Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Aristotle and ID

William Dembski
August 15, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4702

Will Bush and the current pope do to Darwinism what Reagan and the previous pope did to Marxism?

Comments
Maybe I can help here. Ariston: "Aristotelian teleology is consistent with atheism." If teleology and atheism are mutually consistent, then either (a) teleology is inconsistent with theism, or (b) teleology is consistent with both theism and atheism, which implies that it is independent of theology in general. Since teleology is obviously not inconsistent with theism, Ariston is saying that teleology is independent of theology. However, theology deals with that which determines the ends in nature, labeling this concept "God" (we'll ignore the other criteria that various strains of theology attach to this term). In other words, teleology and theology are not independent conceptual domains, as Ariston seems to think. Ariston has also said that teleology is consistent with naturalism. Let "naturalism" denote the hypothesis that nature is subject to causal closure, i.e., is completely determined by nature itself. Then nature is in fact its own teleological determinant - i.e., that which determines the ends in nature - and nature is therefore teleologically equivalent to the central object of theology, God (theology-speak for the teleological determinant, or "that which determines the ends in nature"). But where nature and God are co-defined, atheism is by definition unnatural, and to the extent that teleology is consistent with atheism, it too is unnatural. This contradicts the premise that teleology and naturalism are mutually consistent. It follows that if "teleology is consistent with a thoroughgoing naturalism" (as Ariston maintains), then teleology is inconsistent with atheism. In other words, Ariston has succeeded in contradicting himself. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to declare teleology compatible with atheism.neurode
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
"As ID does not posit a deity as designer, let me add that final cuases are consistent with the absence of any designer." There's a bit of equivocation here. First, The teleology behind A's final causes is a very different concept than the teleology inferred by ID. Second, even if they were the same sorts of teleology, don't you mean "final causes are consistent with the absense of a *deity*?"dave
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Ariston: "The “Lucretian/Baconian” version of naturalism (as you put it), may explicitly reject teleology, but it unwittingly makes use of it all the same. A theory of change must have something do the work of form and end, implicitly or explicitly." Well, sure -- I agree with you here, but Bacon wouldn't, and that was the point, yes?dave
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
"With respect, this is the kind of statement one might find in an elementary (and incorrect) account of the history of philosophy or science." Or on a blog maybe? This ain't a graduate seminar, and the generalization that Bacon did away with formal and final causes is a pat but useful distinction. Heidegger found it useful anyway, in The Question Concerning Technology, where he makes the same assertion. "For Aristotle, an “efficient” cause is the form of one substance acting as the cause of another. Without the complementary notions of form and end, efficient causality in unintelligible." Of course. But are you not doing exactly that with final causes? His whole physics is an integrated system, revolving (literally) around the Prime Mover (a deity, if you will.) Teleology in the Aristotelian sense is unintelligble outside of the whole system of his physics. How then is his teleology consistent with atheism?dave
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
I wrote: "In saying that Aristotelian teleology is consistent with naturalism, I ultimately mean that final causes are consistent with atheism." As ID does not posit a deity as designer, let me add that final cuases are consistent with the absence of any designer.Ariston
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Dave, "Nature," of course, is equivocal, so let me clarify. "Nature" as I use it in my definition of "naturalism" is meant with its modern sense, i.e., physical universe. "Nature" as Aristotle uses it in the Physics denotes the substantial unity of causes. In saying that Aristotelian teleology is consistent with naturalism, I ultimately mean that final causes are consistent with atheism. "...in contrast to the modern scientific definition, which admits of only two (efficient and material)." With respect, this is the kind of statement one might find in an elementary (and incorrect) account of the history of philosophy or science. For Aristotle, an "efficient" cause is the form of one substance acting as the cause of another. Without the complementary notions of form and end, efficient causality in unintelligible. The "Lucretian/Baconian" version of naturalism (as you put it), may explicitly reject teleology, but it unwittingly makes use of it all the same. A theory of change must have something do the work of form and end, implicitly or explicitly. Thomas and his commentators are not relevant here.Ariston
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
"In fact, teleology as Aristotle defines it is consistent with a thorough-going naturalism." This, of course, all depends on your definition of "nature" (physis) doesn't it? Aristotle's definition meant the simultaniety of the four causes (including final causes, which I assume is what you mean by his "teleology"), in contrast to the modern scientific definition, which admits of only two (efficient and material). If by "thorough-going naturalism" you mean the modern Lucretian/Baconian definition of nature then, no of course Aristotle's teleology isn't consistent with a "thorough-going naturalism." If, however, you're ready to concede Aristotle's final causes as an irreducible facet of nature, then yes, it's naturalistic, but only in the sense that he and his followers from Thomas Aquinas to Jacques Maritain meant it.dave
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
"This is opposed to theoretical/historical biology which is based on imprints of dead tissue left in rocks." And of course, experiments and observations with live tissue - see genetics. But with this standard, we throw out not only most of geology (plate tectonics, anyone?), but ultimately the process that occurs if one comes home to find the door opened and stuff missing, and cops come and gather evidence . . Restrict science strictly to naked-eye observations right here, right now, no inferences, and you toss most of it. "The reason for this, of course, is that “science”, for all of the details resolved within its artificially narrow focus, has been very poorly defined" Well, it's been narrowly defined, and that's why all those details got resolved. Personally, I'm glad to have lived past childhood. Too much philosophy, and science starts wandering aimlessly . . . "In fact, the Empedocles-Aristotle debate captures the core issues of the modern ID-Neodarwinism debate almost perfectly" This ignores the advances in knowledge, measurement, and possible mechanisms that rather changes the terms of the arguement, to the very limited degree that I understand them. Must we go backwards? Remember the stage a lot of us went through, when it was unthinkable that the peas could touch the mashed potatoes? When it comes to learning about the world, this approach still makes sense up to a point, or we end up getting our chewing all messed up. Astronomy, for example, works better without mixing in philosophy* *obviously in the broadest sense, it's a subset of what started out as philosophy, and is based on assumptions about how to know things, etc. But this at a different level than what I mean, I just don't know the words.Dan S.
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Neurode, While I am an ID critic (though not necessarily an ID opponent), I am also not a naturalist. I am a theist for religious and philosophical reasons. By "naturalism" I mean "atheism with respect to nature." The teleology at issue in Aristotle's criticism of Empedocles (Physics II.8) - i.e., teleology as it concerns terrestrial substances - does not require either a deity or a designer. An animal substance receives its complete form from its parents. Therefore, Aristotelian teleology is consistent with atheism and naturalism. Modern science, including biology, has abandoned teleology for other reasons (this would want a long explanation), but I would argue that it has not been able to fill the explanatory gap created by its absence. Animals, for example, exhibit an inherent developmental trajectory. At its core, such a trajectory is a telos, and therefore, the animal exhibits teleology. The inherent trajectories of organisms are difficult to account for without sneaking in formal and final causes. Whether one explains these causes in terms of DNA or some other material mechanism is irrelevant. Thus, to sum up. Aristotle was not a proto-advocate of ID. Aristotelian teleology is consistent with atheism, and therefore, naturalism. Neo-Darwinists, however, along with the rest of modern science reject teleology on other grounds.Ariston
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Ariston: "In fact, teleology as Aristotle defines it is consistent with a thorough-going naturalism (though Aristotle was not a naturalist)." I'm afraid that I wasn't talking about your particular kind of "naturalism", whatever that may be. Perhaps, unlike the average ID critic, you can render a teleological account of nature which neo-Darwinists would find perfectly compatible with their own characteristic brand of "naturalism". But in any case, since most of the neo-Darwinists involved in the ID-neoDarwinism debate consider teleology to be a dead hypothesis, we know immediately that they do not agree with you. By all means, if you have in fact succeeded in reconciling (neo-Darwinian) naturalism with Aristotelian teleology, then feel free to direct us to a detailed account of your insights. We can then decide, in a fully informed way, whether your teleological version of naturalism lines up with the neo-Darwinian version.neurode
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Neurode: "In fact, the Empedocles-Aristotle debate captures the core issues of the modern ID-Neodarwinism debate almost perfectly…" It does not. ID is committed to the existence of a designer who is the efficient cause of some biological facts. Aristotle has no such commitment. As I stated above, Aristotle believed that the plant and animal species are eternal (i.e., there have always been members of those species in existence), and therefore, he did not need a theory of biological origins. In fact, teleology as Aristotle defines it is consistent with a thorough-going naturalism (though Aristotle was not a naturalist).Ariston
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
"By modern biology I of course mean observation and experiment with living tissue."DaveScot Yes. Descriptions, predictions, experiments, measurements and observations. Science in science class. This makes sense.Charlie
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
DanS.: "His [Aristotle's] distinction between 'chance and spontaneity' and 'action for an end' is not relevant here." Come now, DanS. Essentially, all you're saying is: "Aristotle's reasoning incorporates distinctions that my worldview excludes on an a priori basis, and since only my worldview is relevant here, Aristotle's reasoning is irrelevant. Modern science, with which my own personal worldview happens to coincide perfectly, has moved beyond all that!" In fact, the Empedocles-Aristotle debate captures the core issues of the modern ID-Neodarwinism debate almost perfectly...showing that in over two millennia, science has made a net gain of exactly zero (knowledge) with respect to these core issues. The reason for this, of course, is that "science", for all of the details resolved within its artificially narrow focus, has been very poorly defined. Concisely, it has been defined in an overly-restrictive way that effectively excludes certain features of nature at large, including the crucial distinctions you attempt to dismiss, from "scientific" investigation. Please, a little more substance next time.neurode
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Dan S. I think we should stick to the facts in HS biology class. The fact is there's a lot more important modern biology to teach than there is time to teach it. By modern biology I of course mean observation and experiment with living tissue. This is opposed to theoretical/historical biology which is based on imprints of dead tissue left in rocks. It is not an experimental science and its conclusions are guesswork. A hundred years ago when cells were still considered blobs of protoplasm one might have made a case that historical biology was important to know. That's not the case anymore. Micro-evolution, that which can be observed and experimented with, deserves some class time. The chemical, genetic, and morphological relationships between all *LIVING* things deserves some class time. RM+NS as the cause of these relationships deserves this recitation of fact: "Random mutation acted on by natural selection has never been observed to create any novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan". Do you have a problem with any of the above?DaveScot
August 16, 2005
August
08
Aug
16
16
2005
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Sorry. The Aristotle's causality theory (“action for an end”) is perfectly in accordance with Intelligent Design theory. Moreover I found extremely appropriated that George Neumayr remember the Aristotle's thought:"an unmoved mover is the necessary ground of all creation and that effects cannot be greater than their causes. (Imagine what Thomas Aquinas would say about Darwinian theory.)". Those axioms are often-forgotten truths.niwrad
August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
The Aristotle's causality theory (“action for an end”) is perfectly in accordance with Intelligent Design theory. Moreover I found extremely appropriated that George Neumayr remember the Aristotle's thought:> These axioms are often-forgotten truths.niwrad
August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
"Can this passage from Aristotle's Physics be taught in schools? Or would the Post consider it insufficiently scientific? The debate over evolution didn't begin with Bush, Schonborn, or the school of Intelligent Design. The debate goes back to the time of the Greeks, but the elite, in order to preserve a phony “scientific consensus,” is working overtime through the press to make sure that students don't hear it.  " So we should teach Aristotle in biology class? (Beyond perhaps a few lines about classification systems?) Bring back Aristotle to high school, sure, but in a class on philosophy. : ) I doubt I can claim membership as part of the elite, but I'm pretty sure they're not working overtime to keep students from learning about Aristotle's objection to Empedocles' rather bizarre precursor to natural selection (body parts growing out of the earth and wandering around until they found each other under the influence of Love?!). The American Thinker article is sort of a odd version of this whole debate in a nutshell - should we teach 9th or 10th graders the methods, nature (best guess, never absolute, modifiable) and genuine current consensus of biology, or should we dump large chunks of highly technical, rather advanced verbiage on them - especially along the lines of misleading "Margulis proves Darwinism wrong" claims? Despite my great respect for Aristotle, modern science has moved beyond him. His distinction between "chance and spontaneity" and "action for an end" is not relevant here. And no, women don't have fewer teeth than men. He really got that one wrong, too.Dan S.
August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Undoubtedly, Aristotle would have been opposed to Darwinian evolution (and to evolution simpliciter), but the implication that he advocated a form of intelligent design must be significantly qualified (perhaps to the point of being denied). Aristotle, of course, did not present an account of biological origins because he believed that the plant and animal species are eternal. And the unmoved mover (i.e., God) is not a creator, but a more subtle kind of cause.Ariston
August 15, 2005
August
08
Aug
15
15
2005
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply