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

#102 Stephen also wrote this in #43 "For the Darwinist/Atheist/Materialist, on the other hand, everything is grounded in matter and energy, including the brain, and therefore everything is simply a natural cause. Did you write a paragraph? That resulted from a natural cause. Did a valcano erupt? That, too, resulted from a natural cause. Did an ancient hunter construct a spear? Like everything else, it resulted from a natural cause. Everything that happens is the result of a natural cause and there are no other kinds of causes. Obviously, no one can have a rational discussion with those kinds of definitions, and, of course, that is the reason they are used—to avoid all rational discussions." Describes you rather well. Vividvividbleau_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Seversky: I agree exactly with your binary division between natural/supernatural. The former is Science, the latter religion/faith/whatever. Unfortunately, ID (apparantly) has a far more tortured division, see StephenB at #43.Graham_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter @ 83
False, Newton violated MN. He invoked action at a distance for his theory of gravity. Leibniz complained and called it an occult force.
Leibniz was entitled to his opinion, of course, but that does not mean that there is anything supernatural about field phenomena. I can still remember using iron filings to reveal the lines of force around a bar magnet in a school physics class. It was spooky but there was no suggestion that it was supernatural, just mysterious. My own view is that anything which has an effect in the Universe which we can observe, however indirectly, is part of the natural order of things. The supernatural is, therefore, by definition, beyond the reach of science.Seversky_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 73
Also, you cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you declare that methodological naturalism is the required method for science. On the other hand, you question the idea that [any] scientific authority has ever said so
MN is the preferred method because it works and because there is nothing else remotely as effective. I am not questioning the idea that some scientific bodies or eminent scientists have asserted something along the lines you have suggested. What I am saying, however is that none of them have the authority or the power to impose that view on others.Seversky_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 69
For these men, science was “primarily” about natural causes because, among other things, they were confronting the problem of superstition, which tends to attribute all actions to miraculous events. On the other hand, they never indicated, nor would they have presumed to suggest, that science is “exclusively” about natural causes.
They also found, as a practical matter, that they were able to use only naturalistic resources to explain the phenomena they were investigating. They had no need of anything else.
More recently, scientists have been trying to solve the problem of information, which means they cannot limit themselves to natural causes. It is no one’s place to tell them that they cannot do that in the name of science.
They are still working on information. The problem seems to be reaching some agreement on what it actually is. There are a whole lot of definitions out there. As for what can be done in the name of science, scientists are bound by the same laws and the same ethical codes as anyone else. They cannot do just anything. On the other hand, no one is in a position to tell them what they can or cannot investigate or that some explanatory resources are out-of-bounds for ideological reasons. The National Academy of Sciences here in the US can issue guidance and recommendations and position statements but it has no power to enforce them on American let alone foreign scientists. In the UK, the Royal Society performs a similar role but it has no authority whatsoever over American researchers. The same is true of other national science bodies. The fact is there is no supreme global scientific authority with the power to do what you are suggesting was done. And any scientific body which tried it without the consent of scientists would quickly find itself ignored.Seversky_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Mike, As has been stated, it is the scientist himself who is to decide the appropriate method for those questions he is attempting to answer. It is not for someone else to say "nay" because it might lead to inferences that offend their metaphysical worldview. Their metaphysical worldview cannot trump the evidence. In Lenski's case, I believe there is already a fairly well-established process. In fact, I am still waiting for his results, as I believe they will confirm Behe. I am still awaiting for the result from the Adriatic lizards study for the same reason.Upright BiPed_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

----Acipenser: "I was hoping that you would have been able to elaborate on what kinds/types of evidence were formerly (pre-1980) accepted by science but are now rejected based on the new rules that were put in place sometime in the 1980’s." According to methodological naturalism, all evidence for biological design is to be disregarded. ----"I think the evidentiary requirements of science have been consistent and I have not been able to locate any examples of specific types of evidence that was once accepted and embraced but is now (since the 1980’s)frowned upon and rejected. Could you provide an example or two for clarification?"\ Here is a good example from Eugenie Scott: "Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. As practiced in the 20th and likely in the 21st centuries, science restricts itself to explaining the natural world using natural causes. This restriction of evolution to explanation through natural cause is referred to as "methodological materialism", materialism in this context referring to matter, energy, and their interaction. 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. Whether or not miracles occur, they cannot be part of a scientific explanation." Thus, from the perspective of methodological naturalism, any explanation that suggests a non-natural cause or any evidence that would lead to such an explanation is inadmissible as scientific input. By that standard, the scientist may not posit design as an explanation, so any evidence that points to design, is, by that same standard, useless.StephenB_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

----mikev6: "I don’t recall saying they were. That was your argument – that science before 1980 (and ID) are non-MN." I don't know how I could make it more clear. There were no rules about scientific methodology before the 1980's. It was understood that since the scientist is the only one who knows which question he is trying to answer, he/she is the only one who can devise a methodology appropriate for the question. That should be obvious. Nothing has changed about that standard except in the mind of Darwinists, who, fearful that their own paradigm is in jeopardy, would prefer that ID not use its own methods.StephenB_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

StephenB:"The new rule, established by the Darwinist community of bureaucrats [around 1980], holds that the scientist must study nature “as if nature is all there is.” If the scientist fails to conform to that rule, then, we are told, he/she is not really doing science at all. The rule is arbitrary, illogical, and oppressive; it has no other purpose except to discredit the science of intelligent design " Your initial statement (#74) on the issue stated that prior to 1980 some types of evidence were once accepted and that has been changed. I was hoping that you would have been able to elaborate on what kinds/types of evidence were formerly (pre-1980) accepted by science but are now rejected based on the new rules that were put in place sometime in the 1980's. I think the evidentiary requirements of science have been consistent and I have not been able to locate any examples of specific types of evidence that was once accepted and embraced but is now (since the 1980's)frowned upon and rejected. Could you provide an example or two for clarification?Acipenser_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Mikev6--So you agree that life on our planet could arise by chance and mechanisms like natural selection? All ID does is show that the meth-nat evidence strongly suggests that such a thing did not occur :-)tribune7_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
If we were to soveriegnly act in the best interest of a “search for truth in reality”, then the “we don’t know” should be placed after the evidence for design, not before it.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. My comments were around trying to see how a science that included non-MN components should operate under the assumption that such components exist. Let's take a more concrete example: The scientific community wakes up tomorrow and embraces ID. We now all accept that a designer was involved in biodiversity. Lenski looks at his E. Coli. dish and notices that they've developed another new ability hitherto unknown. His first question is "Cool - how did that happen?". He has the following options to investigate: a) a purely naturalistic evolutionary process b) a naturalistic part of a mixed environment that includes both specifically designed and naturalistic elements c) intervention by the designer d) intervention by the designer that exactly mimics a purely evolutionary process e) some other effect. How would you guide Lenski on his next steps?mikev6_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
So you agree that life on our planet could arise by chance and mechanisms like natural selection? Natural selection starts once life begins
Good point - let me amend that to "life in its present form".mikev6_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
“If ID has no evidence as to who the agent is, how do you know it isn’t the same agent that Newton et. al. didn’t invoke in their findings?” I find this question meaningless.
Perhaps so, but it was your statement that ID didn't know the identity of the designer while also saying that the ID designer is not the God of Newton and Boyle. I was wondering how you made this determination when you feel you have no evidence.mikev6_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

mikev6:
So you agree that life on our planet could arise by chance and mechanisms like natural selection?
Natural selection starts once life begins.Joseph_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Whatever gave you the idea that ID science is synonymous with Newton and Boyle?
I don't recall saying they were. That was your argument - that science before 1980 (and ID) are non-MN.mikev6_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

tribune7:
You can say it’s a rational inference that if ID is true “life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an “other cause”" but ID never declares it as such.
So you agree that life on our planet could arise by chance and mechanisms like natural selection? Most of the arguments for ID are based on the observation that something (DNA, information, biological functions) could not have arisen by chance and are hence the products of design.mikev6_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Methodological naturalism runs into issues in that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins. Also what ID is arguing against is the premise that everything can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity. As for Newton, Kepler, et al., they saw science as a way to understand "God's" handy-work. Linneaus was searching for the originally created Kinds when he developed binomial nomenclature.Joseph_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Acipenser: "Interesting. What rules were changed and what kinds of evidence are now permitted, or not permitted, by these ‘new’ rules?" The new rule, established by the Darwinist community of bureaucrats [around 1980], holds that the scientist must study nature "as if nature is all there is." If the scientist fails to conform to that rule, then, we are told, he/she is not really doing science at all. The rule is arbitrary, illogical, and oppressive; it has no other purpose except to discredit the science of intelligent designStephenB_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

---mikev6: "I think you may be confusing different types of naturalism. The work of Newton, Boyle and Einstein is valid whether or not you believe in the existence of other causes – they did not actually invoke those “other causes” to make their theories operate." I am not confusing anything, on the other hand, you appear to be confusing a rule with a process. It isn't necessary to "invoke other processes" to violate the arbitrarily established rule of methodological naturalism. ---"ID, on the other hand, says that life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an “other cause” – it’s an integral part of the theory." Whatever gave you the idea that ID science is synonymous with Newton and Boyle?StephenB_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

Mikev6--OK, although I would class this as a logic exercise rather than scientific research. Remember, any systematic study is science. Science doesn't have to involve itself in the study of the material. Meth-nat limits itself to the material but meth-nat is only part of science. ID, on the other hand, says that life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an “other cause” – it’s an integral part of the theory. No. ID says: 1. Design exists 2. It has discrete qualities 3. These qualities are objectifiable 4. Life has these qualities 5. Life is designed. You can say it's a rational inference that if ID is true "life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an “other cause"" but ID never declares it as such. Now, let's turn it around: Darwinism says that all biodiversity can be explained via random genomic changes being fixed by natural selection. Advocates of the theory, however, cannot demonstrate any pathways to account for such a claim. How is that science?tribune7_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Seversky 66:
But if you look at the work of, say, Galileo or Copernicus or Kepler or Newton or Boyle or Darwin or Maxwell you will not find any invocations of supernatural causes. They may have held religious beliefs but they practiced strictly naturalistic science.
False, Newton violated MN. He invoked action at a distance for his theory of gravity. Leibniz complained and called it an occult force.Cornelius Hunter_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Mike, "If ID has no evidence as to who the agent is, how do you know it isn’t the same agent that Newton et. al. didn’t invoke in their findings?" I find this question meaningless.Upright BiPed_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

mike, I understand. On the other hand, while we carry on a manufactured and illegitimate fight over the rules that are to apply to science, what is left is the observable evidence of design - some of which is simply intractible in non-agency terms. The question quickly arises as to the motivations of those who wish for the evidence to be bent into a fitting within a rule. To answer that question, one only need observe the comments from those who wish it. Their comments betray their motivations, and those motivations are clearly not to address the evidence, nor to save science (ie. an unfettered search for the truth of reality). In practice, what we end up with is dogma surrounding an entirely non-falsifiable assumption of materialism, isolated by ideology from a mountain of evidence to the contrary. This, of course, is not science. You say that you are comfortable with "we don't know". This is a good thing of course, but in practice it never seems to come up. I find that most materialists who are comfortable with "we don't know" are only comfortable with it when it's placed after their assumption that they do, in fact, know. Which is exactly what the aforementioned rule is meant to accomplish. In other words, to say "we don't know" under such a rule is completely and demonstrably meaningless. If we were to soveriegnly act in the best interest of a "search for truth in reality", then the "we don't know" should be placed after the evidence for design, not before it.Upright BiPed_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
ID does not invoke in its findings the same cause that Boyle and Newton didn’t invoke in theirs. ID does invoke agency as a force operating in the natural world. The reason for this is rather simple, and completely appropriate to science: While there is ample evidence of agency, there is no evidence as to who or what that agent was.
If ID has no evidence as to who the agent is, how do you know it isn't the same agent that Newton et. al. didn't invoke in their findings?mikev6_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
Natural Law does not explain the existence of the singularity (even though we may unpack the events that followed). Yet, we have no problem with accepting the theory.
Sure - but I'm quite comfortable with "we don't know". The complaint about methodological naturalism is that it could hide a solution that lies outside naturalism. I see two challenges to going beyond MN in a science: 1) distinguishing between that which we don't know (yet) and a non-naturalistic explanation, and 2) determining which option (MN or not) applies to a specific phenomenon. Either of these could cause a non-MN explanation to hide a valid MN-based solution. An effective non-MN science that promotes on-going investigation where one researcher builds on the work of previous efforts would have to (in my mind) solve these issues, and I'm assuming Cornelius and team have workable solutions to these problems. Hence my interest in actual examples of on-going scientific research incorporating non-MN concepts.mikev6_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

mike, ID does not invoke in its findings the same cause that Boyle and Newton didn't invoke in theirs. ID does invoke agency as a force operating in the natural world. The reason for this is rather simple, and completely appropriate to science: While there is ample evidence of agency, there is no evidence as to who or what that agent was.Upright BiPed_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
In other words, the entire history of science from Newton to Boyle to Einstein would violate the principle of methodological naturalism, because none of these men declared that no other kinds of causes exist.
I think you may be confusing different types of naturalism. The work of Newton, Boyle and Einstein is valid whether or not you believe in the existence of other causes - they did not actually invoke those "other causes" to make their theories operate. ID, on the other hand, says that life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an "other cause" - it's an integral part of the theory.mikev6_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

tribune7:
And since you want something specific, here’s Godel’s effort.
OK, although I would class this as a logic exercise rather than scientific research. Others on this blog can say if this is what they mean by science including non-materialistic concepts.mikev6_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

StephenB:"There was no real change in the methodology itself—only in the rules about what kinds of evidence is admissible in the name of science." Interesting. What rules were changed and what kinds of evidence are now permitted, or not permitted, by these 'new' rules? I wasn't aware of this change in rules is why I am asking about them.Acipenser_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

---mike v6: "I don’t recall any grand change in scientific methodology around 1980 – perhaps you could provide some specifics?" There was no real change in the methodology itself---only in the rules about what kinds of evidence is admissible in the name of science.StephenB_{January 3, 2010
January
01
Jan
3
03
2010
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply