Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID and Neuroscience in The Chronicle of Higher Education

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Researcher Brings Intelligent Design to Mind
By RICHARD MONASTERSKY

When the leaders of the intelligent-design movement gathered for a secret conference this month in California, most of the talks focused on their standard concerns: biochemistry, evolution, and the origin of the universe. But they also heard from an ally in the neurosciences, who sees his own field as fertile ground for the future of ID.

Jeffrey M. Schwartz, a research professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles, presented a paper titled “Intelligence Is an Irreducible Aspect of Nature” at the conference, held at Biola University, which describes itself as “a global center for Christian thought.” Dr. Schwartz argued that his studies of the mind provide support for the idea that consciousness exists in nature, separate from human brains.

Organizers of the conference, called “Research and Progress on Intelligent Design,” had hoped to keep its existence out of public view. The university held a well-advertised public debate about ID that same week, but Michael N. Keas, a professor of history and the philosophy of science at Biola who coordinated the private meeting, would not confirm that it was happening when contacted by a reporter, nor would he discuss who was attending. “It’s our policy just to keep the names out of the public limelight, since this kind of research tends to draw more attention than many other science topics,” he says.

Intelligent-design proponents believe that an intelligent force rather than natural selection created the diversity of life seen today, a proposition that has sparked conflicts over public-school curricula across the nation. It has also led to debates in higher education. Dr. Schwartz says the other participants at the conference were afraid of losing their jobs if their names were released, but he describes himself as “incendiary,” and discussed his talk in advance with The Chronicle.

Dr. Schwartz treats people suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorders by teaching them to focus their attention away from their urges. He says the therapy can actually change people’s patterns of brain activity, an observation that shows that the mind can exert control over the brain, which challenges the material concept of the mind. His theory leads to the conclusion that consciousness exists separate from the human body, he says.

“You can’t get the intelligence out of nature,” says Dr. Schwartz. “Intelligence is an intrinsic part of nature.”

Many other scientists have been highly critical of Dr. Schwartz; even some researchers interested in exploring spirituality discount his theory. The Templeton Foundation, a philanthropy devoted to forging links between science and religion, rejected a grant proposal by Dr. Schwartz, says Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president of the foundation. A cosmologist by training, Mr. Harper says the proposal was turned down because “it had to do with a lot of hocus-pocus on quantum mechanics.”

‘Soul Mate’

Leaders of the intelligent-design movement, though, see clear potential for Dr. Schwartz’s message to resonate with the public.

“When I read Jeff’s work, I got in touch with him and encouraged him to become part of this ID community,” says William A. Dembski, who next month will become a research professor in philosophy at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Texas. “I regard him as a soul mate,” says Mr. Dembski.

Though Dr. Schwartz’s theory has not won over many scientists, some neurobiologists worry that this kind of argument might resonate with the general public, for whom the concept of a soul, free will, and God seems to require something beyond the physical brain. “The truly radical and still maturing view in the neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions,” wrote Kenneth S. Kosik, a professor of neuroscience research at the University of California at Santa Barbara, in a letter to the journal Nature in January.

Pope John Paul II struck a similar theme in a 1996 address focusing on science, in which he said theories of evolution that “consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.”

Dr. Kosik argues that the topic of the mind has the potential to cause much more conflict between scientists and the general public than does the issue of evolution. Many people of faith can easily accept the tenets of Darwinian evolution, but it is much harder for them to swallow the assumption of a mind that arises solely from the brain, he says. That issue he calls a “potential eruption.”

Go here for article:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=nQVhpWjqzCwRcvQ3gQYwGmggpxmtFPdj

Go here for related articles:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=hqzkNzM2bCgJqdxhhmGdgj28zbrWfBKn
http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=yXbZGFfcGMsXjn4J4hMgdhwyX4py8ngx

Comments
Dave Taciturnus, Can't say I understand Hebrews 4:12 ("For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit ..."), but one does find throughout Scripture a clear and consistent distinction between soul (נֶפֶשׁ - ψυχη) and spirit (רוּחַ - πνευμα). Everywhere spirit is associated with knowledge and truth and soul with desire and free will. Thus it is not the spirit but the soul that sins (Ezekiel 18:4, 20), and it is the soul that needs atonement (Leviticus 17:11). There is, for example, this interesting piece in First Corinthians 2:9-11, "But as it is written [Isaiah 64:4], Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." Does a man know the things of a man (language, mathematics, reason, science, art, music), things that mean nothing to, say, a cow, because of a particular "spirit" in him? Does this spirit provide access to a mathematical and logical reality that is "out there", or is this Platonic reality itself what the ancients called spirit? One wonders--might distinguishing between soul and spirit somehow inform our scientific theories? Might we be dealing with two intangibles besides brain mechanism--some kind of receptor of logical categories, the ability to think "2", as you say, which is distinct from the core of our being which is where desire and the will reside?Rude
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
I couldn't understand why "a cosmologist by training, Mr. Harper says the proposal was turned down because “it had to do with a lot of hocus-pocus on quantum mechanics.” Is it common for cosmologists to refute quantum mechanics? Sometimes life throws these recurring themes at us... On Saturday I covered a story for the newspaper about our local amateur astronomy club. One of the members, an optical engineer, made a 24-inch mirror. The other guys built a Dobsonian mount, and it is a thing of beauty. The club seems attracts all types, however, even they guy who wears a T-shirt with a map of the galaxy that says, "You are here!" While I was recovering from my rapture at seeing Saturn through a telescope for the first time, another guy was explaining the quantum physics required for human thought. Go figure.kathy
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Rude, It may be that the various phenomena we file under "depression" have a variety of origins. Some may have a purely chemical origin in the brain, others may have non-material component in the mind, yet others may be a combination of the two. It may even be that the same phenomenon could be caused either chemically or through the mind, so that a chemical treatment would work in one case and not another. In any case, even if depression has a purely chemical origin, that doesn't affect the status of the non-material mind. The classical philosophers were quite content to concede that feelings, moods, etc. have a purely material origin. It was *thinking* that they wondered about. Your feeling of depression may have a purely material origin, but what about your thinking about depression? That's the rub - the difference between the feeling of depression and the idea of depression. The interesting thing is that when materialists site brain studies, it is almost always in terms of the material stimulation of feelings, moods, sensory phenomena and the like, the material origin of which the great classical philosophers never doubted. The studies never show the material stimulation of rational thought, for instance the thought "2+2=4", the material origin of which is what is doubted. The materialists keep flogging a horse that has been dead since Alexander the Great, and they miss the stallion that continues to lap them. Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Hey, this is great! Who cares whether Schwartz is a Buddhist. This is just what we need--more and more researchers, teachers, writers, practitioners, more heavy-weights, etc. Made it out of the wilderness over the weekend to a Barnes & Noble--stacks of Darwin stuff but only one Behe--nothing else! A Darwinist friend concedes that all living things possess a will to live without which, in his opinion, there could be no evolution. Machines utterly lack such a will. Though there is as yet no materialist explanation for this "anima" he has faith that one day there will be. Rambling here ... but don't they treat depression by trying to eradicate or neutralize whatever brain chemicals seem to accompany the depression? Make the chemical go away and the depression will go away. But what if it's the other way around--the depression causes the chemical and not the chemical the depression. Turn your attention away from yourself, think positive thoughts. Ordinary folks used to know this. Here, can't resist a quote (Phil 4:8), "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."Rude
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
If the theory of the material mind is "still maturing", it must be maturing at a glacial rate, since it is one of the oldest philosophical positions. Whether the material components are the fire, water, earth and air of the pre-Socratic philosophers or the neurons and chemicals of modern scientists, it ultimately amounts to the same thing. And the materialist must still answer the questions posed by Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas if his theory is to get anywhere. For example, if our minds are purely material, how is it that we can both think of the same number, "2" for instance? The matter that makes up your head and the matter that makes up my head are not the same matter, and if thinking "2" is nothing more than a rearrangement of matter in our respective brains, then "2" cannot be identical for us since the arrangement of matter will not be exactly identical in both our brains; and even if it was, it isn't the same matter. Yet we clearly CAN think of the same number "2", therefore our minds cannot be merely material. That is the kind of question that neuroscientists need to answer before we need to take their assertions about the material mind seriously, and it's what JPII was referring to when he wrote about the "truth about man." He wasn't referring merely to religous revelation, but to the truth that is manifest to anyone not blinded by scientism, religious or not. Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
"The truly radical and still maturing view in the neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions,” wrote Kenneth S. Kosik..." This would seem to be a view that is more a consequence of materialism than a result of research. reportedly, there is still scant understanding or agreement among researchers of the "mechanics" of consciousness. This must be what is meant by "...still maturing..." Also, why do we need another "ultimate challenge to nearly all religions", is ND not working?kvwells
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
I don't understand this: "Dr. Schwartz treats people suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorders by teaching them to focus their attention away from their urges. He says the therapy can actually change people’s patterns of brain activity, an observation that shows that the mind can exert control over the brain, which challenges the material concept of the mind. His theory leads to the conclusion that consciousness exists separate from the human body, he says." How does he conclude that the "mind" can exert control over the brain rather than the brain exerting control over the brain ? How does he define the mind as distinct from the brain in his experiments ? Is there any way to access the actual paper ?bdelloid
May 22, 2006
May
05
May
22
22
2006
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply