Competing Worldviews Only?

_{Barry Arrington
March 22, 2010

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Evolutionary biologist Allen MacNeill, who appears frequently in the comments sections of our posts, makes the following comment to my previous post:

Teleology must exist in any functional relationship, including those in biology. The question is not “is there teleology in biology”; no less an authority on evolutionary biology than the late Ernst Mayr (not to mention Franciso Ayala) emphatically stated “yes”! The real question (and the real focus of the dispute between EBers and IDers) is the answer to the question, “where does the teleology manifest in biology come from”? EBers such as Ernst Mayr assert that it is an emergent property of natural selection, whereas IDers assert that it comes from an “intelligent designer”. It has never been clear to me how one would distinguish between these two assertions, at least insofar as they can be empirically tested. Rather, the choice of one or the other seems to me to be a choice between competing metaphysical world views, which are not empirically verifiable by definition.

Is Allen correct?

Comments

Aleta "P.S. Upright, I think you posted on the wrong thread." That would not be your only mistake.Upright BiPed_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Allen, Aleta asked a question about evolutionary biologists and causality, I answered it. I made no attempt to link EB and cosmology. I don't see where StephenB did - he did mentioned that in his experience EBs adhere to causality until it doesn't suit them, but he apparently wasn't limiting his observation to evolution. If anything, the claim is that if you're willing to say causality doesn't hold ('something can begin to exist utterly uncaused'), reason has been abandoned. Qualifying it to "Okay, some things can begin to exist utterly uncaused. But only universes! And only the one time!" doesn't really help.nullasalus_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Allen wrote: It has never been clear to me how one would distinguish between these two assertions, at least insofar as they can be empirically tested. Rather, the choice of one or the other seems to me to be a choice between competing metaphysical world views, which are not empirically verifiable by definition. Barry asks: Is Allen correct?
We might theoretically and empirically demonstrate natural selection could not arrive at function. I don't think we can directly argue that the Intelligent Designer is the cause, only circumstantially. The question is one of empirical science, I think natural selection can be ruled out in many cases. If it can't be ruled out based on an empirical test, then it is not falsifiable, thus it is not strictly speaking empirical science. Some aspects of ID can be falsified in principle, and in that sense, part of it is consistent with empirical science. Pagels, Kimura, Nei, Jukes, King, many others have laid the ground work of falsifying natural selections role in the evolution of function. It will take another set of research to show that certain mutational mechanisms are also inadequate to create function. James Shapiro is closes to finding a "designerless" form of evolution in that he argues cells are self-creating engineers. There is some truth to that, but it can't explain the origin of the ability of cells to self-engineer. James Shapiro and Richard Sternberg worked together. That partnership signifies the closes that the ID and Evolution camp have ever cooperated. Those sorts of research projects could be a welcome part of science and could potentially help falsify natural selection as the primary description of evolution of function.scordova_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Stephen writes, "In dealing head on with that issue, he soars head and shoulders above most MET advocates, who resort to the tactic of describing the law of causality as circular, tautological, or otherwise meaningless. By the way, where do you stand on the issue? Do you acknowledge that nothing can begin to come into existence without a cause?" Thanks for asking, as I consider that an interesting question. I believe that we live in a causally connected universe, and that each moment flows causally from the next, and has since the beginning of the universe. On the other hand, I also believe Feynman and others who state that at the most fundamental quantum level things are a matter of probability, and that each moment is not precisely determined. I am also aware that at the macroscopic level most quantum uncertainty reduces to a more standard causality due to the cumulative effects of the probabilities. But I don't know if there can be a "cause" as to why a certain probability manifests itself at any quantum event, and so I am not sure that concept "cause" applies to all of reality. As to the universe, I don't know (and I don't think anyone can) why the universe came into existence, and why it is as it is. The universe might be a product of some cause or complex set of causes in a larger reality, but knowledge of such is forever outside of scope of understanding. So the general answer is that I'm not sure the concept of "coming into existence via a cause" is meaningful at either the quantum level or the cosmological level of the origin of our universe, so the statement "nothing can begin to come into existence without a cause" may not even be applicable to those issues. I do believe that in our universe "things" as we commonly understand them don't come into existence without a preceding local cause or set of causes - "poofs" don't happen in our universe. I also, as I think I said earlier, think the sentence "nothing can begin to come into existence without a cause" implicitly references the metaphor of the straight line, and that this is not necessarily how the metaphysical world may be. Specifically, the argument that therefore there must be a first cause that has always existed comes from embedded premises about all of reality that may not be true. I think it is a mistake to think the such logical manipulations based on abstracting from our limited perspective as human beings in this world can actually tell us anything about the larger metaphysical reality in which our universe exists, if there is one. P.S. Upright, I think you posted on the wrong thread.Aleta_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

According to nullasalus and stephenB, the origin of the universe is part of the modern theory of evolutionary biology. Curious; I have been under the impression that evolutionary biology begins with the origin of life, not the origin of the universe. As the existence of the universe is a prerequisite for everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen, it is necessarily a part of everything, right? So, if one needs to explain why my son lost one the games of tic-tac-toe he played with me back in 2003, it would be absolutely necessary to ground one's explanation in the current theory of the origin of the universe, according to the metaphysical position of nullasalus and stephenB.Allen_MacNeill_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

(cough) Allen, there was nothing in my comments that could be labeled as particularly “metaphysical”. In your responses to my comments (in the discussion that lead to this thread) you went into great detail of the physical observations. These were not off-the-cuff comments. In that conversation I stated that information is not a material thing contained within matter, but is instead an abstraction of reality which requires perception in order to exist. You then typed out 6300 characters in 16 paragraphs giving your views on different types of information, ending with an agreement that meaningful information does indeed require perception in order to exist: “So, Shannon information, Kolomogorov information, and Orgel information need not be perceived to exist, but meaningful information does.” (my emphasis) So I asked if the information recorded in DNA is an example of “meaningful information” You replied in a second post of 4700 words in 17 paragraphs where you detail instances in which you think that DNA does not necessarily represent meaningful information, ending with the comment however that when we find DNA being transcribed to build the biological products within living cells, then we do indeed find meaningful information in DNA. You stated “ If the DNA sequence ACA is located in the template strand of an actively transcribed DNA sequence...then that DNA sequence does indeed contain “meaningful” information: it is encoded in one medium, is translated into another medium, and has a function in the system of which it is a part." (my emphasis) I am left to wonder how one can escape the observationally-based induction: 1) Meaningful information requires perception in order to exist. 2) DNA does contain meaningful information. 3) The meaningful information recorded in DNA required perception to exist. My subsequent comments have all been based upon that conundrum (and there is not a drop of metaphysics in it).Upright BiPed_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Stephen, I thought you meant something in biology. For instance, you wrote, "Modern evolutionary biologists practice selective causality: When causality suits them, they honor it; when it gets in the way, they abandon it." Since the origin of the universe is not a subject of modern evolutionary biology, and since your sentence seemed to say that that modern evolutionary biologists abandon causality, I assumed you meant in regards to evolutionary biology. If you are referring only to the origin of the universe, then I misunderstood you.Aleta_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

----Aleta: "I don’t believe that Stephen could supply a case of a modern evolutionary biologists claiming that something happened without a cause. Stephen, can you give an example to back up your claim?" You haven't been around very long, have you? It happens so often on this site that I could provide a list of the regulars who deny it. On this very thread, Allen has already acknowledged that the universe came into existence without a cause. In dealing head on with that issue, he soars head and shoulders above most MET advocates, who resort to the tactic of describing the law of causality as circular, tautological, or otherwise meaningless. By the way, where do you stand on the issue? Do you acknowledge that nothing can begin to come into existence without a cause?StephenB_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Allen, Regarding your links: It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176). That quote is from Alexander Vilenkin on the subject of eternal inflation. And he's not exactly thrilled about it in some theistic sense. I think you may be under the impression that "eternal inflation" goes both ways. Aleta, Regarding your question to StephenB: Allen, I would presume, is a modern evolutionary biologist. In the post exactly preceding yours (at 96, and earlier in this thread), Allen is pretty explicitly saying that he believes something can happen without a cause. Does this count?nullasalus_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Stephen writes, "Modern evolutionary biologists practice selective causality: When causality suits them, they honor it; when it gets in the way, they abandon it." I don't believe that Stephen could supply a case of a modern evolutionary biologists claiming that something happened without a cause. Stephen, can you give an example to back up your claim?Aleta_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

In comment #94 stephenB wrote:
"If causality is a law, it admits of no exceptions; if it is not a law, then why honor it at all?"
Implicit in this statement is the assumption that what we refer to as a "law" cannot have exceptions. This is what metaphysicians refer to as "stipulative" definition; it stipulates, rather than "describes" the thing it defines. A definition that simply "describes" something is usually referred to as a "lexical" definition (as in "lexicon"). So, is there a metaphysical reason that what we refer to as the "law" of causality cannot have even one exception? Not necessarily: in the natural sciences the term "law" virtually always refers to a description that is lexical, not stipulative. For example, Newton's "law" of gravity describes the relationship between mass and acceleration in the context of the "force" of gravity. But, as we now know, Newton's "law" has exceptions. Specifically, it does not apply to moving objects at velocities close to the speed of light. Under such circumstances, a new, more general "law" of gravitation, called Einstein's "theory" of general relativity, subsumes Newton's "law" of universal gravitation. Ergo, it clearly is not the case that those descriptions of nature that we refer to with the term "law" have no exceptions. On the contrary, virtually every "natural" law of which I am aware has one or more exceptions. Some of these exceptions have been explained by a more general (i.e. "covering") law (or "theory", to use the more recent terminology), but others have not. Furthermore, experience has shown that when an exception to a "natural" (or "scientific") law has been discovered, the discovery has eventually pointed the way to a new, more general "covering" law that explains the original law and the exception. That is, experience has shown that the discovery of something that violates a "law" does not necessarily mean that "anything goes" from that point on. Applying these principles to what I asserted was the single "uncaused" event in the history of the universe – the origin of the universe itself – may eventually yield to yet another, more general, cause which explains the origin of the universe along with its subsequent evolution. It may be, for example, that there is something in the nature of space and time that requires the initiation (i.e. the "cause") of events such as the "big bang". Indeed, there are several such hypotheses that could explain the origin of the universe. If empirical evidence is eventually discovered that can confirm one or more of these hypotheses, then the problem of "first" (or, more properly, "original") cause will go away. You can read about one such hypothesis here: http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/ and download a .pdf of an explanatory article from Scientific American here: http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdfAllen_MacNeill_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Allen, I think you will quickly find that many, perhaps most ID critics wish to have their cake and eat it too. In fact, that's precisely the reason for the hypocrisy I've spoken of in this thread, and for the years I've been involved in this discussion. What critics would have to give up to be consistent in their removal of ID from 'science' is a price few would be willing to pay. Personally, I'd be willing to get behind your last quote: "“The answer to the question ‘Is there a guiding hand in the evolution of the functional adaptations of living organisms?’ is outside the legitimate domain of the empirical sciences?" But I'd be willing to get behind it if all sides honored it - and that's going to require taking to task many of those self-appointed 'science defenders' for their own abuse of science. I will not hold my breath. As to what my opinion of Dover's school board would be in the ideal, that would depend on which of their actions and given what assumptions. Is it inappropriate to discuss empirical limits of evolution (a la Behe), for example - even if talk of design inferences are removed? Is it possible for Darwinian evolution to be judged as facing problems, or even being incorrect - again, even if design inferences (or their lack) go undiscussed?nullasalus_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

---Allen MacNeill: "So, stephenB: Do evolutionary biologists think that “…emergence means happening without cause”? Semantically, no, because they play with words and characterize emergence itself as a kind of causality--as in "emergent causality." Logically, yes, because in spite of their semantic formulations, they do, nevertheless, abandon causality; it is simply a matter of when and where they dispense with it. Modern evolutionary biologists practice selective causality: When causality suits them, they honor it; when it gets in the way, they abandon it. In order to accept the notion of emergence, they must always and ULTIMATELY [you will find I used that word earlier] accept the proposition that SOMETHING can come into existence without a cause, and THEY get to decide when. In your case, that would be the universe: ---At 47 you wrote: "I accept the proposition that one thing (and one thing only) can come into existence without a cause: the universe itself (including the “natural laws” which govern it, which in some sense “constitute” the universe). However, following the instant of its coming into existence, everything that happens from then on does indeed proceed from causes that derive from that original cause." Why one thing only? If causality is a law, it admits of no exceptions; if it is not a law, then why honor it at all? By what standard do you affirm that "everything that happens from then on does indeed proceed from causes that derive from that original cause?" If the principle of causality is negotiable, why cannot elements of that "everything-that-happens-from-then-on" also appear without a cause? Evolutionary biologists simply pick and choose the circumstances under which they will honor the law of causality. Never mind the fact that anyone who accepts the proposition that something can come from nothing, even once, has abandoned reason. Is it uncivil to abandon reason and enter in to dialogue with those who have not abandoned it. Maybe, maybe not. Is it uncivil to pass that unreasonableness along to the next generation in the form of a dogma? Definitely.StephenB_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

And, as a test case for the agreement stated above, consider the following statements: "There is a guiding hand in the evolution of the functional adaptations of living organisms." "There is no guiding hand in the evolution of the functional adaptations of living organisms." "There need not be a guiding hand in the evolution of the functional adaptations of living organisms." Which of these statements is closest in spirit to the gist of this thread, and can anyone still reading this thread come up with an even better example? How about this: "The answer to the question 'Is there a guiding hand in the evolution of the functional adaptations of living organisms?' is outside the legitimate domain of the empirical sciences? And if your answer to this version is "yes", what is your opinion of the actions of the pre-2005 Dover Area School Board vis-a-vis the question of "intelligent design" in biology?Allen_MacNeill_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

To return once again to the original point of this thread: debates about teleology in biology that is not demonstrably the result of an empirically detectable pre-existing "program" (i.e. the genome, developmental mechanisms, and ecological niche) are debates about metaphysics (i.e. "worldviews") and not about the content of the empirical sciences, right? So, if clarity and logical consistency is something both sides of the EB/ID debate value (and I assume they are, if statements from representatives from both sides – statements unlike stephenB's, which clearly assert that the opposite side does not value such things – are to be taken at face value), then partisans from both sides of this issue should make it as clear as possible when they are making metaphysical claims and when they are making claims on the basis of empirical evidence. Agreed? Barry? (the author of the OP with which this thread began, but who has contributed nothing to the discussion since then) Clive? Frost 122585? Granville Sewell? idnet.com.au? nullasalus? PaV? stephenB? upright biped? William J. Murray? Aleta, faded Glory, hrun0815, and vjtorley have already clearly stated their positions on this question, and I have already clearly stated that this has been my position for quite some time, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future...pun intended again, of course.Allen_MacNeill_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

And gutting ID as it is currently practiced as well, right?Allen_MacNeill_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Allen, I quoted the link you yourself provided re: teleonomy, and I think the description makes it clear. Once again, with my emphasis... A teleonomic process, such as evolution, produces complex products without the benefit of such a guiding foresight. Now, I know this is wikipedia and thus its accuracy is suspect. But it's also not the first time I've encountered the term, and I think that quote accurately sums up the intended definition. 'Teleonomy' was brought up specifically to counter 'teleology' in the relevant sense. You can find Monod, Mayr and others explicitly talking about this, and how evolution disproved teleology and guidance - in other words, calling up 'teleonomy' and empirical science in their attack on philosophical, metaphysical and theological views they dislike. Now, you point out that my statement is not a statement an ID proponent can properly get behind. I admit this, and have been pointing out in this thread that while I have strong ID sympathies, I'm not an ID proponent. But let's put one idea to rest: It's not the case that, since Darwin, we've had people who see design in nature conflating science and metaphysics on one side, and on the other we've had people who see no design in nature happily respecting the boundaries between science and metaphysics. In fact, I'd note that Moran, Dawkins, PZ, etc are only the latest in a long, long line of (design-denying) people expressly conflating these topics going back to Darwin himself. And that long line is what should be kept in mind when it comes to Behe, Dembski and other ID proponents. Insofar as they treat design as something that can be discussed within science, they aren't innovators - they are following a standard largely supported by design opponents. And I'll also note that many, perhaps most of the great 'science defenders' are lopsided in their treatment: Behe suggests data indicates that Darwinian evolution has some empirical problems, and it's taken as an assault on science itself. Dawkins (much as his ember has cooled) suggests that God is an empirical hypothesis, and the criticism is remarkably muted - if it happens at all. Note that this is not an apologist defense of Behe, Dembski, etc, such that if only all those mixers of science and metaphysics would go away, so too would (or should) they. In fact, I'm positive they and others would take the tact that even if 'design inferences' are ruled out on domain grounds, their work still has direct and serious relevance to Darwinism - it isn't as if no empirical critiques of such are possible. I'm pointing out that, even insofar as ID proponents do bring design into a field where it's not the proper subject, they're dealing with tremendous precedent. And I'd point this out to the others who agreed with my statement: I think it's obvious that many ID critics would disagree. In fact, I can imagine more than one saying that if design, guidance, or purpose are truly treated as topics science (much less Darwinism) cannot rule on one way or the other, the effect is of gutting Darwinism as Darwin knew it.nullasalus_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Re Aleta in comment #87: I think our positions are almost entirely in agreement here. You seem to be asserting that, if one wishes to discuss metaphysics along with science, one should be very clear about the differences between them. I have, to the best of my ability, attempted to do so, and would end for now by pointing out that, on the basis of the foregoing, the answer to the title of this thread (i.e. "Competing Worldviews Only?") is
"yes".
Allen_MacNeill_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

In comment #84 nullasalus wrote:
"There is no guiding hand.” and “The presence or lack of a guiding hand is outside the scope of science.” are distinct claims. Teleonomy, as described on Allen’s own link, takes a stance on teleology and guidance – it denies it. Really, that’s the point of the term."
No, it isn't. The point to the term "teleonomy" is to lay out the criteria that must be met if one is to make a claim that a design or plan somehow guides the origin of an adaptation (i.e. a teleological process). According to Mayr's definition of "teleonomy", the fundamental criterion that must be met if one is to make a claim that a design or plan somehow guides the origin of an adaptation is the empirically detectable presence of a "program" that does the guiding. This is precisely what the genome and developmental machinery (and, to a much more diffuse but still very real extent, the ecological niche) of an organism constitutes. Or, to put it succinctly, if you can find the guiding program using empirical methods, then you can make the empirical claim that the adaptation is teleonomic. If you can't, you are making a metaphysical assertion, rather than an empirically derived one. To be as clear as possible about this: the <scientific theory of evolution as currently constituted neither affirms nor denies the existence existence of non-empirically detectable design in nature. Rather, as the <scientific theory of evolution as currently constituted includes an empirically detectable and fully mechanistic explanation for the teleology apparent in living systems, reference to any empirically undetectable and non-mechanistic explanation is simply not referenced or discussed. And yes, I find the assertions of Richard Dawkins, Larry Moran, P. Z. Myers, and even my good friend Will Provine to the contrary to be an unfortunate (but all too common) tendency to mix science with metaphysics. Far better, it seems to me, to take T. H. Huxley's position on such questions, and assert that one is "agnostic" on the connection between science and metaphysics [see http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html for a full explanation of Huxley's views on this subject].Allen_MacNeill_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Hi nullasalus. I agree with the distinction you make, and I agree with your statement that "“It’s entirely possible that evolution, in whole or in part, operates with guidance, foresight, and intention. It’s entirely possible for an Intelligent Designer to use natural processes such as those in evolution as a means to an end. But the existence or lack of such a Designer, or the Designer’s guidance, cannot be explored by science.” I also heartily agree with fg's point (hi fg): "What I am interested in now, is to see how many ID proponents are happy to sign off on this claim." Given that a central tenet of the ID movement is that ID is scientifically detectable, the statement you offer is in direct contradiction with ID. I also agree that my short comment at 83 conflated the two issues you want to separate: it was 3:00 am and I was up with a headache trying to get tired so I could go back to sleep. However, back at 49, I wrote, "When we look at the world that we experience and take time, local causality, and the nature of the elementary particles and forces into account, I think we see emergent design: this universe produces organized complexity without anybody guiding the way. However, many people want to speculate on the metaphysics behind the physics (and of course, in doing so assume that there is a metaphysic behind the physics. Thinking that there is an intelligent designer (God of some sort for many) is such a speculation. However, thinking that once the universe came into existence, no further metaphysical interaction happens, is also a speculation held by many. Many different such perspectives are possible, and as you [Allen] say, there are no “empiricially verifiable” ways of investigating which, if any, are true. They are, as you say, choices, and they are made for many different reasons, key ones of which are other than that of logic and evidence." That is, if we look at the world from the limited perspective of science, studying the material nature of the world, we see emergence without any observation of any guiding hand. However, if we look at the situation metaphysically, we see that, to use your phrase, "it’s entirely possible for an Intelligent Designer to use natural processes such as those in evolution as a means to an end." However it's entirely possible that quite a few other equally speculative interpretations are possible, including there being no metaphysical reality at all, and, as both you and Allen seem to agree, there are no scientific ways of investigating which, if any, of those many speculations might be true. So, at least for this short exchange, I think I am in agreement with you.Aleta_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Me, too, faded glory! Indeed, I would like to see how the author of "What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design" [available here: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DembskiDesign.php ] would respond to nullasallus' query. For example, take this quote from that article:
"Consistent with classical views of creation, design allows for the abrupt emergence of new forms of life. At the same time design is also consistent with the gradual formation of new forms of life from old."
Sounds to me that the author is fine with both "strong" and "weak" emergence (remember, evolutionary biologists are also fine with "weak emergence", but are extremely skeptical of claims for "strong emergence"). Then there is this quote from the article:
"Rather, we are dealing with competing world views and incompatible metaphysical systems."
This quote is followed several paragraphs later by this one:
"In response to the question How did life originate and develop? what's wrong with simply saying We don't know?"
This, oddly enough, is precisely my position on this question. However, this does not mean that we can't try to find out. Indeed, whenever we don't know something, it seems to me that the best response is "Let's try to find out", not something like:
"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering." [ http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000152-p-3.html emphasis added]
- another quote from the author of the article, but in a different venue [Source: William Dembski Organisms using GAs vs. Organisms being built by GAs thread at ISCID 18. September 2002] Yes, it is legitimate to discuss metaphysics in the context of science, but only if one makes clear that there is a difference between science and metaphysics. Ergo, if one states that the process whereby teleonomic adaptations have arisen – natural selection – is itself either purposeful or not, one should make this statement in the context of a discussion of metaphysics, not science. And this is, as I described above, exactly what I do in my biology and evolution courses. However, to insist that there is empirical evidence either for or against the metaphysical assumption that there is design (i.e. "purpose") guiding the process by which adaptations have originated is once again to inject metaphysics into science. But isn't this exactly what ID is all about? Isn't this what Dr. Behe was arguing in The Edge of Evolution, that we can find empirical evidence in science (for example, in the evolution of choloroquine resistance in the malaria trypanosome) for the metaphysical assumption of design in evolution? Seems like it to me? If one is genuinely interested in keeping science and metaphysics strictly separate (sound familiar?), one should either never mention metaphysics in a discussion or presentation of science (in my experience, this is the usual approach taken in most science courses in higher education), or one should point out that you cannot derive the conclusions in one domain using the methodology of the other. Having done so, one should then move on to either an extended exploration of one or the other domains, but not both. This is what I do in my courses at Cornell, and what my friend and mentor, Will Provine does as well. ************************ BTW, this quote also comes from the article cited above:
"Though design theorists believe Darwinism is dead wrong, unlike the creationist movement of the 1980's, they do not try to win a place for their views by taking to the courts. Instead of pressing their case by lobbying for fair treatment acts in state legislatures (i.e., acts that oblige public schools in a given state to teach both creation and evolution in their science curricula), design theorists are much more concerned with bringing about an intellectual revolution starting from the top down. Their method is debate and persuasion. They aim to convince the intellectual elite and let the school curricula take care of themselves. By adopting this approach design theorists have enjoyed far more success in getting across their views than their creationist counterparts. [emphasis added]
I realize that this article was originally published in 2005, but it strikes me as more than a little ironic that the author could have written this, given the events taking place in (and culminating in December of) that year.Allen_MacNeill_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

nullasullus suggests: “It’s entirely possible that evolution, in whole or in part, operates with guidance, foresight, and intention. It’s entirely possible for an Intelligent Designer to use natural processes such as those in evolution as a means to an end. But the existence or lack of such a Designer, or the Designer’s guidance, cannot be explored by science.” I am an ID critic and I am quite happy to sign off on this claim. My vernacular version of this is that one man's random event is another man's Act of God. What I am interested in now, is to see how many ID proponents are happy to sign off on this claim. fGfaded_Glory_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Aleta, No, it's not accurate. "There is no guiding hand." and "The presence or lack of a guiding hand is outside the scope of science." are distinct claims. Teleonomy, as described on Allen's own link, takes a stance on teleology and guidance - it denies it. Really, that's the point of the term. Think of it this way: If Allen, and anyone else, is serious that philosophy, metaphysics, and theology are utterly outside of the scope of science, then the following phrase is utterly valid: "It's entirely possible that evolution, in whole or in part, operates with guidance, foresight, and intention. It's entirely possible for an Intelligent Designer to use natural processes such as those in evolution as a means to an end. But the existence or lack of such a Designer, or the Designer's guidance, cannot be explored by science." I'd love to see which and how many ID critics would be willing to sign off on such a claim. My guess is many would sooner choke.nullasalus_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

Teaching that there is no guiding hand that we can empirically experience and investigate is accurate, and it is this empirical investigation that science is all about.Aleta_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

Allen, I don't go to your classes, and I don't see what you teach firsthand. But frankly, your words here only further back up my point. Let's have a look at what your own link has to say about "teleonomy", with my emphasis added. The term was coined to stand in contrast with teleology, which applies to ends that are planned by an agent which can internally model/imagine various alternative futures, which enables intention, purpose and foresight. A teleonomic process, such as evolution, produces complex products without the benefit of such a guiding foresight. Wonderful. In other words, teleonomy is an explicit denial that actual guidance exists. It denies 'guiding foresight', despite - by your own admission - this being a subject empirical science cannot rule on. So you're not taking a neutral position by a longshot. You're teaching that any aspect of biology that appears guided actually is not. Saying all this, then saying "But, hey, maybe teleology is right after all! Moving on..." would be a con game. At best, a half-hearted attempt to appear neutral while stacking the deck. And no, it's not my contention that the opposite is the case among biologists. My contention is that the unverifiable, philosophical views of scientists is not an issue that should have any impact on how science is taught and communicated, and yet it does. They mistake and actively conflate their philosophy and metaphysics with their science, and then take umbrage - severe, angry umbrage - when others do the exact same thing, from the other direction. Now, you ask if I'm being even-handed here. First of all, let me be clear. When Michael Behe argues that there are fundamental limits to what Darwinian evolution can reasonably accomplish, he's not making a teleological argument - he's making an empirical claim. When Dembski discusses probability bounds, he's making a mathematical claim. In other words, not every contribution of ID proponents is itself a mixture of philosophy and science - if an ID proponent suggested horizontal gene transfer played a major role in nature, the idea would not suddenly become a philosophical affront to science because some people were suspicious of the proponent's motives. It would still be a valid scientific conjecture. But sometimes some ID proponents do outright suggest bringing discussion, even affirmation, of guidance and teleology in biology into science proper. You suggest I do, but I'd love to see where I've done that - because you only need go so far as StephenB to find that I've argued *against* ID, insofar as it truly does mix philosophy with science, as science proper. My view is, and has for a long time been, what I said in post #44: Either all excess metaphysics and philosophy is drained from science (in which case any discussion of teleology and philosophy, positive or negative, is rightly considered unscientific), or excess metaphysics and philosophy is legitimized as 'scientific' (in which case, ID proponents' speculations are every bit as legitimate as Provine's). So I'm entirely consistent - again, you can find me on this very site arguing with ID proponents on this point. But I also recognize that many ID critics want to have their cake and eat it too - they want ID rapped for philosophical and theological speculation posing as science, but they want license to engage in philosophical and theological speculation of their own. They want to say on the one hand that teleology is not a subject that science can address, and on the other be able to say "there is no teleology" as a scientific statement - or at least treat anyone who says that in a vastly different way, or even turn a blind eye to it.nullasalus_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

Looking back at the start of this thread, I notice that in the second comment Granville Sewell wrote, "Basically 'emergence' is just a transparent semantical trick to acknowledge design without acknowledging a designer." That remark, and Stephen's misunderstanding, helps me understand the resistance to the idea of emergence. I believe it is true that we get design without a designer, and that we get teleonomy (my new word for the day): complex products without the benefit of a guiding foresight. Almost everything in the universe emerges from the basic fundamental constituent parts of the universe in the sense that properties arise from the interactions among the parts that are not a property of those parts. A tornado is an example: it emerges as a distinct and coherent entity with unique properties out of a collection of individual atoms which have much simpler properties and which have no intention of getting together and producing a tornado. Describing a tornado thusly is not a "semantical trick" to avoid acknowledging a designer of the tornado. We live in a universe that has emerged from the initial conditions and from the fundamental nature of its elemental parts. The things that have emerged, from galaxies and stars to tornadoes and tadpoles, have done so without a guiding, foresightful hand.Aleta_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Pacé, Aleta; I realized right away that you meant that stephenB was mistaken about the meaning of the term "emergence". Ah, but apparently stephenB disagrees with us. Indeed, s/he seems to know exactly what we think and why we think it, and believes that thinking such things tempts us to engage in "uncivil discourse". Amazing, isn't it, that stephenB can penetrate right into another person's mind and not only figure out exactly what they believe (even when they themselves aren't quite certain, or deny what stephenB is certain s/he finds there), but also know exactly why they believe what they believe, not to mention unerringly intuiting their reasons for doing so, and ferreting out their motivations for expressing their beliefs in an apparently "uncivil" manner. It must be wonderful to be so wise...Allen_MacNeill_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

I meant no one but Stephen. :) My point was that he is wrong about the meaning of emergence - you and I clearly agree on that.Aleta_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Sorry about the line break in comment #77; it was invisible in the WYSINWYG comment box.Allen_MacNeill_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

In comment #74 Aleta wrote:
"...no one thinks that emergence means happening without cause."
I beg to differ. In comment #69 stephenB wrote:
"...most evolutionary biologists...abandon...right reason...in order to...posit non-causal explanations for caused events."
and then flatly stated that to do so "
...raises important questions about civil discourse."
I posted direct and unequivocal evidence that clearly contradicts stephenB's assertion in comment #73, but so far s/he has remained silent. So, stephenB: Do evolutionary biologists think that "...emergence means happening without cause"? And does making an argument to the contrary, an argument clearly supported by documentary evidence, constitute a violation of "civil discourse"? We eagerly (and patiently) await your unequivocal answer to these queries!Allen_MacNeill_{March 27, 2010
March
03
Mar
27
27
2010
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply