A Question for Joe Felsenstein (and Everyone Else)

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 2, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

To tribune7: Yes, 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). But then this is where the materialists & others part company.Graham_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

To StephenB: You made some claim about changes to rules of evidence that happened circa 1980, but have steadfastly refused to provide any evidence of this change, despite repeated (and varied) requests, and always with much indignation, that the requests are meaningless. If this is so, then you have created the perfect storm: a claim that can never be tested by evidence! How did you do it ?Graham_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
How can the rule have impact on intelligent design prior to 1980, if intelligent design didn’t exist until 1980?
The argument is that science has excluded from consideration non-natural phenomena as the explanans of any phenomena at least throughout the 20th century. That exclusion did not originate in 1980 - it was simply given an apt name at that time. The modern apparatus of 20th century science excluded the supernatural prior to 1980, and continued to do so after that date. Nothing changed, although a useful conceptual distinction (between philosophical and methodological naturalism) had been drawn. To show that science itself was changed by the imposition of a new "rule," you need to provide examples in the scientific literature of invocations of non-natural explanantia (cool word) prior to 1980 that would have been excluded had they been evoked subsequent to that date. The much narrower phenomenon of ID arrived and, to the extent that it was construed as advancing an argument for a supernatural explanans (correctly so in my view, its myriad evasions notwithstanding), it ran afoul of that long extant prohibition. The prohibition did not arise in response to ID itself, however, as it antedated ID by many decades.
How can the rule have impact on the Big Bang theory prior to 1980…
Your references to the big bang theory conflate explanans and explanandum. There is no proscription against scientific investigation of explananda that may be amenable to theological or supernatural construal by those who are so inclinded, such as the big bang. What has been eschewed for a century and more are supernatural explanantia for those explananda. >whew<Voice Coil_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Graham -- My point was that no supernatural processes were involved. Yeah, I realise spreadsheets are ‘non material’ Graham I was responding to your claim that the process of arriving at the truth in various fields was "inflexibly materialistic" The spreadsheet thing was a throwaway aside. The important point is that commerce and law depend upon very non-material things like trust and faith, which of course cannot be be adequately dealt with via meth-nat.tribune7_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

---Graham: "To StephenB: You appear to have managed to make a claim for which it is not possible to present supporting evidence. This is sounding depressingly familiar." And you have, once again, made a charge without being specific.StephenB_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
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.
Exactly, because we know what answer they would give in any situation, for they have begun by begging the question.Clive Hayden_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

To StephenB: You appear to have managed to make a claim for which it is not possible to present supporting evidence. This is sounding depressingly familiar.Graham_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

----Nakashima: "I’m going to go out on a limb (not amputated, I hope) and guess that it is the Church, not a doctor, that decides to call a particular change in a patient’s status a miraculous healing. The doctors merely give evidence in material terms of the prior state, the current state, and their ignorance of a material explanation for the change in state." 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. Here is the way the scientist approaches alleged spiritual cures, especially those that occur at Lourdes. For the cure to be recognized as a miracle, it must fulfill several criteria. It is necessary to verify the illness, which must be serious, with an irrevocable prognosis. The illness must be organic or caused by injuries. There must be no treatment at the root of the cure. The latter must be sudden and instantaneous. Finally, the renewal of functions must be total and lasting, without convalescence. Science makes the call on all these aforementioned matters, since the Bishop is not qualified to comment on them. For this reason, it takes several years for the bishop to confirm the miracle. Once recognized as such, the cure is published by the bishop of the diocese where the person resides who experienced the miracle. 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? How can one testify to nature's known limits without acknowledging the possibility of non-natural causes that exceed those limits? 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.StephenB_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

---Voice Coil: "Of course the rule doesn’t affect that which occurred prior to its establishment – it affects that which occurrs following its establishment. If what follows has been materially changed by that rule, then it should differ from what came before. So the comparison is potentially quite meaningful. Should no change be apparent, it seems unlikely that the “rule” has had any impact." How can the rule have impact on intelligent design prior to 1980, if intelligent design didn't exist until 1980? How can the rule have impact on the Big Bang theory prior to 1980, if Darwinists conspicuously exempted the big bang theory from their stupid rule in order to avoid looking like complete idiots. In other words, try thinking this through rather than simply agreeing with your side no matter what. I must say that I am amazed at the extent to which Darwinists will deny even hard facts in order to protect some of their most bizarre biases and prejudices. A new rule was instituted and I have presented evidence of both that new rule and the prominent Darwinists who subscribe to it and enforce it. It isn't even a debatable issue, yet Darwinists want to debate it. Remarkable.StephenB_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, I don't know what the Catholic Church asks of doctors or scientists when it tries to verify miraculous intervention. If the doctors merely confirm the state of the patient has changed according to standard tests, eg the patient is out of PVS, the fever is reduced, the amputated limb has grown back, then of course the doctors are doing science. If asked why the status has changed, the doctors can certainly say "We don't know." and still be doing science. I'm going to go out on a limb (not amputated, I hope) and guess that it is the Church, not a doctor, that decides to call a particular change in a patient's status a miraculous healing. The doctors merely give evidence in material terms of the prior state, the current state, and their ignorance of a material explanation for the change in state.Nakashima_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

To JosephB: For gods sake, just cite some examples to illustrate your point. How long do we have to suffer all this evasion. To tribune7 #169: My point was that no supernatural processes were involved. Yeah, I realise spreadsheets are 'non material', but so is a TV program, and Im pretty sure these arent brought to us by God.Graham1_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
When a rule is established, it doesn’t affect that which occurred prior to its establishment. Thus, comparing the past to the present is meaningless.
*Scratches head* Of course the rule doesn't affect that which occurred prior to its establishment - it affects that which occurrs following its establishment. If what follows has been materially changed by that rule, then it should differ from what came before. So the comparison is potentially quite meaningful. Should no change be apparent, it seems unlikely that the "rule" has had any impact.Voice Coil_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

---Nakashima: "Modern medicine is the application of modern science to the human body. Modern science is conducted on the basis of MN, as everyone on this discussion, pro- or anti-ID, religious or non-religious will tell you." So, is it your contention that when the Catholic Church asks medical scientists to verify a miraculous healing, the scientists that they call on are not really doing science at all, nor are they themselves, really medical scientists since true scientists do not make distinctions between miraculous healings and natural healings?StephenB_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

----Acipenser: "The post in #162 is much like the claim you made in #74 with the same lack of observable evidence to support the claims. A much better case could be made for your argument if you could actually cite some concrete examples of the alleged purging of non-material causes in the science literature." As I have told you several times, your question makes no sense. Voice Coil temporarily rescued you from your own folly with a comprehensible version of your question, but you reverted back to your own irrational formulation after I answered his question. When a rule is established, it doesn't affect that which occurred prior to its establishment. Thus, comparing the past to the present is meaningless. Further, there is no need to look past the fact that a rule was, in fact, established, when no such rule existed previously Further, the establishment of a rule does not constitute a "rule change." Further, if a new definition of science affected "publications," it would also affect the possibility that they are even published at all, which means that there would be nothing there to analyze and no fodder for a comparison/contrast analysis. Further, the only subject matter that would be affected would be intelligent design because Darwinists are not consistent in the application of the rule. Hence, the anti-MN publications of big bang cosmology are not affected. Further, since there was no such thing as ID science prior to 1980, there is no way to compare the past with the present in that context. Further, the medical violations of MN are not necessarily transformed into published articles. You are chasing your own tail. Why not simply accept a fact as a fact and move on.StephenB_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, I don’t think that MN was involved with medicine. When in a hole, the solution is not to keep digging. Modern medicine is the application of modern science to the human body. Modern science is conducted on the basis of MN, as everyone on this discussion, pro- or anti-ID, religious or non-religious will tell you.Nakashima_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Mr BiPed, 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. #170 If religious scientists used material means to understand a material world, then why do you mock them with a sixth-grader’s comment? There was no mention of religious scientists in that message. I was castigating Mr Joseph for his lack of gratitude to the benefits of methodological naturalism as displayed within the medical treatments that he had personally received. I do not consider it controversial that these benefits are in fact benefits of MN. They are available today, widely, at low cost because certain non-material alternatives have been excluded and resources focused on things that work. There have never been too many doctors in the world, nor too much research. Resources are scarce. Why is medicine what it is today, instead of being dominated by homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, or other theories of pain, disease and health? Because it works.Nakashima_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

StephenB:"Untrue. Please read post #162 and consult the FAQ. Originally, I gave you the benefit of the doubt since you are new here. No longer. Your mindless comment about the Catholic Church gave you away." The post in #162 is much like the claim you made in #74 with the same lack of observable evidence to support the claims. A much better case could be made for your argument if you could actually cite some concrete examples of the alleged purging of non-material causes in the science literature. Not being able to do so erodes the foundation of the argument to the point of being nothing more than an untested hypothesis. In science the next hurdle has to be attempted and that is the testing of the hypothesis. The literature is there in black and white and if there have been no changes in content it is time to revise the hypothesis and try again. As I stated as far as I am aware none of the Catholic claims of medical miracles have been submitted and published in the science literature. If I have erred perhaps you could provide a citation, or two, that demonstrates the incorrectness of my statement. It would also bolster your argument of persecution in the published literature.Acipenser_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

A parting shot5 for now: First, thanks back to all and may the new year be better than the last! But on reproducing machines, we have Paley Ch 2 -- which I find suspiciously absent from discussions on his more specifically empirical arguments: ________________ >>Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch should after some time discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself -- the thing is conceivable; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts -- a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools -- evidently and separately calculated for this purpose . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done -- for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair -- the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use. [Emphases added. (Note: It is easy to rhetorically dismiss this argument because of the context: a work of natural theology. But, since (i) valid science can be -- and has been -- done by theologians; since (ii) the greatest of all modern scientific books (Newton's Principia) contains the General Scholium which is an essay in just such natural theology; and since (iii) an argument 's weight depends on its merits, we should not yield to such “label and dismiss” tactics. It is also worth noting Newton's remarks that “thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.” )] >> ___________ In short, once we look at the complex organisation and coding, algorithmic requisites of a von Neumann self-replicator, we are ever deeper into design inference friendly territory:
such a machine uses . . . (i) an underlying code to record/store the required information and to guide procedures for using it, (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader [[called “the constructor” by von Neumann] that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions, and (iv) implementing machines (and associated organisation and procedures) to carry out the specified replication (including that of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that provide required specific materials and forms of energy by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment. Also, parts (ii), (iii) and (iv) are each necessary for and together are jointly sufficient to implement a self-replicating von Neumann universal constructor. That is, we see here an irreducibly complex set of core components that must all be present in a properly organised fashion for a successful self-replicator to exist. [[Take just one core part out, and function ceases: the replicator is irreducibly complex (IC).]. This irreducible complexity is compounded by the requirement (i) for codes, requiring organised symbols and rules to specify both steps to take and formats for storing information, and (v) for appropriate material resources and energy sources. Immediately, we are looking at islands of organised function for both the machinery and the information in the wider sea of possible (but mostly non-functional) configurations. In short, outside such functionally specific -- thus, isolated -- information-rich target zones, want of correct components and/or of proper organisation and/or co-ordination will block function from emerging or being sustained. So, once the set of possible configurations is large enough and the islands of function are credibly sufficiently specific/isolated, it is unreasonable to expect such function to arise from chance, or from chance circumstances driving blind natural forces under the known laws of nature. Now, too, a tape of 1,000 bits (= 125 bytes) is plainly insufficient to specify the parts and instructions for a von Neumann replicator. But, the number of possible configurations of 1,000 bits is 1.07 * 10^301, more than ten times the square of the 10^150 states the 10^80 atoms of our observed universe would take up across a reasonable estimate of its lifespan. So, viewing our observed universe as a search device, it would scan less than 1 in 10^150th part of even so “small” a configuration space. That is, it would not carry out a credible “search” for islands of function, making such islands sufficiently isolated to be beyond the reasonable reach of a blind search . . .
G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Acipenser: "If we cannot point to what should be obvious changes in the published literature than the implementation of the 1980’s MN rule has changed nothing whatsoever." Untrue. Please read post #162 and consult the FAQ. Originally, I gave you the benefit of the doubt since you are new here. No longer. Your mindless comment about the Catholic Church gave you away.StephenB_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

"I don’t wish your painful experiences on anyone, but for you the benefits of MN start pretty close to home." This is below Nakashima's normal level of irrelevant comments. Just because someone is good in creative writing does not mean that person will be an excellent geologist. Though some may. Just because science has done well in some areas of medicine does not mean it has done equally well in other areas such as history. Oh yes, science is applied to historical data. Science does well when the only current conditions working are the four laws of physics and the boundary conditions are well known. When science gets away from these very controlled conditions, it is not so successful. One of the premise's of ID is that science has a lousy track record with certain phenomena of the world but not all phenomena. A lot of the phenomena that science has a bad track record with has to do with origins. And by the way MN has no practical benefit in science. It does not help science one iota. A philosophical approach that includes the possibilities of intelligence interventions in physical phenomena does not preclude the examination of phenomena where there has been no direct intelligent involvement. How many times must someone be told that ID subsumes current science and does nothing more than expand its horizons. So the real flat earthers are those who cling to MN.jerry_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Naskashima, #169 Liebniz' mill was characterized by mechanistic function. What part of mechanistic heredity would invalidate it? #170 If religious scientists used material means to understand a material world, then why do you mock them with a sixth-grader's comment?Upright BiPed_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Nakashima-san, I don't think that MN was involved with medicine. IOW I seriously doubt tat someone went into a lab and said "Everything is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity so the solution is X." IOW you are giving MN credit for something it had nothing to do with.Joseph_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, I hear all this talk about MN yet what has it done? Have your knees been helped more by medicine or prayer, Joe? Ever take take a steroid or NSAID to reduce swelling, or did you splash holy water on the site of the inflammation? Did sacrificing a small animal make your pain go away? I don't wish your painful experiences on anyone, but for you the benefits of MN start pretty close to home.Nakashima_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

KF-san, Happy New Year! Good luck with using a cybernetic controller model. The world is waiting for the discovery of the interfaces you describe. So far it is all neurons chasing each other's tail. Liebniz' mill did not reproduce with heritable and variable traits. Brains do. have you read Valentino Braitenburg's little book "Vehicles"? I strongly recommend it if this is an area of interest for you.Nakashima_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

The process of arriving at the truth is inflexibly materialistic in the Law, Science, Industry, Medicine, Commerce, the Military, Graham, you're wrong, at least in matters of commerce and the law and probably the military too. With commerce, the truth is arrived at via symbolic representations of material goods or, more often than not, inflexibly not-material services, in accounting spreadsheets, which ironically have become non-material themselves. Even money is usually non-material and when it is it material it is almost always based on the non-material full-faith and trust of a government. If commerce was inflexibly material Bernie Madoff would never have gotten away with his scam for as long as he did. Of course, otoh, a lot of homes and highways and sewer plants would never have been built. In law, evidence is presented via human testimony usually not subject to empirical measurement, and the decision as to how much credence its given are left to the non-empirically measurable instincts of judges and juries. As far as the military, well, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had their shares of assumptions and guesses.tribune7_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Hi KF. Happy New Year.tribune7_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Graham 1- what has it done? I hear all this talk about MN yet what has it done?Joseph_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Judge Jones is a dolt and his ruling only applies to a small insignificant dustrict in Pennsylvania. Judge Jones wouldn't know science if it introduced itself to him. Also Darwin flat out stated "Creator" in his book- not a rough draft but the actual released version:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence (bold added)
So by your "logic" the theory of evolution is a Creationists' theory. But I digress. I understand that you have to attack ID in this manner because you sure as hell cannot support the claims made by your position.Joseph_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. The only thing necessary to show a change is to demonstrate the establishment of a rule where none existed previously.
That doesn't work, because the argument is that the term "methodological naturalism" was devised not as a rule, but as a descriptive term that captured something important vis methods and assumptions already long governing, and in a sense defining, scientific investigation. A demonstration of a significant shift in the kinds of evidence and theory considered in scientific work after 1980 or so would support your thesis that a "new rule" had been imposed. The failure to detect such a shift would be consistent with the argument that the term was descriptive, only, deftly capturing long standing procedures and assumptions that were never before named, and distinguishing those assumptions and procedures from the much stronger claims of philosophical naturalism.Voice Coil_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: So much to chew on there. I see many of the old chestnuts trotted out. In the end, I think what the evil materialists want to see is how the supernatural can actually achieve something useful. The process of arriving at the truth is inflexibly materialistic in the Law, Science, Industry, Medicine, Commerce, the Military, etc etc etc, in other words wherever people actually expect results. Your posts sound impressive, but invariaby, wherever people expect actual results, they use the strictly materialistic. Even Newton who you quoted at length (im not sure why) produced a description of the calculus, behaviour of light, etc that owed absolutely nothing to the supernatural. Sure, like many of his time he was devout (he was also an alchemist), but so what ? This plays absolutely no part whatsoever in the final form of his work, similarly Boyle, and the other names you mentioned. I went through my entire science education without ever encountering a single instance of the supernatural that was relevant to the science. So, I dont think researchers ignore the supernatural because of some decree on high, they simply ignore it because it is unproductive. Just think: If the church could cure a disease by preying, wouldnt they do it ? Why havent they done it yet ? Are they too shy ? Whats the hold up ? Why dont the police consult psychics ? (late-night TV dramas notwithstanding).Graham1_{January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply