Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Four Flaws With The Argument From Suboptimal Design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Today I received an inquiry from a friend who is an atheist regarding the question of suboptimal design in nature. He was interested in learning how I would respond to “apparent instances of poor design, both in humans and throughout the animal kingdom.” He gave a few examples, “rang[ing] from technical design flaws such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve, to vestigial features such as the marsupial mole having non-functioning eyes hidden under its skin, to ‘commonsense’ features such as using the same mouth for both eating and breathing, leading to an untold number of deaths through choking.”

In response, I identified four fundamental flaws with the argument from suboptimal design in nature. Here is my reply:

Thanks for your question. It seems to me that there are several flaws with the argument from ‘suboptimal design’ in nature. For one thing, the ability to detect design does not require that the design be optimal. Windows operating systems have many design flaws – but that doesn’t make them any less designed. The argument carries the assumption that the only candidate for designer is an omnipotent and benevolent deity, but this doesn’t necessarily follow. I happen to believe in such a deity (for, in my judgment, good reasons), but I don’t believe that it logically follows from the evidence of design in biology. Even if one is a theist, I see no problem with the position that God may have acted through secondary causes. Perhaps there is some sort of intrinsic teleology built into the world, for instance, that produces the sort of complex specified information we find so abundantly in living systems.

A second problem with the argument is that it assumes that an intelligent cause would have to produce each living thing de novo. But, again, this doesn’t necessarily follow. The theory of ID (as applied to biology) asserts that there are certain features of living systems that bear hallmarks of an intelligent cause, but this does not necessarily entail a rejection of common ancestry. Perhaps there are constraints on design placed by an organism’s evolutionary history. I happen to be skeptical of universal common ancestry, for reasons that I have articulated in my writings. But it isn’t at all incompatible with ID – in fact, many of my colleagues (e.g. Michael Behe) subscribe to common descent. I’m ambivalent on the issue. I can see some defensible arguments for the idea of hereditary continuity, but I can also see severe scientific problems with it. In my opinion, many evolutionary theorists fall victim to confirmation bias here.

Third, the theory of ID does not require that everything in biology be designed. Indeed, designed artifacts may exhibit evidence of weathering – an example of this would be the once-functional vestigial lenses of marsupial moles which are hidden under the skin.

Fourth, the argument often commits what one might describe as an “evolution-of-the-gaps” fallacy. Whereas the “god-of-the-gaps” fallacy states that “evolution can’t explain this; therefore god must have done it,” the converse “evolution-of-the-gaps” fallacy states that “God wouldn’t have done it that way; therefore evolution must have done it.” It is curious that this dichotomous mode of thinking is precisely what ID proponents are often accused of. Much like “god-of-the-gaps” arguments, the “evolution-of-the-gaps” argument has to retreat with advances in scientific knowledge, as biologists uncover important reasons for the way these features have been designed. One example of this would be the once-thought-to-be-prevalent “junk DNA” in our genomes, for which important function is constantly being identified. I would argue that such design reasons or “trade-offs” are plausible for the recurrent laryngeal nerve that you mention (as well as many of the other examples that are traditionally cited). On this subject, I would invite you to read this article (and the links contained therein) by my colleague Casey Luskin.

I hope this answers your question. Feel free to respond to these remarks.

Kind regards,

Jonathan

Comments
Gregory @ 68 I think that the conventional way to make a rebuttal is to furnish some reason(s) why the challenged statement fails, not to drown people in an avalanche of obtuse jargon. Since you are so firmly ensconced in academia, perhaps you could take a few writing classes to give your prose a modicum of tolerability. Neither is comprehension your forte, for nothing I wrote indicates that I think that humans are robots. The simple point I was making is that the assertion that ID operates by mere analogy hinges on an artificial (or 'false' for those who confuse easily) distinction that can't be justified. And randomly referencing McLuhan is incredibly pretentious...Optimus
January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
Gee, Gregory: My "draft letter" was meant to be light and humorous. I thought you would prefer that to my usual serious and expository style of reply, since you generally denounce every syllable I write in that mode. But I guess I miscalculated. As for Christmas Eve, well, I don't believe in letting academic disagreements get in the way of human relationships, so let me wish you a sincere Merry Christmas, whether you celebrate it on the Western or the Eastern date.Timaeus
December 24, 2012
December
12
Dec
24
24
2012
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
The ‘ID-is-natural-science-only’ line is a joke that has been told far too many times.
The ‘id-is-natural-science-only’ line is a joke that has been told far too many times. There, fixed it fer ya!Mung
December 24, 2012
December
12
Dec
24
24
2012
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Timaeus, Since you seek to put obnoxious words in my mouth, even on Christmas Eve, comments like this one make it easier to understand why you couldn’t achieve tenure or hold on to a university teaching position. I have much more respect and appreciation for Vincent Torley, who is likewise not a professor, than I do for you. It is really not hard to comprehend why Stephen C. Meyer hasn’t followed up on his public comments to Steve Fuller and why he probably won’t elaborate his thoughts about theodicy and Big-ID anytime soon. If you want to ask him yourself, go right ahead. I’m already aware of at least one component of what Meyer’s response would be: damage control. What Meyer said at Cambridge to Fuller blows ‘ID theory’ as it is currently known and idealised by most IDists in the USA today out of the water. The ‘ID-is-natural-science-only’ line is a joke that has been told far too many times. It’s not funny or effective anymore! Apparently Fuller understands this much better than you do. Indeed, if Meyer tried and succeeded in publishing his thoughts about it, if he wrote about Big-ID ‘adjudicating’ between theodicies, the entire precious (Gollum) neutrality myth of BIG-ID – nobody here but us ‘ID scientists’ counting and probabilising – would crumble!! The ‘big tent’ would collapse. Ted Davis has also spoken about this at BioLogos. Suboptimal design? bornagain77 recognises the challenge of “holocausts, gulags, killing fields” that were supposedly ‘intelligently designed/Intelligently Designed.’ I already mentioned “Abu Ghraid, Agent Orange, artificial viruses, bankruptcy, collusion, torture, rape, terrorism, fascism, name your evil; this is ALL ‘intelligently designed’.” It doesn't matter if humans are the culprits because they/we are nevertheless 'intelligent agents' and thus fit the bill of ID theory in that regard. Timaeus of course disagrees because to him, Big-ID theory has *nothing* to do with human choices or actions. It is entirely separate from our humanity, abstract, detached uninvolving personalities. Timaeus may therefore choose again to tuck tail and run back into ‘Origins of Life,’ ‘Origins of BioLogical Information,’ and ‘Human Origins’ as before, protesting that what bornagain77, I and now Stephen C. Meyer mean by involving theodicy with ‘ID’ *should* have nothing to do with ‘real ID,’ with the Timaeusian-variety popular science of Big-ID. If he does this it will show how marginal his views actually are. Once small-id is involved, suboptimal design and theodicy have to be taken more seriously than Meyer and the IDM have thus far allowed. (Dembski’s non-ID book on “The End of Christianity” doesn’t count.) You have already admitted at UD publically that you are marginal in the IDM, in part because you don’t insist on Big-ID’s scientificity, Timaeus. Like Mike Gene and many others who’ve been engaged in discussing (and oftentimes in your case, debating and arguing) Big-ID for several years, you’ve acknowledged that philosophy and theology are inevitably involved in the meaning of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design,’ even if a specific ‘classic’ ID-theology is not forthcoming. I’ve been saying this for years, but you could never find the courage to build on this, preferring criticism and numb opposition instead. The consequences of Meyer’s admission about theodicy and Big-ID shouldn’t be so surprising to you, if only you could see deeper into Fuller’s approach as it relates to ‘classic theism’ and society today. Since you’ve so warmly tried to help me by drafting your own letter to Meyer, allow me to make a ‘practical suggestion’ to you: take off your internet sock-puppet and actually participate with your reputation behind your personality in the discussion. If you lose your job for it, at least you’ll be able to sleep at night knowing you had the courage to share your voice and face the consequences. But please don’t continue with your dehumanising façade that personalities and communities have nothing to do with this topic because they/we obviously do. Otherwise it’s just a mockery and misanthropic reality you are engaging in for purposes of your own fantasy. Aside from anything Timaeus says I’m still curious to hear from StephenB above. At least his Argument #1 vs. Argument #2 challenge has been answered.Gregory
December 24, 2012
December
12
Dec
24
24
2012
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
I'm not going to jump into the long and complex arguments here between Gregory and everyone else, partly because I don't have time to untangle all the different types and levels of disagreement, and partly because, as far as I can see, every question Gregory is asking has been answered here a dozen times before, so his constant complaint that no one will answer his questions is baseless. Nor will I complain that he left a substantial response of mine unanswered on the last thread on which we "met." Nor will I complain about his gross mischaracterization of ID people as people who favor "science uber alles." I'll simply make a practical suggestion. Gregory has been going on for months now about Meyer and Fuller, demanding that people all over the web explain, or confess, what Meyer's remarks imply for the future of ID. He could get a much more satisfactory answer to his question *by asking Meyer*. Meyer works at Discovery; he has an e-mail address there. It is incomprehensible to me why Gregory would engage in months of armchair theorizing about what Meyer might have meant, when he could simply *ask* Meyer what he meant. What prevents it? Let me help Gregory along with a rough draft of his inquiry: "Dear Dr. Meyer. Do you remember me -- Gregory? I was one of the star students in the Discovery summer course in the year 20--. I heard some of your wonderful lectures there, and you may remember that I asked lots of good and insightful questions. Well, I've since acquired a Ph.D. in Eastern Europe and am now teaching social science there. I have a question for you about your remark during Steve Fuller's lecture at Cambridge. "Did you mean to say that you are breaking with those Discovery Fellows who think that intelligent design theory can do genuine natural science and not make prior theological judgments which affect how they do it? Did you mean to say that a "science of design detection" as applied to natural objects (species, the first life, etc.), and conducted in the absence of commitments in theology, is a pipe dream, and that it is time that the "Big-ID" movement abandoned it and explicitly embraced a theological position? And does this mean that you are abandoning the central thesis of your recent 500-page opus magnum, on the basis of Fuller's talk? "I confess that I have not read your new book, being not much interested in biological questions or natural science questions generally, or in design detection as applied to nature, but surely I don't need to have read your current book to understand your current thought. Surely what I remember of your views from several years ago is good enough. So I hope you won't mind clarifying your position for me and letting me know if you will soon be leaving the "Big-ID" world of Discovery to join forces with Fuller. "Yours sincerely, Gregory."Timaeus
December 24, 2012
December
12
Dec
24
24
2012
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Thanks Mung, but I'll wait for StephenB & Optimus to respond, since my comments directly address theirs. Genomicus' comment is likewise not relevant, since biologism is a disease that some IDists seem to wish to flourish. Seasonal quip - The manger: an example of 'sub-optimal design' - no room at the inn? Measurement challenges if invoking only natural sciences...Gregory
December 24, 2012
December
12
Dec
24
24
2012
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT
Gregory:
If little progress is made, this might be my last post here.
Hard to tell what you would consider progress. Shall we discuss how humans design things and see what, if anything, can be inferred from that wrt non-human artifacts?Mung
December 22, 2012
December
12
Dec
22
22
2012
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Optimus #62, You are trying to make equal what is not equal. That can be a dangerous thing.
“objects made by people are of a fundamentally different nature than those that are not a product of artifice.”
Yes. If you explore my approach & chosen language, I contend that human-made things are of a fundamentally different CHARACTER than those ‘produced’ by nature. This ‘personalises’ the conversation, rather than depersonalising it as objectivistic Big-ID does. ‘Artificial’ and ‘Natural’ are thus meaningfully different terms, which should not be conflated for information-scientistic purposes.
“there is no good reason to engage in special pleading when analyzing biological systems.”
Actually, there is and there are. It is important to distinguish objects of study, engage them with methods and construct theories, experiments and tests appropriate to the field. Your logic above is the same as what the socio-biologists used (and eVo psychs still use) to insist that it is our (human) biology that makes us unique as a species and not culture, intelligence or spirituality. There are more layers or nodes in the network involved here than you seem to yet realise. Your brand of information theory sounds like grey goo!
“Imagine how bizzare it would be to expect that a force like gravity must by necessity treat man-made objects differently than ‘natural’ o[b]jects.”
We don’t have to so imagine because the main point is that we as people are the ones ‘treating’ and interpreting natural and artificial objects. We are not robots or ‘value-free’ flesh machines living neutrally or automatically. We as peopleare functionally creative on Earth in a way that GRAVITY is not!! Do you speak this language, understand the point? I treat what I make differently than gravity and nature treat those things...and the same is true with what you personally make, even if you don’t (theoretically) think so.
“Information is information regardless of the medium”
That has yet to be demonstrated in a comprehensive and globally meaningful way by a(n as yet to be unnamed) genius of information theory. Not sure about you, but I have studied a considerable amount of information theory and systems theory; not in biology, mind you. The way many information and systems theorists speak where I am familiar plainly challenges your ‘universal informationist’ (aka 'grey goo' - it eats everything) approach. Please realise this before you pronounce such platitudes as the one above. And if you have the inkling to want to claim that Big-ID theory is just about ‘biology,’ then I’ve got hogs out back for you to wash. Iow, I’ve heard too many claims to the contrary in the IDM – e.g. ID and ‘all humane studies’ – M. Behe. The medium is important for its message, yes. Surely I agree with this as a McLuhanite (McLuhan being a far more profound theorist of i-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n than Dembski). But let’s not dehumanise ourselves in the process of defining information in a reductionist, scientistic way that excludes philosophy and theology/worldview. On this can we not agree?Gregory
December 22, 2012
December
12
Dec
22
22
2012
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
(cont’d) Returning to Meyer’s support of Fuller’s non-Big-ID approach to ID and what StephenB could gain from it: How then does/can one ‘empirically’ adjudicate between theodicies if theodicy is inherently an extra-empirical theme or topic in theology? It seems we must start by directly facing theodicy as if ‘design/Design’ is not just a natural scientific topic and this will increase awareness of why people continue to bring up ‘sub-optimal design/Design,’ even though you folks think you’ve ‘proven’ no need to do so. Even if people respond with natural scientific metrics for ‘sub-optimal design/Design,’ behind this (and often more important than it) is the larger discourse of philosophy and theology/worldview. Again, it is refreshing that Fuller seems to have gotten through to Meyer on this, though it remains to be seen if Meyer will develop this further.
“ID, from a scientific perspective, could, as Meyer suggests, ‘adjudicate’ between different conceptions of theodicy by suggesting that some accounts fit the empirical evidence better than others.” – StephenB
There’s no need for such imbalance towards ‘scientific perspective.’ What would ID, from a science, philosophy, theology perspective look like, instead of simply a reductionistic science-only perspective, bent towards empiricism? Iow, StephenB, if you dropped the empiricist approach to ID you now seem to hold, i.e. that only empirical evidence counts as ‘evidence,’ how would that change your understanding of this non-Darwinian theory? If you allow that non-empirical evidence nevertheless counts as evidence, then please stop repeating the mantra about how empirical ID must be to qualify as science, when that’s not the main point. The vast majority of people are on the side of Fuller and myself in rejecting the notion that ID is ‘natural science-only.’ That’s a sociological fact. And there is also a legal precedent stating this in the American judicial system.
“How [then] does one integrate Biblical (and philosophical) methods, which speak to God’s goodness, with scientific methods, which speak to nature’s design patterns?” – StephenB
A fair and challenging question, which doesn’t seem framed as attempting to trap someone/anyone who doesn’t accept Big-ID theories. It requires a multifaceted answer and I will inevitably fail to do it full justice, but here's an attempt: First, I’d suggest working to humanise the discourse of natural sciences into a broader horizon of knowledge relating human beings (as not just physical, but also spiritual) to the earth/universe. Second, take off your hat and admit that ‘scientific’ methods include those that are ‘reflexive’ not just those that are ‘positive’ (read: positivistic) in orientation. Right now, Big-ID is attempting to positivise a topic that is highly resistant to positivisation, i.e. empirical evidence of OoL & OoBI. Third, drop the expected language of ‘design’ from between the words ‘nature’s’ and ‘patterns’ in your above language – it is assuming what you are trying to prove. Fourth, jump on board with Fuller and I and many, many others who clearly and attentively recognise the contradictions in the IDM’s approach, dependent on a ‘little-big tent’ for resources, which unwittingly chains itself to a scientistic view of reality – ID *must* be ‘strictly natural-scientific’ in order even to ‘count,’ according to IDists themselves! Fifth, realise that R. Dawkins, S. Harris, J. Coyne, P.Z. Myers, E. Scott, D. Dennett, M. Ruse, et al. are by far *not* the most important dialogue partners for ID; you are playing right into their hands without recognising it. Thus, may you come to understand that to actually move beyond Darwin’s ideas (side note: I asked Denyse what ‘post-Darwinian’ meant not long after her blog appeared, and she deferred answering to ‘Margulis says so, so it must be’), you’ve got to stop talking about him and them and move beyond with something and someone new in particular. I’ve already done that and Fuller is an interesting and very insightful guide should you choose that journey. Sixth, start studying more PoS, including Koyré, Popper, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Habermas, Heller, et al. (iow, not only the narrow analytical tradition) in addition to looking at the transition from PoS to SoS (Fuller, Collins, Latour), which studies how people interpret science in society, in their lives. Seventh, read the Sacred Text, meditating on God’s divine action in a way that is meaningful to people, not just something that can be rationally or technically calculated in some disenchanted, disembodied, detached, distant (cf. probabilistic, statistical!) way as an imagined new 'Waterloo' praying to destroy Darwinian evoution. Iow, live your ‘design’ theory as a human being who him- or her-self designs (and who may or may not believe you are intelligently and caringly created imago Dei), not just thinking, hypothesizing intervention/guidance/direction about the far away past, origins that no one will ever see, but about the actual present and also the future. We are guiding, directing, choosing, acting now, and not just naturally! Make your understanding of design/Design meaningful by more than simple (pseudo-apologetic, neo-evangelical) implicationism!
“there is no reason why design theory should be involved as a matter of scientific empirical investigation with theological/philosophical debates over theodicies and defenses etc.” – KF
Obviously Stephen C. Meyer disagrees. Again, the main point:
“‘intelligent design’ is an integrative science, philosophy, theology conversation first and foremost. Fuller showed how wrong the IDM’s ‘science-only’ approach to ‘design/Design’ actually is and why it is not necessary to believe that.”
This should not be such a difficult leap for many of you to make. If you folks would disagree with this, at least with the first sentence, then wrestle we must.Gregory
December 22, 2012
December
12
Dec
22
22
2012
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
So why again are you trying to re-shift the focus of ID while you're not trying to do that for gravity, germ theory, the RNA world, etc.?Genomicus
December 22, 2012
December
12
Dec
22
22
2012
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
There’s not much spare time these days, but I’d rather not leave this thread unanswered. If little progress is made, this might be my last post here. The previous points stand already on their own related to ‘sub-optimal’ so-called ‘design,’ starting with Jon Garvey, who didn’t respond (understandably so) to the fact that since he believes ‘everything is designed’ then ‘designism’ must at least be contemplated for what it means as a universalist-seeking ideology. What are examples of things that aren’t ‘designed/Designed’ is just as important a question as asking: what are examples of things that don’t evolve/Evolve? Jon’s answer/question was instructive in suggesting why IDists, the majority whom are evangelical Protestants, though with some Catholics also, are so reluctant to discuss ‘sub-optimal Design’ or theodicy:
“Do you know a few things that God didn’t make that will make me seem foolish for saying that he creates and sustains everything in being?”
I’m not going to address StephenB’s intra- vs. inter- regarding dialogue vs. methodology because it is too muddy already. With regard to general methods that can be applied across disciplines, obviously StephenB is simply not a believer. We are both promoting inter- & intra-disciplinary dialogue, so at least minimal agreement can be found at that. What is easily undone and put to rest is StephenB’s claim of contradiction (first articulated it seems by Timaeus). He says:
“Argument #1: ID ought to become a theological/philosophical/scientific enterprise. Argument #2: ID is already a theological/philosophical/scientific enterprise.”
Then he corrected himself in his interpretation of my position:
“You argue for [#2] and support Fullers argument on behalf of [#1]. How do you resolve that contradiction?”
There is no contradiction if StephenB will think outside of the Big-ID box. Fuller says #2 is ‘real ID’ or ‘authentic ID.’ Fuller’s view of ID is not some group-think (Pajaro Dunes) tank inspired, right-wing evangelicalism funded, neo-creationist linked, Americanised (run by politicians) approach to ID. Please interpret this as speaking truth to power because this UD site is part of that IDM in which Fuller is not an activist and doesn’t wish to be. He has higher and broader interests than the “very limited inquiry” (Eric Anderson) which is what more and more people these days are calling Big-ID. He doesn’t want to do biology or origins of life studies; he isn’t interested in studying fossils, becoming a post-neo-evolutionary anthropologist or an engineer or programmer of digital organisms for an alternative to Avida or LTEE. But he is interested in ‘thinking God’s thoughts’ as a person created in God's image and what that means today and in the future as we both ‘design’ and ‘actualise’ our lives and surroundings. I agree with Fuller about ‘real ID’ because it just makes the most sense...as long as a person is reflexive and does not act like someone tricked into a science-uber-alles attitude towards knowledge. Iow, if someone has their priorities straight and their heart open they will conclude this. Those who cannot see why this is are often trapped by a very narrow Philosophy of Science (e.g. methodological vs. metaphysical naturalism), which both Fuller and I have outgrown, but which is still a vantage point out of the reach of most Americans who were never trained in PoS and who are still stuck reminiscing about Dayton and Dover Trials as if they are definitive moments in global scientific ‘progress’ or ‘regress.’ Reality check: they are not. Meyer is probably ahead of most in the IDM on this, educated in HPS at Cambridge and this explains why he identified intuitively (thought he has done nothing known further) with Fuller’s non-Big-ID approach, including theodicy, in their recent encounters in the UK and Italy. There are limits to scientific explanations that need to be more clearly expressed in the so-called ‘scientific age.’ Fuller and I are approaching this topic in a much deeper and comprehensive way than virtually all IDists in the IDM, who narrowly (and imo counter-productively) insist upon Big-ID as a ‘science-only’ topic. There’s little need to think about ‘ID’ as if it has “nothing to do with OOL issues,” is what StephenB suggested. So what – if it nevertheless still has to do with ID in the broader sense and in the sense most meaningful to human beings, which inevitably involves philosophy and theology/worldview in addition to ‘mere’ science? (cont’d)Gregory
December 22, 2012
December
12
Dec
22
22
2012
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
Gregory: First, the problem is that OOL is the ROOT of the tree of life, so to assert that materialist molecules to man evolution is a fact so grounded that questioning it is comparable to holocaust denial {I am here alluding to Dawkins c 2009], one HAS to have solid answers. To make such assertions in a case where one has speculative reconstructions on processes that have not been shown capable of giving rise to the said effect, is to go beyond what is reasonable. But that is just what has been done. On the other side, as I pointed out previously, FSCO/I rich systems involving IC have been shown to be integral to cell based life. But, we have known causes for FSCO/I and good reason to believe that proposed alternatives are not cre4dible -- chance and mechanical necessity. That is FSCO/I is an empiricaly reliable sign of intelligent cause. The problem here is not the evidence or reasoning, it is that it cuts across a dominant ideology. Next,t here is no reason why design theory should be involved as a matter of scientific empirical investigation with theological/philosophical debates over theodicies and defenses etc. Identification that design is involved does not imply that a sole designer is responsible for all we see. Indeed we know that computers are subject to malicious software and have to involve immune systems to protect them, not wholly successfully. Why not living systems, too? KFkairosfocus
December 17, 2012
December
12
Dec
17
17
2012
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Correction @59 in my correspondence to Gregory: I mistakenly placed the numbers in the wrong place. It should read: "Yes, it’s a real problem for you. You argue for [#2] and support Fullers argument on behalf of [#1]. How do you resolve that contradiction?StephenB
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Gregory @ 54 The proposition that ID depends solely on argument from analogy depends upon a false dichotomy, namely that objects made by people are of a fundamentally different nature than those that are not a product of artifice. I think there are at least two reasons why that contrast is illegitimate. (1) Both man-made and 'natural' [in this context - 'product of chance and necessity'] objects comprise particular arrangements of matter and energy that inhabit the same universe. This mandates the corollary (2) that both man-made and 'natural' objects are subject to the same universal laws - e.g. gravitation, thermodynamics, probability, etc. This means that there is no good reason to engage in special pleading when analyzing biological systems. If functional information encoded in the English language by intelligent agents is beyond the universal probability bound, then an equal amount of functional information encoded in a genetic sequence likewise lies beyond that probability bound. One can't say 'well this isn't man-made, so it's not fair to apply information theory in analyzing it.' If the information content in the one mandates intelligent agency as its causal explanation, so must it do for the other. Imagine how bizzare it would be to expect that a force like gravity must by necessity treat man-made objects differently than 'natural' ojects. 'We know that an apple will fall to the ground if we let it go, but it's not right to apply that knowledge to a baseball! That's an illegitimate argument from analogy. We can only predict that it will fall if we've already seen other baseballs fall to the ground!' Information is information regardless of the medium - sound waves, electromagnetic waves, print in a newspaper, 1s and 0s in a computer, or nulceotide sequences in DNA. Mechanical complexity is mechanical complexity regardless of where it's found - typewriters, mousetraps, combustion engines, cillia, flagella, door locks, tertiary and quarternary protein structure, clocks, or hearts. The same rules apply.Optimus
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Thanks for the great article, Jonathan. I find it amusing that so many people continue to trot out the 'bad design' argument. Behe addressed this quite adeptly years ago in Darwin's Black Box. It's such a blatant non-sequitur to jump from 'I don't like this aspect of a system' to 'Neo-Darwinian evolution is causally adequate to explain it.' EDTA @ 51 really nailed the subjectivity of the bad design argument. It's little more than overestimating the worth of one's own opinion. In a way it's almost like a variant of the 'if a tree falls and I don't hear it, it doesn't make a sound' way of thinking; in this case, though, it's 'if I don't approve of the arrangement of this system, it wasn't designed.'Optimus
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
correction: "Getting back to what [Meyer] meant in responding to Fuller’s presentation."StephenB
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Gregory:
Some methods are shared methods, which are used by multiple disciplines. That should not be hard to admit.
That comment is not precise enough to respond to.
Your main point in #49 and above seems to be simply this: ‘there are different methods and different methods are not the same.
The point was that intra-disciplinary corroboration can only be achieved by using different methodologies. A single methodology cannot corroborate itself.
That’s fine and it also shows you’ve moved on from thinking there is *only one scientific method* that applies across the board.
Since I have never made such a claim, there is nothing to move on from. I have said that a specific methodology (you pick it) cannot be merged with another specific methodology as an amalgamation of methodologies.
One problem with your approach using ‘intra-‘ vs. ‘inter-‘ is that it reifies the boundaries of disciplines too strictly.
That each discipline overlaps with another discipline is no secret. I have made that point many times. It has nothing to do with the fact that different specific methodologies cannot be merged into a single unified methodology. Example: The process of Biblical Textual Criticism cannot be merged with Chemistry’s Decantation Process. It might be possible for the chemist to compare his findings with those of the theologian through interdisciplinary DIALOGUE, but it is not possible to design a unified METHODOLOGY that will address both issues. If Steve Fuller is suggesting otherwise, then he (and you) need to explain how it is possible. Simply making the claim that it can be done will not suffice. And if he (and you) are not making that claim, then you are simply advocating dialogue, which ID (and me) would support.
The ‘sub-optimality’ argument takes on a different form if/when THEODICY is brought to bear on ID, which Stephen C. Meyer has publically said it should. As Steve Fuller’s ID approach makes him ask (in the slightly adjusted words of), “why would God put such care into designing pathogens and parasites?” Likewise, “ID theorists need to grapple with theodicy in order to defuse the rejection of God’s goodness in nature.”
As I have pointed out, that problem is solved by interdiscinplinay dialogue, which is easily achieved, not by interdiscinplinary methodology, which is impossible.
Personally, I don’t see this as a natural science-only field [OOL]. Iow, it inevitably and inescapably involves philosophy and theology/worldview.
A scientific abduction is not a religious/philosophical presupposition. It just isn't. Returning to your contradictory arguments: Argument #1: ID ought to become a theological/philosophical/scientific enterprise. Argument #2: ID is already a theological/philosophical/scientific enterprise. .
Yes, that’s a real conundrum, isn’t it? = ))
Yes, it’s a real problem for you. You argue #1 and support Fullers argument on behalf of #2. How do you resolve that contradiction?
What do you mean by adding ‘at least for now’ to your claim above? Are you suggesting IDists could eventually change/evolve their definition of ‘ID’ to involve more than just ‘science only’?! That’s interesting…
I am open to the possibility that a meaningful dialogue can be achieved by theologians and scientists. Getting back to what did Meyer meant in responding to Fuller’s presentation. By my interpretation, he meant exactly what he said. ID might be able to “adjudicate” between competing understandings of theodicy [inter-discinplinary dialogue]. I agree. How did you interpret his comments? Did you interpret him to mean that ID might be able to develop its own theodicy while remaining an empirical research project? If so, then we have something substantive to discuss since I would disagree with that interpretation. Beyond that, you must be specific. How does one integrate Biblical (and philosophical) methods, which speak to God's goodness, with scientific methods, which speak to nature's design patterns? Don't just tell me that you are an expert, show me that you are an expert.StephenB
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Perhaps if we can agree on that, it will make more sense to you why I am criticising the claim made by many IDists that ID theory is about natural science-only. For many of the topics ID is concerned about, it can’t just be a natural science-only theory. It must involve philosophy and theology/worldview too. And StephenB seems to reluctantly, with great hesitation agree.
No, ID doesn't have to invoke theology (every scientific endeavor employs philosophical considerations, so I'm not sure what you're point is there). If we have a hypothesis about how life was designed (i.e., mechanisms), and we go out and test that hypothesis, and find it is supported, then that is a general framework for the origin of life. No theology needed.Genomicus
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Typo: should be Feyerabend. Added: So far, his (il)logic has failed to convince most religious believers.Gregory
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
To StephenB, Some methods are shared methods, which are used by multiple disciplines. That should not be hard to admit. Your main point in #49 and above seems to be simply this: ‘there are different methods and different methods are not the same.’ That’s fine and it also shows you’ve moved on from thinking there is *only one scientific method* that applies across the board. Understanding from HPS has shown ‘multiple methods’ (not just triangulation), as you acknowledge. The 'single scientific method' myth should be burst in American PoS. Feyerband did this, but he's not well known in your tradition. One problem with your approach using ‘intra-‘ vs. ‘inter-‘ is that it reifies the boundaries of disciplines too strictly. Indeed, there are some in-between fields, such as biophysics or biochemistry, behaviour genetics, cognitive sciences, social psychology, human geography, etc. A good example is ‘forensics,’ which IDists like to use as a ‘historical science,’ the latter which is also an interdisciplinary signifier. The ‘sub-optimality’ argument takes on a different form if/when THEODICY is brought to bear on ID, which Stephen C. Meyer has publically said it should. As Steve Fuller’s ID approach makes him ask (in the slightly adjusted words of Jon Garvey), “why would God put such care into designing pathogens and parasites?” Likewise, “ID theorists need to grapple with theodicy in order to defuse the rejection of God’s goodness in nature.” This gets to the notion that being an IDist (who believes in [a] transcendent designer[s]/Designer[s]) and an atheist is self-contradictory, though many here disagree that must be true. I agree with KF that “it is all too easy to make up just so stories and simplistic models.” This is especially the case in highly speculative fields, one of the most speculative, nay, perhaps the Mother of the most speculative, being ‘Origins of Life.’ Personally, I don’t see this as a natural science-only field. Iow, it inevitably and inescapably involves philosophy and theology/worldview. Not even atheists can convince us otherwise. Perhaps if we can agree on that, it will make more sense to you why I am criticising the claim made by many IDists that ID theory is about natural science-only. For many of the topics ID is concerned about, it can’t just be a natural science-only theory. It must involve philosophy and theology/worldview too. And StephenB seems to reluctantly, with great hesitation agree. “If your mind was open, you would confess that a bird’s wings are obviously designed.” – StephenB If so, that would be a philosophical or theological/worldview-inspired confession. It would be presumptuous to say that it is a ‘natural scientific-only’ confession…unless one's name is Adrian Bejan. But that would also be to confess agreeing to the ideology of scientism, which most IDists don't wish to do. “You, who are not a philosopher of science, claim that you understand ID philosophy better than Meyer, who is a philosopher of science.” – StephenB Meyer’s a geophysicist (physics/earth science) and historian/philosopher of science. My training includes PhD level examinations in history and philosophy of science in the non-Anglo-Saxon tradition, which does offer a significant advantage (cf. MN vs. MN dreariness in Meyer's Anglo-HPS tradition). When I call out Meyer on his ambiguity wrt theodicy, my formal training in philosophy of science contributes by recognizing the limits of natural scientific explanations. It seems that Meyer and I would find agreement on that approach. “ID is—-science only—-at least for now.” – StephenB Actually, I would just say Big-ID is not much for now. Your 'science-only' is a utopian dream, StephenB! “Argument #1: ID ought to become a theological/philosophical/scientific enterprise. Argument #2: ID is already a theological/philosophical/scientific enterprise.” – StephenB Yes, that’s a real conundrum, isn’t it? = )) Remember though, StephenB, I am not telling IDists what ID should become. They can create their own private fantasy, as can any like-minded community. I am not *in* the IDM and want no part of being associated with Big-ID as it is currently formulated. John West knows eye-to-eye what I mean because we discussed this at the DI's Summer Program. He is largely responsible for the later shift from "ID in Humanities and Social Sciences" to C.S. Lewis, Christian apologist and non-social scientist, employed for the cause of Big-ID. What do you mean by adding ‘at least for now’ to your claim above? Are you suggesting IDists could eventually change/evolve their definition of ‘ID’ to involve more than just ‘science only’?! That's interesting... “ID does not depend on Romans 1:20 to make its case nor can it appeal to any hermeneutical methodology for help in forming the scientific argument.” – StephenB Hermeneutics is involved in all sciences and scholarly fields, even mathematics. It doesn’t seem necessary to so strictly compartmentalise ‘hermeneutics’ from ‘the scientific argument’ (read: hypothesis) for ID. “Because ID is an empirically based project grounded in reason, it can enter into a dialogue with theology, which is a faith-based project grounded in reason.” – StephenB O.k., then when should ID enter into dialogue with theology, even as you separate the two by calling one ‘science’ and one ‘not science’? Dembski tempted people already in 1999 with his suggestion that ID is THE BRIDGE between science and theology. So far, his logic has failed to convince most religious believers. “It’s not Meyer’s job to explain what you mean, it is your job to explain what you mean.” – StephenB Well, it is Meyer’s job, as Director of the DI’s Centre for Science and Culture, to say what he means. And frankly, he’s got serious explaining to do wrt what he said publically to Fuller about his support of ID and theodicy. Did he really mean what he said there or not? “Using ID science to confirm theological principles is precisely what Fuller is calling for and what you are chiding ID purists for resisting.” – StephenB No, I’m saying that ID is properly called a science, philosophy, theology/worldview inter-related topic. Take away any of those mega-realms and the argument loses most, if not all of its explanatory power (which is why its sometimes frustrating here when people remove from ID almost all of its explanatory power making it next to zero on the ‘so what’ meter, then claim some kind of rhetorical victory, which is simply based on ‘implications’). Well, we agree on the implications; with the inclusion of theodicy, it is about time ID theorists and proponents face that. p.s. to KF, yes, first, I'm not an "evolutionary materialist" as you already know, and second, ID feasts on analogism, but has no theory of 'instantiation' because it refuses to talk about 'design process,' unlike the vast majority of 'design theory' in the world that is already a success in context (and doesn't confuse OoL with human-made things!). OoL doesn't need mousetraps for its theorising - too crude!Gregory
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Gregory: From what I gather, you have been around design issues for some time, so you should know the difference between analogy and instantiation. A mousetrap is an irreducibly complex object and arguably a case of functionally specific complex organisation once the full specs to get one to work are put in place. The relationship to OOL is easily seen from what a living cell is: a metabolising automaton that is self replicating, and involves specifically a von Neumann code based self replicator, vNSR. The vNSR is easily shown to be IC, and to be far more complex than a mousetrap. The mousetrap then becomes a toy example you can bang away on in your garage, that shows what sort of issues come up once you are looking at IC entities and have to confront Menuge's constraints C1 - 5. Now, we know that entities exhibiting IC and FSCO/I are integral to the function of cell based life. We know that such IC and FSCO/I have but one empirically grounded analytically -- needle in haystack -- reasonable source. So, we have reason to infer on sign that the FSCO/I and associated IC elements of the living cell are best explained as designed. But that is a component that is integral to the living cell, so we have excellent grounds to infer tha the living cell as a whole, which embeds and critically depends on those aspects, is also designed. And there is no need to get into debates that we have not yet built an entire living cell from scratch. Or, even to point tothe genetic engineering work and trends that show that such design is feasible and probably would not require anything beyond a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond Venter and co. That is, we see a reasonable candidate for sufficient cause. The that's an analogy and the analogy fails argument collapses. Now, on analogy itself. There is a tendency to disparage analogies as though they were essentially fallacious and dismissible. The problem here is that analogical reasoning is close to the heart of inductive reasoning in general, which is in turn the main means by which we get to knowledge of the world of experience and observation. Such reasoning is subject to defeaters, but the abstract possibility of error is a very different thing from having good reason to accept that a given case is erroneous. To demand of ID related inductive discussions that they must in effect meet standards for deductive proofs, is therefore selectively hyperskeptical. Instead, accept that we are living in a world where we must infer on all sorts of reasonable or plausible grounds, and that such are going to be provisional but in a great many cases are very well grounded, including amounting to moral certainty. I am morally certain from experience and observation that you and other creatures that appear similar to me -- even just through posting FSCO/I rich English language strings beyond 500 bits on blogs like UD -- are real and have minds of your own, but am very aware that I cannot prove such beyond doubt on a deductive basis. I have here reasoned on family resemblance, backed up by models of humanity. Do you wish to argue here that such reasoning is fallacious and I am free to assume unless proved otherwise beyond doubt per deductions from premises acceptable to all possible challengers that you are lucky noise or some sort of zombie figure that only LOOKS like a person? Similarly, life itself, the subject of study of biology, has no generally accepted genus-difference or precising, necessary and sufficient conditions definition. Instead, commonly encountered characteristics and a sort of key instance and close enough family resemblance approach has been used. Should I dismiss biology as utterly fallacious because it is using analogies here? We need to respect the role analogy plays in our thinking, being aware of its strengths and limitations. In so doing, we should not play the sort of game where by saying something like we have not built a living cell from scratch yet we cannot reason from cases of FSCO/I in our technology to such in the living cell. And I spoke of Marxists as cases from my youth that are comparable to the evolutionary materialists who dominate much of the thinking in this area today. With all due respect, such last have fellow travellers, just as did the marxists. And there are those who think that design theory is such that they must dissociate themselves from it at all costs. And more, I need not go on. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
@KF #50: You didn’t mention what mousetraps (or basic steam engines) have to do with OoL. Could you please make the connection more directly or explicitly? I interpret the act of comparing human-made things with non-human-made things as an analogical argument, don’t you? For many IDists, analogy is the ‘axis upon which everything turns.’ “What is easy to say rhetorically and sounds plausible, is another whole deal when you have to try to get it to work on the ground.” – KF Yes, that is precisely the case in that none of us here has any ‘experience’ creating or designing the Origin(s) of Life millions of years ago. This is what makes Stephen C. Meyer’s logic – “causes which are known [i.e. by *present experience*] to produce the kinds of effects you are trying to explain” – break down. The ‘effects of intelligence’ come from humans (i.e. ‘extensions of man’) wrt mousetraps and steam engines. Otoh, OoL is a categorically different topic, for which we have no ‘natural’ experience. Meyer stretches the analogy too far. p.s. @sagebrush gardener #52 - since KF's statement in #50 was a response to me, you should know that I am not a Darwinist (or a Marxist). Thanks for remembering this.Gregory
December 16, 2012
December
12
Dec
16
16
2012
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
SG & EDTA: Excellent thoughts, that are quite complementary. Optimising is a case of seeking to get to a peak of some objective function under constraint, to gain a maximum benefit, or to minimise a cost or loss or undesirable. From game theory and optimisation we should know that it leads to unexpected outcomes, especially where one of the constraints becomes robustness. And, where we do not fully understand the complexities involved, it is all too easy to make up just so stories and simplistic models then demand to know why the real deal does not match up to our expectations. (BTW, that was one of my concerns regarding Marxism in the days of my youth as a student on a Marxism-dominated campus. It is also my concern as I behold the ways in which advocates of evolutionary materialist theories of origins tend to argue and to think.) Okay, I have a few things to attend to around UD, so pardon. KFkairosfocus
December 15, 2012
December
12
Dec
15
15
2012
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
KF@50:
What is easy to say rhetorically and sounds plausible, is another whole deal when you have to try to get it to work on the ground.
Exactly. The naiveté of the Darwinists with their oh-it-just-happened-like-this scenarios reminds me of children trying to build a space ship in their back yard from discarded cardboard boxes and tin cans. The ideas that seem so plausible in their youthful enthusiasm are in reality more complicated than expected to get off the ground. That doesn't stop them from having a grand time with it though.sagebrush gardener
December 14, 2012
December
12
Dec
14
14
2012
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
Many comments hit around this idea, but perhaps it deserves a comment unto itself: If we are going to talk about optimality, then we have to define it. In biological terms, as with any engineering discipline, how is "optimal" defined? In software engineering, a field I know something about, programs can be fast, bug-free, small, cheap, quick to create, easy to understand, easy for other programmers to understand and maintain, and so on. All desirable characteristics, yet I have never seen a program which was all of the above simultaneously. The same holds true analogously for any other field of engineering. So in biology, when we claim a nerve or arrangement of organs, etc., is sub-optimal, what axis are you measuring it along? Least amount of matter needed? Shortest paths for nerves, shortest path for fluid flow, fastest reaction times, longest life, least energy consumed to maintain life, smallest surface area, what???? In fact, the evolutionist's goal seems to be "find the axis along which this critter will flunk some test, and then proclaim that they flunk it!" In the end, the whole argument against design from sub-optimality presumes that you know the designers goals, priorities, self-imposed constraints, etc. (It even presumes that we would be able to _comprehend_ all of a higher being's goals!) But we already know that we don't need to know the Designer's goals or methods to recognize that something was designed. The whole argument suffers from a philosophical flaw: Suppressed premises.EDTA
December 14, 2012
December
12
Dec
14
14
2012
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Gregory: basically, mousetraps are multiple part systems that to function must have several correctly arranged and interfaced parts. This raises the issue of functionally specific complex organisation, in the form of irreducible complexity. And before you go off on the various rhetorical retorts out there, know that someone who hangs around UD actually set out to bang away in a garage with wires, etc to see what it takes to get a mousetrap to work. It turns out that a mousetrap is deceptively simple. The parts have to be very, very specifically shaped, sized, matched and arranged to work. That is, we are looking at the island of funciton issue, and we are seeing a case where the interface requirement coupled to both proper arrangement and precise matching, undermines severely the idea that one can blindly repurpose and cobble together a functional, complex entity from things that are just lying around. Or, if you want a basic thought, understand that the parts of a basic steam engine are commonplace, tubes, pipes, discs, etc. Try to see if you can get to a steam engine by just co-opting parts and fitting them together willy-nilly. Just make sure to stand far away when you start up, steam explosions and shrapnel are not nice. What is easy to say rhetorically and sounds plausible, is another whole deal when you have to try to get it to work on the ground. KFkairosfocus
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
Gregory
Wrt pitting ‘interdisciplinary dialogue’ vs. ‘interdisciplinary methodology’ you are simply out of your league. There are many interdisciplinary methods used daily by scientists and scholars around the world. Literature reviews, experiments, interviews, surveys are four obvious examples
You are alluding to triangulation methods within one specialty or related specialties, such as the social sciences. That would be INTRA disciplinary methodology. INTER disciplinary methodology is another matter. You cannot use interview methods or a literature review to arrive at the cause of biological or cosmological phenomenon. In keeping with that point, there is no known way to integrate “specified complexity” or “irreducible complexity” with a Lit review and arrive at a rigorous scientific conclusion without muddying the methodological waters.
There are also shared methods, i.e. interdisciplinary methods, which you categorically deny, but which nevertheless quite obviously exist. Please stop claims that you have recently been ‘dancing with unicorns’ in denying this.
Give me an example of a physics experiment that incorporates interview methods.
Why can “a theologian, a scientist, and a philosopher” *not* share a methodology?
Among other things, the method for determining what the Bible says is different from the method of determining what nature says. Indeed, the findings of one method can only corroborate the findings of the other method if the two methods are different. There is no method that can do both, and any method that tries will destroy the process. I must say though, that I am amused that one who makes the radical claim that Science and Theology can share the same paradigm is, at the same time, scandalized at the prospect that one science (ID) could share a similar paradigm with other sciences (archeology, forensic science, SETI etc). That’s what they call straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Can he or she not be the same person, all three at the same time?
A person could certainly be a Theologian/Philosopher/Scientist, but that is not at all the same thing as merging methodologies. I cannot learn about the Law of non-contradiction from science, nor can I learn that I was made in God’s image by studying chemical bonding. On the other hand, I can certainly come to understand that these truths are compatible. Hence, interdisciplinary dialogue makes sense; interdisciplinary methodology does not.
That sounds like dogmatic ‘methodism’ over personality, rather than open-mindedness with a heart for integration and holistic thinking. Do you see better now why I place such emphasis on ideology as a reflexive influence on our communication?
It isn’t dogmatism to point out that the methods of science are different from the methods of theology. It is your mind that is closed. If your mind was open, you would confess that a bird’s wings are obviously designed.
You are not a scientist, StephenB. Yet you claim to be able to ‘explain’ scientific methodology to someone who not only studies it professionally, but also does it. That’s very presumptuous!
I am happy to help you through the rough spots whenever you need assistance. Again, though, you are making me laugh. You, who are not a philosopher of science, claim that you understand ID philosophy better than Meyer, who is a philosopher of science. Those cheap arguments from authority don’t really get us anywhere do they?
Then please do tell, why-oh-why do ID proponents at UD, including the IDM marginal ringleader Timaeus among them, again and again and again insist on the ID-is-science-only trope?
Because ID is—-science only—-at least for now. Of course, that raises the embarrassing contradiction inherent in your alternating claims: Argument #1: ID ought to become a theological/philosophical/scientific enterprise. Argument #2: ID is already a theological/philosophical/scientific enterprise.
If you truly think it is a ‘very practical idea,’ [interdisciplinary dialogue] then please do tell: what does ID have to do with theology, StephenB?
I love those open phrases like “have to do with,” which encourage a hundred different possible interpretations. In any case, I find many parallels between Scripture and ID science, so I wouldn’t want to say that one “has nothing to do” with the other. Romans 1:20 or Psalm 19 (God’s handiwork is evident in nature) argues basically the same point as ID, albeit absent any formal or quantitative elements. On the other hand, ID does not depend on Romans 1:20 to make its case nor can it appeal to any hermeneutical methodology for help in forming the scientific argument.
You’ve been impressively open about this in recent days, but not quite ready to accept the consequences. The interdisciplinary dialogue you seek simply cannot start with ID’s total exclusion from theology by ‘science-only’ Big-ID activism.
Quite the contrary. Because ID is an empirically based project grounded in reason, it can enter into a dialogue with theology, which is a faith-based project grounded in reason. *A* can interact with* B* because A is different from B. *AB* cannot interact with or confirm *AB* because AB is not different from AB. That is why the distinct INTRA disciplinary methodologies of triangulation found in the social sciences have the power to reinforce each other. If, for example, I observe a worker drink on the job, discover reports of drinking in a quantitative survey, and learn about them in qualitative interviews, I have good warrant for thinking that a drinking problem exists. It is the difference in the methodologies that provides the confirmation.
Do please give an example of what you mean wrt ‘theodicy’ using ‘empirical evidence’. Steve Meyer has so far failed to do this, even if he agrees with it in principle. His talk, like much spoken in the IDM, appears to have gotten well ahead of his walk.
Hey, that’s your gig and your task. It’s not Meyer’s job to explain what you mean, it is your job to explain what you mean. Using ID science to confirm theological principles is precisely what Fuller is calling for and what you are chiding ID purists for resisting. I am open to such a notion, and so, I gather is Steve Meyer, but I doubt very much that it can be achieved. You are the one that keeps pushing for this integrated policy, but you and Fuller keep asking someone else to connect all the dots.StephenB
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Don't expect rationality from materialists concerning the designs of living things, when they have no answers at all, as to what it is that endows the life and dynamism absolutely primordially necessary for otherwise inert matter to adapt, evolve, develop, grow, etc. They are a, priori', half-wits with regard to ANY question concerning the designs of living things. A classic case of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Future generations will be dumbfounded that materialists were able to get away with their endless stream of contradictory tosh, which was doomed to be forever ridiculed by future generations, due to the massive, A PRIORI deficiency of their initial hypotheses, e.g. 'It doesn't matter that we don't have any inkling as to the source of the life and dynamism of living animals and vegetation; we can still pronounce on the speciousness of the ubiquitous appearance of design throughout the natural world, and the obviously quasi-divinely creative genius of random chance; the latter admittedly rather liberal in its ratio of failures to successes. But hey, we win in the end. We've got a world! And you can't deny it!'Axel
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
'If the design is optimal/perfect, we’re told that’s what evolution does, makes optimal/perfect adaptations, ain’t evolution grand. If the design is sub-optimal/not-perfect, we’re told that’s exactly what we should expect if evolution is true. Evolution makes sub-optimal/non-perfect adaptations, evolution by kludge, ain’t evolution grand.' You're just nit-picking about keen 'counter-intuitive' insights, mung. And a spoil-sport.Axel
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
'It does seem appropriate that the ‘suboptimal design’ argument should be flawed.' Conceptually, tautologically congruent, even, mung.Axel
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply