Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Question for Joe Felsenstein (and Everyone Else)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Joe Felsenstein, and most other evolutionists, tell us that science must be restricted to law-like causes and explanations. In a word, they require the scientific method to be restricted to naturalism. While this methodological naturalism seems like a reasonable way to do science, it is an incomplete instruction. There remains the question of what to do when methodological naturalism doesn’t work.  Read more

Comments
emotions etc are currently not in the ambit of Science, but not because they are supernatural, simply because they are too complex to be understood (yet). You are a man of faith, Graham :-)tribune7
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
StephenB:
Voice Call, your argument, consistent with methodological naturalism, can easily be summed up: Science may not consider or study the subject of miraculous healings—period.
That's a poor summary. Here is a better one: Science may examine phenomena such as healing and prayer at length within the framework of MN in search of natural explanations for specific phenomena. Were such explanations nowhere to be found the researchers may say so. Those inclined to take that finding further are welcome to do so - but those further implications aren't science. Why would you want them to be? What MN eschews as part of science proper is the positing of supernatural explanations for those phenomena. This is a reasonable a priori decision because such posits are inherently untestable, beyond the above described search for natural explanations. This has no bearing upon the legitimacy of such posits in a theological context.Voice Coil
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Voice Call, your argument, consistent with methodological naturalism, can easily be summed up: Science may not consider or study the subject of miraculous healings---period. Nakashima recognizes this stance as an unreasonable apriori position, which it is.StephenB
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
StephenB:
The question is this: If they say that, in our best judgment, there is likely no material explanation for this cure, are they, as they provide this scientific opinion, doing science?
I say no, and disagree with Nakashima on this point. First: The statement "we have been incapable of finding a material explanation for this phenomenon" may summarize the result of legitimate scientific efforts. MN can accommodate the investigation of explananda that may be construed by as reflecting supernatural causation (such as the big bang) by those who are so inclined, as I indicated in 191 above. Sometimes explanations cannot be discovered. "There is NO likely material explanation" (my emphasis) cannot be the conclusion of legitimate scientific efforts, because no such effort can rule out a natural/material explanation yet to be discovered. Moreover, it implies a supernatural explanans, which are excluded by MN because incapable of positive investigation. Second: As implied above, it is the means to the conclusions that may or may not be scientific in light of MN, not the report of conclusions or provision of opinions. No one is "doing science" when they announce conclusions. That announcement at best summarizes the outcome of science that has already been done. Like it or not, supernatural explanans were excluded from such means long before the term "methodological naturalism" was first uttered, for the simple reason that no positive dispositive predictions can be devised to test putative supernatural causes.Voice Coil
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Mr. Nakashima, thanks for stepping up to the plate.StephenB
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Mr StephenB. Yes, I think so.Nakashima
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
----Nakashima: "It seems to me to always come back to the way in which the doctors frame their response. If they say “Our knowledge is finite and provisional, we don’t know of any material process by which this can happen.” then they are doing science. If they say “Our knowledge is absolute, there can be no material explanation.” then they are not doing science." No one would ever say that their knowledge is absolute. The question is this: If they say that, in our best judgment, there is likely no material explanation for this cure, are they, as they provide this scientific opinion, doing science?StephenB
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material...moreover, that materialism is absolute" "If they say “Our knowledge is absolute, there can be no [im]material explanation.” then they are not doing science." - - - - - I guess you are not suggesting a level playing field, but it doesn't matter. Everyone, particularly those who have created and enforce the inequity, knows it isn't.Upright BiPed
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
Mr StephenB, You are dancing. The question is very simple. If they violate the principle of methodological naturalism by advising the Bishop on nature’s limits, are they doing science? It's not so simple, as you've changed it each time you pose the question. Since you were at pains to be precise with Mr Seversky about what definition of MN was in play, I was merely following your lead. Unfortunately, the current edition of your question doesn't follow Ms Scott's ideas. There is nothing about nature's limits in her definition, MN limits the process of investigation. It seems to me to always come back to the way in which the doctors frame their response. If they say "Our knowledge is finite and provisional, we don't know of any material process by which this can happen." then they are doing science. If they say "Our knowledge is absolute, there can be no material explanation." then they are not doing science.Nakashima
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Tp StephenB: Below is an extract from Wikipedia. (Apologies if you dont like Wiki). It asks if a sickness is judged incurable. I guess this is where the doctor comes in. He will be asked to advise if the sickness is curable. If he says it is not, then bingo, the Church declares a miracle. It doesnt sound as though the doctor is doing anything out of the ordinary. Assessing of miracles The miracle may go beyond the possibilities of nature either in the substance of the fact or in the subject, or only in the way it occurs. So three degrees of miracle are to be distinguished. The first degree is represented by resurrection from the dead (quoad substantiam). The second concerns the subject (quoad subiectum): the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum). There is then a third degree (quoad modum): recovery from an illness, that treatment could only have achieved after a long period, happens instantaneously.Graham
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
---Nakashima: "So following her definition, if the scientists say “I see no material explanation.” they are doing science. If the scientists (not the Bishop) say “The change in the patients condition was due to divine intervention.” then they are not doing science." You are dancing. The question is very simple. If they violate the principle of methodological naturalism by advising the Bishop on nature's limits, are they doing science?StephenB
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
---Jerry: “Is the Church going to go medieval and proclaim Darwinian evolution as dogma? I already asked Denyse the same.” Jerry, thanks for providing me with the opportunity to comment on this subject. No, the Church will never proclaim Darwinian evolution as dogma. The Church normally issues dogmatic statements only on matters of faith and morals. At times, those pronouncements can define matters at the intersection of science and ethics, as in the life sciences, but it would not be issuing a dogmatic statement on evolution, except to put limits on it as Pius XII did in 1950, declaring as an official teaching in an encyclical that no Catholic can accept materialistic evolution. John Paul II’s comment in 1996, in which he offered support for something like common descent, was not an official teaching but rather a statement of his personal opinion. The same can be said for Benedict XVI, and his comments about the “intelligent project.” Unlike Pius XII, neither was speaking for the universal Church. There is no reason for the Church to issue a special statement on the reality of design in nature, since it has been emphasizing that point for 2000 years. I visited the blog at First Things and reviewed the comments from P. Hampton, the blogger you alluded to. If one reduces his world view to its simplest essence, it is this: God’s design is real, but it cannot be perceived: it must be taken on faith. As Stephen Barr once put it, the “design is inherent in the evolutionary process,” meaning, as I take it, that it is real at some level, but its reality is so subtle and so difficult to ascertain that the only way we can get at it is to muddle through some discursive reasoning process solely dependent on the principles found in evolutionary biology. Is that the official teaching of the Catholic Church? No. On this matter, the Church has always followed the teachings found in the Bible, most notably the arguments expressed in Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19. According to Scripture, design can be perceived by the senses, and its beauty can be appreciated by anyone whose disposition is open to it. Beauty is something that we see and take in through the senses; it has evidential power of a different texture than that which must be accepted through an assent of faith. To say that God’s handiwork has been made manifest is to say that God speaks through nature and that he has demonstrated the reality of his existence in a way that anyone with an open mind can apprehend. True, nature is not always what it seems, and sometimes, science contradicts our intuitions. On the matter or design, however, the Bible’s message is clear: what we see is what we get. There is no way around that Scriptural principle. It is true both at the cosmological level and at the biological level, or as Father Thomas Dubay puts it, design is evident in both the “macro marvels” and the “micro marvels.” If God communicates through nature, as Catholics believe, he does not begin his message “in the heavens,” and then cut it off “at the earth.” That is why the Biblical passages about the evidence for design are followed by a rather startling judgment on those who refuse to acknowledge the point. As it reads, “they are without excuse.” and the reason is that they refused to accept the testimony of their own senses. They rejected that which is obvious and self evident. This is not Scripture presenting a theological statement about faith; this is Scripture presenting a philosophical statement about reason’s road to faith. The Bible is here saying that the leap of faith required for salvation is grounded in nature’s testimony about the existence of God, which separates it from other faiths, which demand a leap without necessarily having first passed the test of reason. Indeed, that is what separates Christianity from other world views—the idea that if a certain form of faith is real and worthy of belief, it must first pass the test of reason. Only then can it presume to start illuminating reason. What, then, can we say of those Catholics, such as Hampton, who tell us, as he did in his comment, that “there is no physical element of design, only a spiritual element. Belief.” We can only say that they are characterizing their personal opinion as official Catholic teaching, which is, at best, presumptuous, and at worst, fraudulent. Do I say the same thing about the Catholics who organized the Darwinist conference last year? You bet I do. As anyone who cares knows, Aquinas, widely accepted as the Church’s official theologian, taught that we can prove the existence of God through the use of unaided reason, beginning with the simple act of observing that which goes on all around us and drawing the relevant conclusions. If, on the other hand, we cannot perceive design at all, if God’s handiwork is not evident, and, going against his own word in Scripture, God actually hid himself in nature, as Hampton and the organizers of the Vatican conference tell us, the only way we could even know there is a design is if they, the TE’s deign to instruct us on the matter. As they would have it, we shouldn’t be atheists, nor should we be design thinkers. Rather, we should simply accept the fact of an imperceptible design on faith without evidence on their say so, and on the say so of evolutionary biologists, 95% of whom, are atheist/agnostic, and who don’t believe design is real in any event. Why would anyone want to establish a world view based on a formula like that? Naturally, Hampton brings back the perennial strawman, telling us that God can use evolution as a tool, as if we didn’t know that already and, as if ID precludes that possibility, confirming the fact that he doesn’t even know what he is criticizing. But the irony doesn’t end there. He doesn’t even know what he believes on his own account. Consider complaint against ID As he quotes a Vatican preacher: “Affirming the reality of an intelligent design for the creation and development of the universe is not a scientific theory, but a statement of faith, said the preacher of the papal household.” This is very, very, strange. Earlier, he characterizes naïve faith in an imperceptible design as a good thing, now he characterizes naïve faith in real design as a bad thing. Never mind the fact, that ID doesn’t posit faith in design at all, but rather proposes an inference to the best explanation based on empirical evidence. Just as I thought that he couldn’t get any more confused, he offers this quote from Tanzella-Nitti ----“But God doesn’t always sign His work. Human reason, unaided by faith, can indeed see convincing evidence of design, Providence, and purpose in nature, but that does not make valid every purported scientific demonstration that God has acted in this specific place or that. And it is deplorable that God’s title of “Intelligent Designer” is now widely seen as depending on highly disputable claims about the mechanics of evolution.” How can human reason “see” convincing evidence of design if the design is imperceptible? Which is it? Do we take it on faith, acknowledging that there is no physical design, [whatever that means] as he said earlier, or to we call on reason to instruct us about that which cannot be seen but must, somehow or another, be real. Tanzella’s comments are muddled enough, but trying to reconcile them with Hampton’s other comments, as if they all add up to a coherent world view is something outside the bounds of reason.StephenB
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
So far this thread illustrates three things: 1) Theism and theistic scientists don't screw up science. They are not a "danger" to scientific investigation and they never have been. To the contrary, their work has been the source of virtually all of the foundational principles in the fields in which they took an interest. 2) Science has progressed at a stunning pace, and is now in a much better position to actually begin assessing some of the fundamental questions of physical reality. Cosmology has arrived at the singularity, physics has arrived at the boson, and biology has arrived at information. The impact of science upon the questions have changed, and therefore the questions themselves have changed. 3) MN has become PN. MN is enforced as a solution to a problem that historically did not exist, and only exist now if PN is not enforced upon the scientist as a priori ultimate truth. - - - - - - - - This is all illustrated by the fact that the leader of the NCSE thought it appropriate for university faculty to discriminate against doctorate candidates on the basis of their religious beliefs. It would call into question their ability to accept PN. If they were awarded their degrees, then the answers to those bigger questions (which are showing fruit) would be fortified by virtue of their scientific standing and could very likely call into question the acceptance of PN. This could result in (gasp) Behes, Dembskis, Dentons, Thaxtons, Meyers, and Abels, everywhere. As such, the offending activity must be stopped.Upright BiPed
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Mr StephenB, From Ms. Scott: Methodological materialism is one of the main differences between science and religion. Religion may use natural explanations for worldly phenomena, but reserves the right to explain through divine intervention; science has no such option. So following her definition, if the scientists say "I see no material explanation." they are doing science. If the scientists (not the Bishop) say "The change in the patients condition was due to divine intervention." then they are not doing science.Nakashima
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
---seversky: "And I don’t know what strange private version of MN you are using but the customary usage doesn’t say anything like that." If you don't know, it is because you didn't read what I wrote. I used the definition used by Eugenie Scott. Please make a note of it. In any case, you have written another long post without addressing the issue. Are the scientists who help the Church verify miraculous healings really doing science or not?StephenB
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, The fact that Pasteur did not publish the 'Fall From Grace' theory of disease is instructive, then.Nakashima
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san, The germ theory was proposed by Pasteur, who was a Creationist. Also I don't think your version of MN is what MN really is.Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, Medicine does not rely on MN. Not one scientist went into a lab and said “Seeing that everything can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity, the following is the solution.” I disagree. Certainly since the Germ Theory was propounded, scientists do go into the lab and say disease is not caused by evil spirits or sin. There is a physical material cause of the problem. That is methodological naturalism.Nakashima
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Also if scientists are seeking the reality behind what it is they are investigating then MN should not have a place at their table because it limits their inferences.Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Prof FX Gumby, Thank you however what I posted refuted Seversky's claim. Seversky said:
In what way did Newton not limit himself to natural explanations. His scientific work does not invoke supernatural causes.
Newton invoked "God". And "God" is supernatural.Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Joseph @199, Thank you (and Seversky @193, whom you have not refuted) for conclusively demonstrating to all doubting onlookers that Christianity and methodological naturalism are not incompatible.Prof. FX Gumby
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Seversky, Newton saw science as a way of understand "God's" handy-work. In his "Principia" he flat out states:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler
Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Nakashima, Medicine does not rely on MN. Not one scientist went into a lab and said "Seeing that everything can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity, the following is the solution." IOW Nakashima-san once again you prove that you don't know what you are talking about.Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Seversky, MN doesn't work. It hasn't produced anything.Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Mr StephenB, I see that Mr Seversky has already made most of the points I think are relevant. I would add, however, that it is in the interests of the Church to have the most stringent and fair tests possible be performed before calling something a miraculous cure. If Richard Dawkins was an MD, who better to ask to verify the prior diagnosis, the current condition and the lack of material explanation? You know he is not just rubber stamping or going through the motions!Nakashima
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 186
If doctors confessed their ignorance of a material explanation, they would be violating the principle of methodological naturalism, which declares that all such questions are inadmissible.
What are you talking about? A confession of ignorance is just that. MN doesn't require that its practitioners be omniscient. It does require that they are honest. If they don't something then they should say they don't know.
Science makes the call on all these aforementioned matters, since the Bishop is not qualified to comment on them.
Exactly. Science decides whether there was a natural disorder with a natural cause there in the first place and tries to exclude any possible naturalistic cure.
Should I believe the Darwinists, whose, rule of methodological naturalism says that the scientists who testify to nature’s limits on medical matters are not doing science, or should I believe the scientists themselves?
False dichotomy. The "Darwinists" to whom you allude are presumably biologists. Are you accusing them of not being scientists? They might have something to say about that. And I don't know what strange private version of MN you are using but the customary usage doesn't say anything like that.
How can one testify to nature’s known limits without acknowledging the possibility of non-natural causes that exceed those limits?
Because we have no way of knowing what, if anything, lies beyond those limits. There might be something, there might be nothing.
According to methodological naturalism, the scientist must study nature as if nature is all there is. There would be no reason for the Church to summon the assistance of a scientist who has already made up his mind that ALL cures must be natural.
Of course there is. There is the very obvious reason that in order to establish a miracle, you must first exclude all possible naturalistic explanations. Who better to do that than some one who spends his or her life studying just that?Seversky
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
Joseph @ 115
It works? It hasn’t worked in finding out a materialistic origin of life. It hasn’t worked in finding out a materialistic origin to the laws that govern nature. And it hasn’t worked in finding out whether or not the transformations required by the ToE are even possible.
It works because we would not be discussing these issues on this blog if it didn't. You think it proves something to ask questions that we don't have answers for yet? It doesn't. All it shows is that there is a lot we still don't know. That includes you. You have no better idea of the answers to those questions than the rest of us. But we already knew that.Seversky
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 106
Dr. Hunter’s point was not that anything supernaturual was in play but that Newton did not limit himself to natural explanations, a point that cannot reasonably be contested since the point was confirmed by his critics. So, rather than address that point, you have simply changed the subject.
In what way did Newton not limit himself to natural explanations. His scientific work does not invoke supernatural causes. If he had wanted, he could have explained gravity as the effect of flights of invisible angels dragging base matter away from heaven and back to the Earth from whence it came. But he did not. He just used natural explanations. Why would he do that unless he were limiting himself in that way?Seversky
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
Nakashima, Well I see in #178 you made a comment, but I don't see that you made a point. You say: "I wasn’t arguing that anything about the mills was invalidated. I was pointing out that someone else’s argument was invalid because mills do not reproduce." You clearly implied that KF's comment was invalid because "Liebniz’ mill did not reproduce with heritable and variable traits". To which I said "Liebniz’ mill was characterized by mechanistic function. What part of mechanistic heredity would invalidate it?" If it is true that "heredity" invalidates KF's comment through Leibniz' observation, then please state what it is about the mechanistic process of heredity that leads to the invalidation. If you cannot say quality of mechanistic heredity invalidates Leibniz observation that the individual parts of a mechanism do not explain their origin, then I would suggest his observation stands, as well as KF's reference to it. Can you tell us what part of the mechanism of heredity explains its origin?Upright BiPed
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
StephenB, I have been off debating ID with Catholics and one has made some rather extraordinary claims. It is on the Joe Carter blog at First Things. Here is the link to my last comment. If you then work your way up you will see my other comments as well as a couple others but especially someone named R. Hampton. For all I know he could be a priest. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/05/a-walk-to-the-moon/comment-page-1/#comment-6814 I would be interested in your take on this. Is the Church going to go medieval and proclaim Darwinian evolution as dogma? I already asked Denyse the same. One of the advantages to debating ID at First Things is that all those who disagree are polite.jerry
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply