Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (7) – Joshua Gidney’s Third Response

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

After another unfortunately lengthy break, we’re at it again. This post is my latest response to Francis Smallwood. Francis is first and foremost, a dear friend, but also a Christian neo-Darwinist. He writes at his blog Musings of Science. This response is part of a long-term (hopefully lifelong), dialogue on many different topics relating to the theory of intelligent design and neo-Darwinism. We are both very excited about continuing this project.

Francis’ previous response can be found here:

http://musingsofscience.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/debating-darwin-and-design-science-or-creationism-4/

Debating Darwin and Design

A dialogue between two Christians

1.

Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’?

12th September 2013

Joshua Gidney – Third Response

 

One of the many benefits of taking part in a written dialogue, like this one, is that there are no time constraints. Francis and I have initiated this discussion ourselves, and so we are free to respond when we wish to. Unfortunately this has resulted in an eye-watering one year and eight months between the last instalment, and now. This is an atrocity and I am to blame. Shortly after my guilty conscience overwhelmed me, several glasses of wine, a cup of coffee, and some delightful walnut cake, Francis and I swore to continue our deliberations. Due to both of us having busy lives, it is inevitable that our responses will be infrequent. As I have already stated, this is not an issue (unless you’re impatient!). We are engaging with each other and that is what matters. Besides, I very much like the idea that this discussion could continue in to our old age.

In previous writings we have covered much ground, so before I respond directly to some of the points raised by Francis I would like clarify a couple of things and briefly review some of the ground we have covered. Although it would be somewhat counterproductive to keep going back and forth on the same point, at the same time I don’t wish us to end up with a bunch of loose threads.

The issue at the heart of this part of the debate is not the whether ID is true or not, but whether it is a scientific theory. If not, what is it really? Though we are both very concerned about the veracity (or lack of veracity), of the design hypothesis, we are not focussing on this at the moment. The classification of ID is what is at issue here. We will leave discussion on the merits of ID till another time. If I could successfully show that ID counts as what we would normally call a scientific theory, that would still not serve to show that it is true. It is possible for something to be scientific and false. Equally, if Francis could convincingly show that ID is essentially creationism, motivated by Christian fundamentalists wishing to establish a theocracy, this would in no way show that it is false. If one attempted to argue otherwise, one would be guilty of committing the genetic fallacy. Furthermore, only someone who holds to a scientistic worldview would hold that in order for ID to be considered true, it must fall under the umbrella of science. Neither me nor Francis subscribe to scientism and we both recognise it to be an irrational and entirely discredited philosophy of science. At the end of the day it is ‘Better to be unscientific and true than scientific and false’.1

Thomas Nagel writes: “A purely semantic classification of a hypothesis or its denial as belonging or not to science is of limited interest to someone who wants to know whether the hypothesis is true or false.”1 Arguments over the classification of ID can often just be red herrings, brought up to avoid dealing with the substance of the more important arguments. Some readers have complained that we are wasting time, arguing over an a mere exercise in taxonomy. Does this issue matter? Perhaps we have gone about this discussion the wrong way round, choosing to debate the classification of ID before the merits of ID. I don’t see that it really matters. The ‘Is it science’ issue is, I believe, an important one but we both recognise the latter issue to be of greater importance. Francis and I, like countless others, are truly enamoured by, and study, many of the sciences. We are naturally interested in the question under discussion and we don’t see it merely as an exercise in taxonomy. There is much more to life than science, but science is a huge cultural authority and there are many philosophical, sociological and educational implications that follow scientific theories. ID theorists present the theory as a scientific one and want more scientists, and the public, to view it as such. The scientific classification of ID raises important educational questions about what is included or excluded from the science class. Analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga notes the importance of the classification of ID pointing out that it is‘’…not a merely verbal question about how a certain word is ordinarily used. It is, instead, a factual question about a multifarious and many-sided human activity — is the very nature of that activity such as to exclude ID?’’3

One more thing I wish to note is with regard to the original question under consideration. We are only using the opening question as a catalyst for further discussion. The question ‘Is Intelligent Design science or creationism in a cheap tuxedo?’, presents us with false alternatives. If it isn’t science, that doesn’t automatically mean that it is creationism. It could be a whole host of other things. Perhaps it’s neither creationism nor science? Because creationism isn’t a scientific belief, to show that ID is essentially creationism is to show it to be unscientific. However, to show ID to be unscientific is not to show that it is creationism per se. Unless, of course, some of the reasons given for why it is unscientific are the same reasons given for why it is a brand of creationism.

Francis has claimed that although ID certainly isn’t the same as young earth creationism, it does have a ‘creationistic’ flavour to it. We have both agreed that it is not fair to lump ID with creationism. In his last response, Francis did not provide any more reasons to support his belief that ID and creationism are as close as he thinks. It was not clear to me whether he was giving up on this line of critique, or merely trying to move the discussion along. I will leave that up to him to clarify.

There are, as far as I can see, seven ways by which critics attempt to argue that ID and creationism are the same (or similar), and that it shouldn’t be considered scientific:

1. By showing that design and creation, as concepts, are necessarily synonymous.

2. By showing that, historically, ID emerged from the same source as creationism.

3. By bringing up the infamous Dover trial.

4. By showing that ID proponents are religiously motivated

5. By showing that ID theorists don’t publish their work in peer-reviewed journals.

6. By showing that methodological naturalism (MN) is an essential part of science. This includes the prohibition of supernatural causation. ID necessarily has theological implications and thus violates the principle of MN.

7. By showing that ID doesn’t follow ‘the scientific method’ and is neither falsifiable nor verifiable.

There is some overlap between a few of these points but I hope they serve to clarify the discussion . Francis has not used points 2 and 5 and although he brought up 3, the Dover trial, he did not use it for the purpose of arguing that it is unscientific/creationism.

To defend point 1, Francis argued ‘What design theory identifies, therefore, is not a designer but, rather, a creator…’4 But as William Dembski explains “Creation is always about the source of being in the world. Intelligent design is about arrangements of pre-existing materials that point to a designing intelligence…One can have creation without intelligent design and intelligent design without creation.”5 ID theorists are generally very careful with making such distinctions and it is contrary to the principle of charity to suggest they are just making the distinction in order to slip it under the radar. Michael Behe explains that ‘diligence in making proper distinctions should not be impugned as craftiness.’6

Francis defended 4 by pointing out that most of the key ID theorists are Christians. He writes “…the four fathers of the ID movement—Johnson, Dembski, Behe and Meyer—are all Christians. They all, presumably, believe the intelligent designer to be the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, despite their insistence that this is not inferred from the detection of design.”7 I pointed out that this is an irrelevance. If an ID proponent were to adopt such bad reasoning, they could easily point out that many key neo-Darwinists are atheists. Does this not mean that neo-Darwinism is a cover for atheism? Of course not. You can’t judge a theory by the company it keeps. Again, Dembski puts it well “I might add that my views on Christian theology should be just as irrelevant for evaluating the scientific evidence I present for intelligent design as Richard Dawkins’ views on atheism are irrelevant for evaluating the scientific evidence he presents for Darwinism.”8

Furthermore, there are many ID proponents who have different religious backgrounds and. There are also atheists and agnostics within the ID movement. For more details on this, see my article: “Are these atheists and agnostics really covert creationists?”9

Points 6 and 7, it seems, are going to be where the rubber hits the road. Francis devoted the majority of his previous response to 6 and I believe this is where the meat of the discussion will lie. Although I haven’t directly responded to his points on this issue, I will in subsequent writings. For now, I just wanted to review some of the ground we have covered in order to reach a few conclusions along the way that otherwise might have been left behind. I apologise to Francis for there not being much he can respond to with regard to his last instalment, but perhaps he could distil and clarify some of his thoughts and comment on a few of the points I have brought up from our previous exchanges. It would be useful if he could point out which lines of attack, out of the seven I have outlined, he still finds legitimate and those he does not. I thought some clarification from both of us would be necessary because of the long period of time that has passed since we last wrote. I don’t want to assume that we haven’t changed our minds on anything.

I greatly look forward to continuing this spirited and substantive dialogue.

References

1. Williams, P.S “Intelligent Designs on Science: A Surreply to Denis Alexander’s Critique of Intelligent Design Theory”, available from http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_designsonscience.htm

2. Nagel, T. “Education and Intelligent Design”, 195. Cf. Alvin Plantinga, “Whether ID Is Science Isn’t Semantics”; available from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3331.

3. Plantinga, A. “Whether ID Is Science Isn’t Semantics”; available from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3331..

4. Smallwood, F. Debating Darwin and design: science or creationism? (4), Second Response. Available at: http://musingsofscience.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/debating-darwin-and-design-science-or-creationism-4-2/

5. Dembski. W.A. The design revolution: answering the toughest questions about intelligent design. (Nottingham: Inter-varsity press, 2004). p.38.

6. Behe. M.J. ‘Whether Intelligent Design Is Science: A Response to the Court in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Distric’. Available at: www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697, p.8.

7. Smallwood, F. Debating Darwin and design: science or creationism? (4), Second Response. Available at: http://musingsofscience.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/debating-darwin-and-design-science-or-creationism-4-2/

8. Dembski. W.A. “Coming clean” about YEC? Available at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coming-clean-about-yec/

9. Gidney., J. “Are these atheists and agnostics really covert creationists?”, available from https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-these-atheists-and-agnostics-really-covert-creationists/

 

Comments
Mung: "It would almost seem as if Elizabeth’s constraint hypothesis is meant to exclude one and only one designer, God." Elizabeth: "Not at all, Mung. All I’m saying is that an unconstrained God is unlikely to be found by scientific means, because no predictive hypothesis could be formulated or tested." Well, Elizabeth, what I said is true, and what you said is no response. What sort of God do you haven in mind when you speak of a God that is constrained? What would this constrained God be constrained by, and why would those constraints not make this imaginary God of yours not God? IOW, you are asking for a God that is not God, which is just silly.Mung
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
How does one square
Again, it is clear that God cannot interfere in the universe
with
the Resurrection, Ten Commandments, miracles, prayer etc?
Am I missing something?jerry
September 20, 2013
September
09
Sep
20
20
2013
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
So a catholic priest who writes a church-certified catechism is "not a Christian", according to Jerry. Axel says that Jerry is "spot on". OK. It looks as though there is a special meaning of "Christian" in use here that I was not hitherto aware of. Something like "writes something that Axel and Jerry disagree with". And Axel, your slur on Fr McCabe is simply ignorant bigotry. Most of McCabe's writings were not published until after his death, because far from being "worldly", he was primarily a preacher and teacher, and notoriously careless about his written output, keeping the texts of his lectures and sermons in his shoe. His literary editor had a nightmare job, but posthumous collections of McCabe's writings are gradually coming out. He was combative, and outspoken, and at one time sacked from his job as editor of New Blackfriars for saying the church was corrupt, but he was not a heretic. The catholic church doesn't let heretics publish catechisms and give them an imprimatur, nor does it let them write translations of Aquinas. His wiki entry says:
McCabe's sermons were carefully prepared and delivered with great intelligence and wit. A major theme was a caution against making God a god, of reducing the Creator to an object within this world, and thus committing idolatry.
As a regular hearer of those sermons I can attest to this.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, you don't seem to realise how worldliness enabled some of these most prestigious of Catholic scripture scholars and theologians to make a name for themselves. To them writing books as a priest/scholar was just an alternative to making it as a secular scholar, and realising this, JJPII warned such clergy to avoid taking up such activities as an alternative to a secular career. Writing books in the sixties and early seventies, was an American scripture scholar, who is said in a eulogy in Wiki to have been considered the Dean of scripture scholars in the mid 20th century. It also says he taught himself eight languages, which, to me, immediately raises a red flag, suggesting a butterfly mind. Anyway, among his works, he wrote a Dictionary of the Bible, in which he had the incredible, sacriligious temerity to describe David as 'little better than a bandit'! For the most profound spiritual blindness, that is difficult to cap. This, mark you, said of a prophet, psalmist, matchless national military hero and anointed king, whose patronymic was applied to Christ as the Messiah, and of whom God declared that he was 'a man after his own heart', that in his eyes, 'his throne was like the sun, like the moon it would endure forever, a faithful witness in the skies' (evidently in Christ). Imagine God saying that of a mere mortal creature of his own. Moreover, if he lived as an outlaw in his early years - it was because he would not raise his hand against an anointed king, even though he had been anointed by Samuel to supersede Saul, and had been given the opportunity by God to kill him. The sixties and, certainly, early seventies spanned a period when liberal theologians were in the ascendant, and judging from the plethora of books on spirituality by lay intellectuals in the Catholic press, Jesus seemed to be considered quite down-market. I have the distinct impression that, the immensely popular theologian of that time, Karl Rahner, had he been formally a secular intellectual, would have been an advocate of the Multiverse, String Theory, that sort of thing. He was given to seemingly gratuitous flights of fancy, without any obvious scriptural or theological underpinning, indeed, always moving in a direction away from such, as if favouring philosophy (of sorts) over theology. Jerry, you're spot on in this, if I may say so.Axel
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
One of his books is a catechism: The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A new catechism of Christian Doctrine. It was published by the Incorporated Catholic Truth Society and has both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. I think that means he counts as a Christian, unless you think that catholics aren't Christians.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
The “guy” was a very eminent Dominican Thomist scholar
I know who the guy is/was. His comment is absurd for a Christian. Did he ever hear of somethings called the Resurrection, virgin birth, miracles and prayers? All I believe are staples of Dominican belief. I think St. Dominic is doing a little grave turning with this "guy." My comment about McCabe stands. He sounds like another of these theologians that wants to tell God how to do it right.jerry
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
The "guy" was a very eminent Dominican Thomist scholar. He was one of the translators of the Blackfriars edition of the Summa. Here are some of his other books: Herbert McCabeElizabeth B Liddle
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Again, it is clear that God cannot interfere in the universe, not because he has not the power, but because, so to speak, he has too much
This guy cannot be a Christian. Christianity is a revealed religion and is based on God interfering in this universe often for reasons we cannot fathom. One who is a true Christian will admit that they cannot know the "Mind" of God, but McCabe apparently thinks he does. This type of arrogance is typical of a lot of those who believe themselves theologians. An anecdote that is probably not true but still illustrates the point. Aquinas who is considered a respected theologian and wrote profusely once was said to have a dream where an angel was on the seaside. The angel would go into the sea with a tea spoon and fill it up and then come back to the beach and pour the infinitesimally small water in the spoon onto the sand. Aquinas asked the angel what he was doing and the angel said theology. As the story goes, Aquinas stopped his writing and died shortly there after. True story? Probably not. But it says something about how much we can know about God. The Book of Job has a similar theme. The maggot or worm knows more about a human then the human about God.jerry
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Mung
It would almost seem as if Elizabeth’s constraint hypothesis is meant to exclude one and only one designer, God.
Not at all, Mung. All I'm saying is that an unconstrained God is unlikely to be found by scientific means, because no predictive hypothesis could be formulated or tested. That would not exclude the existence of such a God in any way. It would merely place such a God beyond the realm of scientific detection. Let me quote, as I often do, the theologian Herbert McCabe:
Again, it is clear that God cannot interfere in the universe, not because he has not the power, but because, so to speak, he has too much; to interfere you have to be an alternative to, or alongside, what you are interfering with. If god is the cause of everything, there is nothing that he is alongside. Obviously God makes no difference to the universe; I mean by this that we do not appeal specifically to God to explain why the unviverse is this way rather than that, for this we need only appeal to explanations within the universe. For this reason there can, it seems to me,be no feature of the universe which indicates it is God-made. What God accounts for is that the univese is there instead of nothing.
(from God Matters)Elizabeth B Liddle
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
TSErik:
Would I be wrong in assuming that you do not have, necessarily, an objection to the concept of a designer/deity/God, however, you have yet to see any form of scientific inquiry, hypothesis, methodology, that would lead to further scientific understanding over the current paradigm?
More or less. Perhaps a bit more nuanced. I think that if there is a creator intelligence behind life, it might in principle be possible to detect it, and and find out more about it. I wouldn't assume a priori that it was worthy of worship. I think if there is a good God, worthy of worship, that God is probably not going to be discoverable through science. And I am no longer persuaded that it makes sense to think of minds as something that can exist independently of organisms. So I have some priors. But like all good priors, they can be updated in the light of more evidence.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
If Matter and Energy are all that exist, then they have done everything we marvel at in the universe.
Far be it from me to rain on your parade, and I swear that to my knowledge no relatives of mine sell raincoats or umbrellas, but you just don't understand Matter and Energy and the phenomenon of EMERGENCE! You see, when matter and energy get together magical things happen. They take on properties that matter and energy alone do not have. And then when those things get together yet more magical new properties "emerge" and even more magical things happen, Ad infinitum. So Matter and Energy when combined open up entirely new vistas. The exact opposite of constraints. And that's why Matter an Energy alone can do things no designer ever could, because designers must be constrained (at least scientific designers must be). It would almost seem as if Elizabeth's constraint hypothesis is meant to exclude one and only one designer, God. But that's probably more because she's theologically confused and still doesn't grasp ID. You see, theists generally don't believe that God is unconstrained. And intelligent design theory does not require that God be "the designer." I will say that all of nature seems to proclaim a single designer, whether God or Satan, which is not at all to be expected under the theory of natural selection, which by all accounts appeals to innumerable designers often working at cross purposes.Mung
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
It's probably been said more than once that natural selection is a "design mimic." But how would anyone know? How do we test that hypothesis? In my oh most humble opinion, which I hesitate even to offer in the presence of such an august audience, people who assert that natural selection mimics design but deny that design is detectable are somewhat confused. It's much like claiming that CSI is not an indicator of design because a program can be designed to generate CSI.Mung
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
sigaba:
Your characterization of mainstream science as an enemy is typical, but it’s not other people’s responsibility to substantiate your claim.
ROFLOL! So, who's responsibility is it to substantiate what you claim our claim ought to be?Phinehas
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
sigaba:
This is rich. The “problem” with setting the demarcation where ID has is that it precludes a favored objection from its detractors. If the demarcation were set where they would like it set, they would exploit it to accuse ID of not being science.
I don’t know how to interpret this statement, if not as a plain admission that ID’s claims are carefully chosen to protect ID from falsifiability or scrutiny.
Let me help sigaba out. ID's demarcation is set where it is because ID is targeted at detecting design. Period. My statement can be interpreted quite easily as a plain admission that ID's detractors wish ID's demarcation were different because they feel more comfortable attacking what they wish ID was than what it actually is. In other words, they'd prefer to attack a straw man, thank you very. And having been caught out attacking a straw man, they proceed to complain that the real opponent ought to be a lot more like their straw man. How downright uncharitable of ID not to accommodate them!Phinehas
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Yes, indeed. I think that design detection is a perfectly valid mode of enquiry, and in regular use in many fields, including, as you suggest, forensics and archaeology (and, indeed, forensic archaeology). Not only that, but in my own field, neuroscience, intention is itself the object of scientific investigation. My criticism of ID is not of the principle of attempting to detect design, but of the specific arguments made, and methods advanced. I don’t think they are valid, for a number of reasons. But I’ve frequently said that I think that ID investigations could be made rigorous. The problem is that that depends on investigating the methods of the designer. Front-loading is one example that might make different predictions to those of evolution. But an all-purpose “Designer must have done it” doesn’t work – because it is simply a gap-filler, and makes no predictions that can be tested. Whereas a designer who, for instance, frontloaded the genome, could, in principle make a testable prediction.
Thanks for your response Lizzie. I think I understand your position far better now. I agree that a designer-of-the-gaps answer is not one that can ever be accepted. However, ID has never been as such for me in either my personal belief structure nor in my field of study (biomed sci). Would I be wrong in assuming that you do not have, necessarily, an objection to the concept of a designer/deity/God, however, you have yet to see any form of scientific inquiry, hypothesis, methodology, that would lead to further scientific understanding over the current paradigm?TSErik
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Why do the investigations have to be “ID?”
They'd have to be consilient with ID, they'd have to produce evidence that's consistent with the claims of ID and not consistent with the modern synthesis.
This is rich. The “problem” with setting the demarcation where ID has is that it precludes a favored objection from its detractors. If the demarcation were set where they would like it set, they would exploit it to accuse ID of not being science.
I don't know how to interpret this statement, if not as a plain admission that ID's claims are carefully chosen to protect ID from falsifiability or scrutiny. Quite the contrary, if the demarcation included identification of a natural designer, it would be science, it just wouldn't be supportable with the presently available evidence. If the demarcation is extended to include a non-natural designer, then you're right, it wouldn't be science. But you were the one that suggested that natural evidence of the designer was reasonable, so I dunno where you are on this. I'm just saying that ID predicts a designer, with a mathematical (CSI) or heuristic model (IC), there should probably be some consilience with physical evidence in order for the claims to be taken seriously. That CSI is not considered credible by mainstream math and IC is little more than Paley's Watch is bad. It's not fatal, though, I see that. But having those hypotheses in hand, however we might have gotten them, they do have to be substantiated by multiple lines of physical evidence. Your characterization of mainstream science as an enemy is typical, but it's not other people's responsibility to substantiate your claim. Theoretical physicists can't discover particles on a blackboard or in a debate. They can guess where to look, and, upon looking, be found to be right, but they guess wrong much more often. Feynman, who BA quotes occasionally, spent five years of his life on Parton theory, which was mathematically consistent but turned out to be incomplete and non-physical. Even granting the mathematical rigor of CSI theory, and granting the exclusively natural status of a designer, that's as far as ID has gotten in three times as many years.sigaba
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
TZErik:
Lizzie, can I ask a question? This is genuine, without malice or snide intent.
Of course :)
A hypothetical. An archaeologist digging in a remote desert comes across an object. It has a fluted urn shape and some kind of staining around it that looks like some beast. The archaeologist, knowing enough about geology, understands that it is unlikely for a dirt/water colloidal suspension to form this shape without the input from some intelligent source. And further unlikely that it would harden and have stain applied upon it’s surface. Because of this the archaeologist deems that, beyond reasonable doubt, this is most likely an artifact formed by some designer. Currently the archaeologist doesn’t know to what people the designer belonged, nor who the designer might have been. At this point the archaeologist sets out to discover those unknowns by analyzing the artifact itself, collecting more samples in the same area, seeing if similar methods of creation are found in the other artifacts, etc. My question at this point would ask; do you find this as a credible form of inquiry? If yes, why is ID theory not an acceptable form of inquiry? If no, does this not invalidate the likes of forensics?
Yes, indeed. I think that design detection is a perfectly valid mode of enquiry, and in regular use in many fields, including, as you suggest, forensics and archaeology (and, indeed, forensic archaeology). Not only that, but in my own field, neuroscience, intention is itself the object of scientific investigation. My criticism of ID is not of the principle of attempting to detect design, but of the specific arguments made, and methods advanced. I don't think they are valid, for a number of reasons. But I've frequently said that I think that ID investigations could be made rigorous. The problem is that that depends on investigating the methods of the designer. Front-loading is one example that might make different predictions to those of evolution. But an all-purpose "Designer must have done it" doesn't work - because it is simply a gap-filler, and makes no predictions that can be tested. Whereas a designer who, for instance, frontloaded the genome, could, in principle make a testable prediction.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
sigaba:
I guess my problem with this is that it’s a bare rhetorical fig leaf without any substantiation. There are no ID investigations on the how, or who, while there are certainly naturalistic (if not specifically ‘Darwinian’) investigations into the OOL.
Why do the investigations have to be "ID?" Especially since OOL investigations don't have to be "Darwinian?" How is the fact that OOL investigations are "naturalistic" pertinent? So what?
The problem with setting the demarcation where you have it is you exclude all lines of novel empirical evidence — it becomes little more than a philosophical veneer or interpretation of existing knowledge while adding no new observations, performing no new experiments, and generating no new data.
This is rich. The "problem" with setting the demarcation where ID has is that it precludes a favored objection from its detractors. If the demarcation were set where they would like it set, they would exploit it to accuse ID of not being science. At times, they try to pretend that it is set where they'd like it set even when it isn't. And then when confronted with where the demarcation is actually set, they complain that it ought not be set there. Priceless. As has been pointed out so eloquently and graciously and a bit humorously earlier in this thread, if "scientists" are so disappointed in how ID is going about detecting design, then surely those "scientists" have the wherewithal to come up with a better method. One gets the sense they are more interested in impeding such investigation than in contributing to it. In case there is still any doubt, may I extend to all scientists everywhere, on behalf of ID, my deepest wish that they investigate both design detection as well as the how or who or whatever else interests them to their heart's content. Seriously. Feel free.Phinehas
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
At this point, you are arguing semantics to evade the point.
The whole point is that the comparison is semantic regardless of who makes it, it's not a rigorous empirical account. It lets human conceits sneak in. It's not wrong, and people of all naturalist/non-naturalist persuasions use phrasing like this all the time. But it's not evidentiary, you can't use it as a primitive basis for other arguments, you can't use the comparison to prove anything.sigaba
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
@sigba
They are in a sense, but I don’t think it’s a productive comparison, you can’t use it to make further inferences. We can’t take one of these comparisons as an analytic statement for a modus ponens, for example. You have to be parsimonious, proteins move this way or that when interacting with ATP, the effects motion on an attached structure, this moves the entire organism. Save the machine comparisons for NOVA.
In this response you are altering the definition of 'machine' to fit your dogmatic ideology. A machine uses moving parts to convert energy into work. That is exactly what motor proteins do. You cannot simply invalidate them because it is inconvenient to your point. It seems as though you are operating under the paradigm that all machines must be inorganic, therefor a motor protein is not a machine. At this point, you are arguing semantics to evade the point. Further, to invoke parsimony then say "proteins move this way or that..." is a bit silly. There are many proteins with many varied functions. But even were we to accept this statement, the same could be said of any mechanical device; that the parts move this way and that when interacting with a specified energy source.TSErik
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
I mean look at is this way: machines have a builder, machines have a purposeful result. When you describe a biological structure as a machine, you've already jumped to conclusions about what its doing and where it came from. Worse, machines are operated and repaired by people, so you invite all sorts of shoddy thinking by imputing volition on the part of the organism that has the machine, and hazy suppositions about the organism's "struggle for survival" or even "struggle to evolve," as if it could some how come up with a better flagellum, like people invent better machines.sigaba
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
You don’t consider motor proteins to be “mechanical”? They, by definition, use ATP to convert energy into mechanical work. Would you not consider DNA to be a code?
They are in a sense, but I don't think it's a productive comparison, you can't use it to make further inferences. We can't take one of these comparisons as an analytic statement for a modus ponens, for example. You have to be parsimonious, proteins move this way or that when interacting with ATP, the effects motion on an attached structure, this moves the entire organism. Save the machine comparisons for NOVA.sigaba
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
These are all great metaphors, but from the very top I’d dispute wether anything in a cell could be considered “mechanical,” let alone manifest “software.” These aren’t testable, they’re the craft of a writer. But, if a designer is a natural thing, physical evidence would have to exist and in its absence we’re left with just they hypothesis.
You don't consider motor proteins to be "mechanical"? They, by definition, use ATP to convert energy into mechanical work. Would you not consider DNA to be a code? These aren't literary allusions in order fit metaphysics.TSErik
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
@56
The disturbing thing is that somebody probably would posit that as an explanation. It would get a following too, no doubt.
I am not the first to suggest this. Arthur C. Clarke in Rendezvous with Rama has, in fact, a crew of astronauts who visit an alien spaceship, and the first officer aboard the ship is a committed worshipper at the "Church of Jesus Christ, Astronaut". He expresses at least once the firm commitment that the Rama probe is holy, and that his followers should be allowed special privileges to examine the craft and venerate it as a relic.
When we look at creatures we see a host of mechanical arrangements which we are trying to mimic. We recognize what they are, but as we squint at them we realise they are a lot better than our attempts. And some molecukar biologists say that we have found motors, gears, editing software etc inside the cell.
These are all great metaphors, but from the very top I'd dispute wether anything in a cell could be considered "mechanical," let alone manifest "software." These aren't testable, they're the craft of a writer. But, if a designer is a natural thing, physical evidence would have to exist and in its absence we're left with just they hypothesis.
Of course there are those who would try to barge down the metaphysical door if even a crack is allowed to appear.
The last 500 years has been the struggle to keep the door to the demon-haunted world shut.sigaba
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
This is simply not true. ID does not rule out any of these “second steps.” On the contrary, ID is fully prepared to recognize them as perfectly acceptable scientific pursuits.
Several authorities are coy on this issue, and the textbooks on the matter say a lot of things, but let's take your side. I guess my problem with this is that it's a bare rhetorical fig leaf without any substantiation. There are no ID investigations on the how, or who, while there are certainly naturalistic (if not specifically 'Darwinian') investigations into the OOL. The problem with setting the demarcation where you have it is you exclude all lines of novel empirical evidence -- it becomes little more than a philosophical veneer or interpretation of existing knowledge while adding no new observations, performing no new experiments, and generating no new data. Without that we're left with an inferential framework that Behe, quite fairly, said compared well to astrology in terms of rigor and approach. This case would be strengthened if specified complexity or irreducible complexity found some sort of application outside of cell biology, but these don't happen because they're useless without subjective judgement and motivated "inference." All this quasi-science is ever applied to is the question of wether or not life is designed. IDEA is full of comparisons to SETI and suggested applications outside of this domain, like in signal processing, but nobody's been actually doing this work, either -- they just keep plugging at the biology. I can only assume that their focus on that is guided by their paymasters, who have textbooks to publish and school districts to sue.sigaba
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Thank you Sigaba for taking the time to deal with my little futuristic adventure. Your comment about Jesus home planet tickled my ribs. Full marks for that one. The disturbing thing is that somebody probably would posit that as an explanation. It would get a following too, no doubt. "As a hypothetical I don’t think you could take anything I said, or anyone else said to the bank." Dashed good of you to behave so modestly here Sigaba. This is what makes a debate and understanding flow. My hat is off to you. "The most proper starting position would be that we don’t know if someone created your city or not" There is a lot to be said in favour of this approach, though some more educated than I may argue that the proper approach is to go with ones intuition and start with the idea of the city being designed but be open to finding natural explanations. For myself, I would be happy with both approaches as after a little fossicking around both should come to the correct conclusion if the evidence is clear enough. "We have a lot of experience with sentient beings, though, being ones ourselves, and if we saw a lot of things that reek of us, like straight lines and mathematical regularity (as opposed to complexity), it’d be a reasonable surmise." You have struck the nail squarely upon the head, as far as I can tell Sigaba. Mind you, I am not too certain of the distinctions and nuances of complexity and mathematical regularities to pass comment on that bit. Your observation about our experience with sentient beings would appear true enough. It is this bit, I think that ID proponents are getting at. When we look at creatures we see a host of mechanical arrangements which we are trying to mimic. We recognize what they are, but as we squint at them we realise they are a lot better than our attempts. And some molecukar biologists say that we have found motors, gears, editing software etc inside the cell. I think that they would say that, if not reeking, there is a least a whiff of an odour about these things which remind us of our own endeavours. Be that via an analogy or quite literally true. Is it reasonable then to allow the pursuit of an investigation of things which smell, even faintly, of sentient activity. Of course there are those who would try to barge down the metaphysical door if even a crack is allowed to appear. Could this be at least some of the reason for the objection to intelligent design theories? The pursuit of investigation would surely be the surest way to eliminate intelligent design from the Science arena, wouldn't it? Sigaba, I am most appreciative of your time and decorum in dealing with me. Thank you. I shall retreat now as I do not wish to hijack this post. I tend to waffle to much if I'm not careful. Please feel free to have the last word though. I have asked for your thoughts and it is only proper that you should have the concluding remarks. Maybe someone else could continue the discussion of this point if they wish. If they do, may they follow Sigaba's fine example in tolerant discussion. Adieu to all.Ho-De-Ho
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
sigaba:
The problem with ID is that all of these second steps are ruled out, and this makes the first surmise little more than an untested (and untestable) hypothesis.
This is simply not true. ID does not rule out any of these "second steps." On the contrary, ID is fully prepared to recognize them as perfectly acceptable scientific pursuits. They are simply not addressed by ID itself, which is specifically targeted at design detection. I don't know why Darwinists seem to struggle so mightily with this concept while at the same time admitting that evolution doesn't address OOL issues. Does this mean that evolution "rules out" the study of OOL issues or otherwise prevents it in any way? But will we see someone show consistency by either dropping this ridiculous allegation against ID or applying the same standard to Darwinism? Keep watching, but I wouldn't hold my breath.Phinehas
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
After a preliminary, and most understable, round of high-fiving, one of the crew says “Coo! We have finally found the remains of another civilization.” Another person says “Gosh!” But then the Captain says. “Steady on now peeps, you are merely using an argument from analogy. We have no idea what the designer of this place is, nor what it is capable of. This place is a natural wonder.”
(As a hypothetical I don't think you could take anything I said, or anyone else said to the bank. As I said before this question is fundamentally political and you can't take the mindset and worldview of a space traveller 500 years in the future as read, and these are relevant, there's no ideal way of looking at this.) The most proper starting position would be that we don't know if someone created your city or not. We have a lot of experience with sentient beings, though, being ones ourselves, and if we saw a lot of things that reek of us, like straight lines and mathematical regularity (as opposed to complexity), it'd be a reasonable surmise. But that's just the start! By looking at the work we'd be able to come to pretty reasonable conclusions about the people that did it, how they did it, how long ago they did it, what the purpose of certain structures was, and so on. We'd also likely find the remains of the builders somewhere, their means of sustenance on the planet, and the reason they no longer occupied the city. We could never be certain about our conclusions but we could come to reasonable guesses that would be developed over time. The problem with ID is that all of these second steps are ruled out, and this makes the first surmise little more than an untested (and untestable) hypothesis. I could present a slightly different scenario, where our astro-men land on a planet and find large stone monoliths in the shape of crosses, and several of our crew demand the planet be venerated as Jesus's home planet (they're Mormons). These among the crew argue with the doubters occasionally and get nowhere, because their arguments are teleological and presumptive, so they spend most of their time writing their congressman to get space law changed to get Intelligent Mineralogy taught in high school classrooms, which is not religious, except for the fact that it admits deities as the only plausible explanation for most of the phenomena we see. When a student asks if we can ever discover who actually created the monoliths, he's told that the teacher is forbidden to discuss it in detail or recommend any particular explanation, as it's philosophical and cannot be determined by any known means. KF-
Design is purposefully directed contingency, and is detectable from its traces. Much as fire investigators routinely identify arson as different from an ordinary fire, even before suspects are listed.
You're not finding the difference between fire and arson, you're using a fire to prove arson exists, and even better, that a spiritual being is the only plausible arsonist.sigaba
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
“An intelligent agent made this thing” is a perfectly good scientific theory. But if a testable hypothesis is to be derived from it, it needs to make a differential prediction. That means that the postulated agent needs to be constrained in some way. It is impossible to test the theory that the intelligent agent was an agent that could do anything at all.
Lizzie, can I ask a question? This is genuine, without malice or snide intent. A hypothetical. An archaeologist digging in a remote desert comes across an object. It has a fluted urn shape and some kind of staining around it that looks like some beast. The archaeologist, knowing enough about geology, understands that it is unlikely for a dirt/water colloidal suspension to form this shape without the input from some intelligent source. And further unlikely that it would harden and have stain applied upon it's surface. Because of this the archaeologist deems that, beyond reasonable doubt, this is most likely an artifact formed by some designer. Currently the archaeologist doesn't know to what people the designer belonged, nor who the designer might have been. At this point the archaeologist sets out to discover those unknowns by analyzing the artifact itself, collecting more samples in the same area, seeing if similar methods of creation are found in the other artifacts, etc. My question at this point would ask; do you find this as a credible form of inquiry? If yes, why is ID theory not an acceptable form of inquiry? If no, does this not invalidate the likes of forensics?TSErik
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
And last but not least. Thank you Jerry for you kind response. Nice to meet you. I shall now try and wire my jaw shut and just listen some more.Ho-De-Ho
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply