr, and Oakes think they know Aquinas’ mind better than Aquinas did; Heller thinks he knows the mind of God better than God does. Like Aquinas, God has already told us what he thinks in Genesis, Psalms, and St. Paul’s epistles and other places. Design is “manifest” and reveals the existence of the Creator. As with Miller, Barr, and Oakes, there is something wrong with an argument that is almost incomprehensible and requires so many twists and turns to explain itself. In the old Dragnet series, a suspect became frustrated with Sergeant Joe Friday and cried out, “You’re crazy.” Friday responded, “One thing sure, somebody is.” Heller and company insist that we are confused. Well, somebody is.StephenB_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

The 9 commenters so far seem to have trouble agreeing on exactly which parcel of ground Heller is trying to defend. Seems he has commited the "grave error" of not writing very well.SteveB_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

"The assumption is, the only problems we have with Darwinism are theological. The problems I have are logical." - Granville Sewell Well, I don't know if you'd count this as a theological or a logical problem (or both), but I find it disconcerting that many proponents of design refuse to consider what we actually know about design when discussing the issues. For example, when we create -- and we're the only creators with whom we have any first-hand experience -- 1. We do so in discrete stages, without smooth and uniform transitions; 2. We employ tools and techniques that do not appear as part of the finished product; 3. We frequently implement components out of sequence; 4. We often make things with an illusory appearance of age; and 5. We typically spend much less time creating than using our creations.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Granville Sewell:
Good grief, I’m so tired of theologians telling us, Darwinism and theology are not incompatible, therefore quit fighting it. The assumption is, the only problems we have with Darwinism are theological. The problems I have are logical.
The single biggest contention I have with Darwinism is evidenciary. As with you, I am quite comfortable with the theology of theistic evolutionary theory. I am disconviced by the evidence.bFast_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

"Within the all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation." Heller is redefining the terms here. If chance and random events are somehow orchestrated by Intelligence, by definition, they cease to be random. He is also misinterpreting ID position regarding relationship between chance and design. Nowhere in ID literature did I find that these two oppose each other to the point of "Manichean error". But maybe I misunderstood him as I cannot link to the original article.inunison_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Chance may be designed or not. Life may be designed or not. But I think this fella misses the point. There is apparent chance and there are apparent telic constructs. ID is about finding things in spacetime that seem to apparently violate the otherwise apparent chance.mike1962_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

"Within the all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation." If this accurately reflects Heller's view, then his position gets very interesting - he may be criticizing ID, but I think it's important to note the way that he's doing it. Heller is taking a position stronger than most ID proponents (possibly with the exception of Behe): He's arguing that intelligent design can't be pursued, because there is no 'chance' to search through in an effort to discover design and intention. Instead, there is no chance whatsoever - from the perspective of the Heller's Designer, EVERYTHING is design. "Detecting design" in natural processes is therefore a dead end; the apparently IC is designed, but so is the apparently non-IC. I disagree with Heller's characterization of ID, certainly the motivations, but I think his take is worth regarding carefully. He's not taking an orthodox view here - in fact, I think Heller's own view (if I'm right) could fit under ID's big tent of sorts.nullasalus_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

"Within the all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation." Isn't Father Heller really saying that the Divine Creator arranged the initial conditions in such a clever manner that all we behold in awe was the necessary result? The course of every quantam particle carefully orchestrated from before time began? If so, is this not simply Intelligent Design moved to a very early point in time?Ekstasis_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Good grief, I’m so tired of theologians telling us, Darwinism and theology are not incompatible, therefore quit fighting it. I see that Heller is a lecturer at Gregorian University. I just don't get why professors at religious schools feel that they can dictate to scientists what exactly science is. They need to just stick to their knitting.poachy_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Good grief, I'm so tired of theologians telling us, Darwinism and theology are not incompatible, therefore quit fighting it. The assumption is, the only problems we have with Darwinism are theological. The problems I have are logical.Granville Sewell_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Heller: "Elements of necessity determine the pattern of possibilities and dynamical paths of becoming, but they leave enough room for chancy events to make this becoming rich and individual." It's nice to not need to actually back up philosophy with observation. We should be observing all kinds of rich and individual events creating information out of nothing in the laboratory if this was anything more than rhetoric.SCheesman_{March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply