“Is James Shapiro a Design Theorist?”: James Shapiro Replies to Bill Dembski

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 16, 2012

Intelligent Design, News, Self-Org. Theory}

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

Dembski writes (Dembski’s opener here. ):

So Shapiro admits that the basic structures required for life are unexplained within his framework, and yet intelligent design is off the table. But why should it be off the table? In the last quote above, he interprets ID as requiring constant supernatural interventions. But ID is hardly limited in that way, a point he tacitly admits in the quote before that: “the ID argument is greatly undermined if it has to invoke supernatural intervention for the origin of each modified adaptive structure.” Note the conditional.

ID does not have to invoke supernatural interventions for every modified adaptive structure. Indeed, ID does not have to invoke supernatural interventions at all. ID only requires that intelligence acted in the formation of biological systems. How that intelligence acted — the precise timing and mode of implementation — is left wide open.

My response: These statements are confusing. Is Dembski saying that he abandons the supernatural as a component of ID? If so, then we can start a real scientific dialogue about the possible natures of intelligence, teleology and design in biology and how to investigate them both theoretically and experimentally. However, if he does not want to abandon the supernatural (as Michael Behe has repeatedly told me he does not) and if he wishes always to have recourse to a literal Deus ex Machina, then we cannot have a serious scientific discussion. Doing that requires respecting the naturalistic limits of science. I think it would be a very positive development for ID proponents to give up on all theological crutches and engage in a strictly naturalistic inquiry, independent of whatever their beliefs in final causes may be. Is Bill Dembski willing to do that?

Way more here

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

So, it has never been a matter of introducing religion into the matter of ID. If a person wants to stop at ID, fine. But gratuitous conjectures about random 'unintelligent' design are simple folly, since the putative introduction of religion is the unique conclusion flowing ineluctably from the logic. Nothing less than an omniscient and omnipotent creator and sustainer could have such sovereign faculties. How can one question the fact of the universe and all it holds having been/being designed? Design predicates intelligence ad purpose. Like the word, 'design', the word, selection', as in 'natural selection', implies both intelligence, purpose (since its its successfully goal-oriented), and, consequently, ultimately, personality. However, that begs the question, are the Darwinists positing Mother Nature as the Natural Selector? That would be neither scientific nor philosophical. If they are not, what proxy for a purposeful, thinking person do they posit, in lieu of Mother Nature?Axel_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

"It is not possible to investigate a non-material cause." - Elizabeth Liddle Only if you cannot imagine anything other than material causes. By denying non-material causes, one conveniently avoids their reality. In Aristotle's philosophy, there are 4 causes, including formal, final, and efficient, to go along with material. Of course, Aristotle has been updated by some also, and the IDM has already written about its position on his 4 causes. But why the silence from *everyone* here about Paul de Vries? Is it because almost everyone here has bought into his rudimentary philosophy of science (PoS), presuming that MN is an acceptable term to use. To those who have studied PoS outside of the Anglo-American context (and even a few inside of it, e.g. Steve Fuller), insisting on the MN term simply reveals a low calibre of thought. The issue is not whether or not to 'dump MN,' but rather, to understand what is hidden behind it and why people like Elizabeth feel they need use this crutch to defend the legitimacy of their 'natural' science in the face of other legitimate scholarly realms. Many who resort to MN language display a kind of philosophy-envy, showing that even though they may be versed in a natural-physical science(s), they lack wisdom and integration of knowledge, which is the domain of philosophy. Elizabeth writes: "It is not possible to investigate a non-material cause. With “methodological naturalism” we keep on investigating. With “methodological non-naturalism” you may reach a place you have to stop, because you’ve met the “non-material” part. / That stoppage is the religious rejection of “MN”." Notice her linguistic pattern: non-material, MN, non-naturalism, non-material -> religious. She makes no argument or connection, yet just jumps to religion haphazardly. This is sloppy thinking, perhaps fine for a neuro-science lab, but not for sustainable philosophy or holistic understand of life.Gregory_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Scott,
How is it Dembski’s fault if MN arbitrarily rules that the design of life is inherently supernatural and therefore excludes it?
MN doesn't "arbitrarily rule that the design of life is inherently supernatural". Material designers are within its ambit. And in that quote, Dembski is not complaining about the exclusion of design of life by MN -- he's complaining about the exclusion of supernatural causes. Consider: That quote is from 1. A book entitled Intelligent Design : The Bridge Between Science and Theology. 2. A chapter called "Naturalism and Its Cure"... 3. ...which includes a section titled "The Cure: Intelligent Design". If you want to claim that Dembski isn't arguing for the supernatural, be my guest. It's pretty obvious from quotes like this (section 4.6):
There's a way out of this impasse: dump methodological naturalism. We need to realize that methodological naturalism is the functional equivalent of a full-blown metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism asserts that nature is self-sufficient.
That book was published in 1999. Dembski changed his tune later when it became politically convenient to deny that ID was religious, but his reversal rings a bit hollow in light of quotes like the above.champignon_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

lastyearon:
Is science capable of researching how life was designed? If, one day soon, we were able to synthesize life in the lab, using a very specific set of directed chemical reactions, would it be warranted to theorize that the original designer of life used those same methods?
I'm really no more of an expert on organic chemistry and origin of life research than you probably are. With that caveat, I would say that if one day scientists were able to create a living cell in the laboratory that was able to reproduce itself, personally I would doubt that their method would bear much resemblance to the methods of the original designer(s). This is because the human scientists would be basically reverse engineering it, whereas he, she, or they presumably dreamed it up in the first place, and thus probably had an intelligence that greatly exceeded our current abilities. But how could one ever know for sure? And I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. There is still so, so much that is not understood about how cells operate.Bruce David_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

lastyearon:
In your analogy, the keys represent what we are searching for: an explanation for life. Is that correct? If so, does the lit area under the lamppost represent science? What does the dark area with the keys represent?
Yes, the keys would represent an explanation for the existence of living organisms. The lit area would represent an explanation that conforms to the requirements of methodological naturalism. The dark area would represent other methods of acquiring an understanding of the nature of the world---ID, theology, philosophy, intuition, natural knowing. It could even represent not knowing the answer.Bruce David_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

Champignon, How is it Dembski's fault if MN arbitrarily rules that the design of life is inherently supernatural and therefore excludes it? His statement does not concede or even imply that such design is supernatural. He is accurately observing that MN applies that label to it. What do you think, Champignon? Is the premise that we can distinguish between a bacteria or a rock that was designed and one that was not inherently supernatural? Never mind, you've already committed to an answer by declaring that it is 'religious to the core.' I think you just took up that position to win an argument without thinking it through. The evidence you cited is that Dembski stated that MN and ID are incompatible, and that is true because of the position of MN, not because of ID. So how do you explain your position that ID requires supernatural intervention? Boiled down to its essence, your current argument is that MN says so. That's ideological, not rational. Prove me wrong by backing up your assertion and explaining in your own reasoned words why ID is supernatural.ScottAndrews2_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

The apparent fact that some believers* in ID, cannot ascribe it to a creator God, is incomprehensible. What entity other than an omniscient and omnipotent God could have produced our universe or even, once created, could continue to sustain it? * I find it weird to talk in terms of 'believing in' something so manifestly incontrovertible as ID. The lengths even top physicists such as Hawkins will go with their gratuitous conjectures, in order to posit an alternative explanation for 'undesigned designs' of almost infinite complexity, would beggar belief in a saner age. Even to the extent of positing a principle or law as a prime mover! An abstract concept...Axel_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Bruce, Is science capable of researching how life was designed? If, one day soon, we were able to synthesize life in the lab, using a very specific set of directed chemical reactions, would it be warranted to theorize that the original designer of life used those same methods?lastyearon_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Bruce,
Your approach reminds me of the Sufi story of the man who came upon another who was searching for his keys under a lamppost. He got down on his knees to help him look. After several minutes of fruitless search, he asked him, “Are you sure you lost them here?” “No,” came the reply, “I lost them over there.” “Well then why are you looking for them here?” “Because the light is better here,” was the answer.
In your analogy, the keys represent what we are searching for: an explanation for life. Is that correct? If so, does the lit area under the lamppost represent science? What does the dark area with the keys represent? Philosophy, Religion? How can it be applied to the search for an explanation of life?lastyearon_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
Yes, rejection of “MN” is religious, for a very simple reason. It is not possible to investigate a non-material cause.
I have to disagree. Rejection of methodological naturalism, per se, is not religious. I can say this with conviction because I personally am not a methodological naturalist; however, my motives are clearly not religious either since I am a philosophical naturalist who doesn't expect to find any evidence for the supernatural. I think that science is quite capable of handling claims about the supernatural, provided that they are testable and falsifiable. If someone tells me that anyone who prays a certain prayer to Zeus gets a Templeton grant the next day, I can test this (admittedly bizarre) hypothesis. That this hypothesis concerns the supernatural and is in fact a religious claim is not a problem as long as the hypothesis itself is testable and falsifiable. You may wonder: if a rejection of MN isn't necessarily religious, why did I criticize Dembski in comment 3 of this thread? It's not because he rejects MN; I think that's fine. It's because he says that unless we reject MN, ID is doomed:
So long as methodological naturalism sets the ground rules for how the game of science is to be played, intelligent design has no chance of success. Phillip Johnson makes this point eloquently. So does Alvin Plantinga. In his discussion of methodological naturalism Plantinga notes that if one accepts methodological naturalism then naturalistic evolution is the only game in town.
In saying that, he is affirming that ID is a religious hypothesis. This doesn't mean that it can't be investigated scientifically; it can, as long as the claims it makes are testable and falsifiable. However, it does contradict Dembski's later claims that ID is not religious. ID proponents should grit their teeth and admit it: ID is religious to the core.champignon_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
Conversely, I know of no-one who ever believed that non-coding DNA was all junk, and certainly of no evidence that any research into the function of non-coding DNA was suppressed.
You misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that research "was suppressed" by any external force. I meant that the belief system of Darwinism had the effect of suppressing research on the functionality of the non-coding regions simply by virtue of the fact that for many years most researchers, based on those beliefs, did not feel that that would be a fruitful area of research. And researchers in that field have made statements in support of this position, and no, I haven't found the citations yet. I meant it as an example of how Darwinism is also a "science stopper". Of course it isn't, but it can and has had the effect of slowing certain kinds of research down. But ID would never stop science either, because there will always be those who don't buy it and will continue to look for naturalistic explanations for those phenomena which proponents of ID believe have none.Bruce David_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Your approach reminds me of the Sufi story of the man who came upon another who was searching for his keys under a lamppost. He got down on his knees to help him look. After several minutes of fruitless search, he asked him, "Are you sure you lost them here?" "No," came the reply, "I lost them over there." "Well then why are you looking for them here?" "Because the light is better here," was the answer. If life really has been designed, as I believe the evidence clearly demonstrates that it has, then it may just be that we will never know the nature or methods of the designer. To reject the conclusion solely because you can't get any more information, and then to continue to use methods to search for an explanation that will never reveal the actual truth (it was in fact designed) is like looking for your keys under the lamppost when you lost them over there in the dark. It may just be that there are questions about the phenomenal world that science cannot answer. We may have to live with the uncertainty and look for the answers to those questions elsewhere. Oh, and by the way, Sewell's analysis of how life, including human technology, violates the Second Law is only one of many, many scientific problems with naturalistic explanations for the existence of life, and not the most telling by any stretch.Bruce David_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Yes, rejection of "MN" is religious, for a very simple reason. It is not possible to investigate a non-material cause. With "methodological naturalism" we keep on investigating. With "methodological non-naturalism" you may reach a place you have to stop, because you've met the "non-material" part. That stoppage is the religious rejection of "MN". I'll repeat what I just posted elsewhere: "MN" is not a limitation on science. It is quite the opposite. It's what leads us to keep searching. Rejecting "MN" is what poses limitations on investigation, not the acceptance of MN.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

That is a presumption of your materialism. You don’t know this to be true; you assume it.
Well, I have plenty of evidence for it. But sure - what difference does that make? The point is that I don't by any means rule out intelligence as the reason something is the way it is. Methodological naturalism is not the ruling out of intelligence, because, as you say, we have a methodologically naturalist account of intelligence.
#And if life was in fact designed, and not by Darwinistic mechanisms, because that has been thoroughly discredited by numerous scholars from multiple points of view
Well, no. Not in my view, by any means.
(and of course, Darwinism has nothing to say about the origin of life anyway), then you really can’t assume that the designer was a “material cause”.
But to assume it was NOT "a material cause" means stopping looking any further. That's my point. At the point at which you say: "this is not a material cause" you stop investigating. That's all methodological non-materialism is - it's stopping when you get to a bit you can't explain by a material mechanism, and saying "something non-material did this bit". Methodological materialism is not stopping. So it's more open-minded, not less.
Not unless you can say something about the designer. Just saying “design” explains absolutely nothing. Merely describes. We just disagree on this one. To say that something was designed is an explanation of its existence, even if we know nothing about the nature and methods of its designer(s).
OK, let me try this a different way: If you postulate an invisible intelligent power who can do anything, without leaving any trace of the tools of his/her trade, nor presence, apart from the artefacts s/he leaves behind, there is nothing you can't explain. Giraffe recurrent laryngeal nerve? No problem, designer wanted it that way. Human female pelvis? Who are we to judge the designer? Hyena reproduction? Well perhaps the designer hated hyenas. Parasites that kill children? Well, perhaps the designer likes parasites more than children. Nested hierarchies? Well, s/he just liked designing that way. No bird lungs for mammals? Well, why shouldn't s/he try something different, and why shouldn't s/he keep those bird lungs strictly for the animals that look as though they descended in a particular lineage. In fact, why shouldn't the designer make the world look as though it evolved? That's why a non-material, uncharacterised designer is not an explanation. An explanation that explains everything explains nothing. However, if you were to postulate an actual material designer, that would be something else - we could actually draw some conclusions about the designer - his/her enthusiasms, his/her strengths, his/her weaknesses, his/her assembly techniques, his/her testing protocols etc. Then we might have an actual explanation from the ID postulate. But to do this work, IDists would have to postulate a material designer. Without doing so, none of this work is possible. That's the sense in which commitment to non-material causes stops science. Scientists don't have to believe there are no non-material causes to do science. It's just that the tools of science can't investigate them. They are matters of faith, not science.
I don’t have the time to answer every one of your points. In general I will say this: You and I have a very different idea of the nature of intelligence. To me, intelligence is non-material, and creativity, which is the driver of design, cannot be understood in material terms.
Well that seems to ignore a large amount of evidence about the neural basis of intelligence. And, indeed, of the nature of creativity.
Creativity, or the capacity to design, whether human or otherwise, is the only phenomenon which is capable of overcoming the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and we humans do this routinely every day.
No, we don't. Nothing overcomes the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I am doing right now as I write this, as do you every time you write a response. Creative intelligence in my view is unquestionably non-material. (I of course have many other reasons for believing that intelligence is non-material, which we have discussed before.) And by the way, before you give me the standard response that life in general and human activity in particular does not violate the Second Law, Granville Sewell (“Can ‘Anything’ Happen in Open Systems”, In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design) has already laid that objection to rest.
Well, no, he hasn't. I haven't read that particular essay, but I have read other writings by Granville Sewell on the topic, and the flaws in his reasoning are obvious even to a non-physicist (me). But there are plenty of critiques by physicists if you google.
The Second Law, in general, implies that the amount of order in a system cannot increase beyond what is already there or which is imported across its boundary. The fact that I use energy which originated with sunlight to write this does not confirm the Second Law, since the amount of order in that sunlight is nowhere near the amount that I am producing right now.
Well, we will have to leave it there. But I do suggest that if ID rests for its credibility on the case that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated by living things, then it is doomed.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

And by the way, Elizabeth, you’re wrong about Darwinian conclusions regarding non-coding DNA not suppressing research into possible functionality of those regions of the genome. For several decades there was very little research done in that area precisely because it was thought to be “junk”. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a citation, but I think you’ll find it documented in Jonathan Wells’ The Myth of Junk DNA.
Well, until you can find me that citation, preferably from something other than a book called "The Myth of Junk DNA"(and certainly not anything written by a man who, on his own explicit admission, embarked on his training in molecular and cell biology in order to follow an a priori mission to destroy Darwinism), I remain unconvinced, not least because I am aware of the literature on non-coding DNA, as it's rather important in my field, and it's been known about for many decades (although clearly there has been an explosion of research in that area since genetic sequencing became more efficient, and specifically since GWAS). Conversely, I know of no-one who ever believed that non-coding DNA was all junk, and certainly of no evidence that any research into the function of non-coding DNA was suppressed. Quite apart from anything else, it makes no sense. Darwinian evolution would certainly explain why there might be DNA in the genome with no function, but it certainly wouldn't lead to the prediction that all DNA must code for protein. Perhaps we should start referring to The Myth of the Myth of Junk DNA.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Methodological naturalism breaks down at the rudimentary philosophy of science that it displays from its ideological invention in “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences” (1983). https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/who-coined-the-term-methodological-naturalism/ How does one distinguish 'Naturalism' from 'Natural' if the *only* realm of study/scholarship that counts is 'Natural Sciences' to the exclusion of all other 'non-natural' or 'extra-natural' realms? It is well know that an ideologue is often quick to deny that there is any 'ideology' involved in what he or she is proposing. Though some here may wish to disagree, intelligent design theory actually doesn't reject 'naturalism' in so far as it is seeking 'design' that is to be found 'in nature.' If IDTs were looking for 'design' not 'in nature,' then they could conceivably avoid naturalism. Otherwise, the trap lays waiting, just as Paul de Vries laid it during his tenure at Wheaton College, in which he apparently did not specialise in 'philosophy of science,' but rather in ethics and hermeneutics. Where is Paul de Vries today?: http://www.nydivinityschool.org/cms/content/view/25/46/ Is this the person whose philosophy of (natural) science people have been copying widely in recent years, like Elizabeth Liddle does today? Is this USAmerican Christian Higher Education Administrator the source of Elizabeth's claim that "rejection of MN is religious"?!Gregory_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

For several decades there was very little research done in that area...
What decades would those be? There have only been four decades since the discovery of the genetic code, and less than one decade since we had the ability to map entire genomes. A quick Google search indicates that interest in non-coding DNA began about the time when sequencing technology became available.Petrushka_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

And by the way, Elizabeth, you're wrong about Darwinian conclusions regarding non-coding DNA not suppressing research into possible functionality of those regions of the genome. For several decades there was very little research done in that area precisely because it was thought to be "junk". Unfortunately, I was unable to find a citation, but I think you'll find it documented in Jonathan Wells' The Myth of Junk DNA.Bruce David_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
But design isn’t a “non-material cause”. It’s a perfectly good material cause.
That is a presumption of your materialism. You don't know this to be true; you assume it. And if life was in fact designed, and not by Darwinistic mechanisms, because that has been thoroughly discredited by numerous scholars from multiple points of view (and of course, Darwinism has nothing to say about the origin of life anyway), then you really can't assume that the designer was a "material cause".
Not unless you can say something about the designer. Just saying “design” explains absolutely nothing. Merely describes.
We just disagree on this one. To say that something was designed is an explanation of its existence, even if we know nothing about the nature and methods of its designer(s). I don't have the time to answer every one of your points. In general I will say this: You and I have a very different idea of the nature of intelligence. To me, intelligence is non-material, and creativity, which is the driver of design, cannot be understood in material terms. Creativity, or the capacity to design, whether human or otherwise, is the only phenomenon which is capable of overcoming the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and we humans do this routinely every day. I am doing right now as I write this, as do you every time you write a response. Creative intelligence in my view is unquestionably non-material. (I of course have many other reasons for believing that intelligence is non-material, which we have discussed before.) And by the way, before you give me the standard response that life in general and human activity in particular does not violate the Second Law, Granville Sewell ("Can 'Anything' Happen in Open Systems", In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design) has already laid that objection to rest. The Second Law, in general, implies that the amount of order in a system cannot increase beyond what is already there or which is imported across its boundary. The fact that I use energy which originated with sunlight to write this does not confirm the Second Law, since the amount of order in that sunlight is nowhere near the amount that I am producing right now.Bruce David_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Just to clarify: my "Exactly." above was meant to indicate "you have made my point for me" not "I agree with this". :DElizabeth Liddle_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

No, no, NO! It is NOT “no material explanation and therefore non-material cause.” This is the favorite straw man of the ID critics.
It's not a straw man. You just haven't spotted the straw yet.
It is rather, “We have demonstrated that a material cause is so improbable as to be virtually impossible.
Exactly.
Furthermore, the phenomenon bears all the hallmarks of things we know to have been designed (principally that it exhibits complex, functionally specified information). Therefore we conclude that design is the best explanation for its existence.”
But design isn't a "non-material cause". It's a perfectly good material cause.
It is an explanation.
Not unless you can say something about the designer. Just saying "design" explains absolutely nothing. Merely describes.
The only explanation for anything that actually was designed is that it was designed.
OK. What's non-material about that?
How did the computer on which I am writing this comment come into existence? It was designed and built by intelligent agents. That is the explanation.
Yes indeed, and you have an actual explanation there. And indeed, you have material designers to show that it has those designers are indeed a material cause of your computer. QED.
And the fact is, I repeat, that methodological naturalism, at least as it is practiced by the vast majority of its adherents, rejects design as an allowable explanation whenever the designer could not have been a human being.
Not at all. We know that beavers make dams, and bees make hexagonal honeycombs, and termites make extraordinary mounds, and bower birds bowers. These are all designs, and they all have material causes, just as we are the material cause of our own artefacts. Sometimes we even find that what we thought was a non-intelligent cause has an organism behind it, and I expect if we found a black rectangular pillar on an alien planet we'd be very happy to infer a material designer as its originator. And of course, the next thing we'd do is try to find out more about the designer. How does its brain work? What means does it use to implement its design? Is it a separate agent, or is it something intrinsic to the artefact itself?
Any scientific theory, once accepted, is a science stopper…and is not. To the extent that the theory is accepted, scientists stop looking for alternative explanations.
This is completely untrue, and I challenge you to give me a single example. Science never stops. What may be true is that when there is overwhelming evidence for something (for instance, the age of the universe, or the age of the earth) scientists don't keep going back and reinventing the wheel each time, and occasionally, science has to completely rethink itself, as it did when Einstein proposed a constant speed for light. But the idea that any scientific theory stops science is completely false. Science never stops, and a successfully supported hypothesis is a trigger for more research, not less.
For example, the assumption by Darwinists that non-coding DNA is “junk” stopped geneticists from exploring the possibility that it performed some function in the cell.
No. It did not. This is simply wrong. Or, at any rate, if you think that the exciting work done on non-coding DNA has been conducted exclusively by non-Darwinists, you are simply mistaken. "Evo-Devo" is one of the most exciting branches of evolutionary biology right now.
But not all of them. And now more and more of the non-coding portions of the genome are being found to have function.
Of course. Your premise is false. "Darwinists" did not ever say (I guess some ignoramus might have done, but I'm talking about evolutionary scientists) that all non-coding DNA is junk. This is a myth. And regulatory genes are amongst the most interesting genes in current biology.
The conclusion that the first living cell was designed will stop Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, and Jonathan Wells from doing origins research, but it hasn’t stopped them from doing science.
Well, there you go then. It's stopped them doing origins research. Methodological naturalism doesn't do that.
And most certainly, methodological naturalism as it is understood and practiced by most of its adherents, is absolutely a science stopper when it comes to the question of whether something which came into existence before human beings did can be shown scientifically to have been designed.
Nope. Scientists are absolutely sure that whatever produced human beings preceded us. Most of them think it was evolutionary processes, which we know are capable of design. But certainly some people have floated an extra-terrestrial source for early life. They may still turn out to be correct. What you seem to be saying is that scientists won't consider a non-material designer. That's perfectly true. That's because there is nothing you can do to investigate a non-material designer. It is, to repeat my original point, a science stopper, as you seem to agree, in your point about Axe and Behe above. But there's plenty you can do to investigate a material designer, and evolutionary processes seem to fit the bill rather well.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

It is rather, “We have demonstrated that a material cause is so improbable as to be virtually impossible. Furthermore, the phenomenon bears all the hallmarks of things we know to have been designed...
But you have demonstrated no such thing. Furthermore, far from from bearing the hallmarks of design, you cannot even provide a theory of biological design that would make it possible. No one has designed a protein from scratch. No one has even synthesized a protein without starting with existing sequences and using directed evolution. No one knows a shortcut to biological design that bypasses evolution. there isn't even a conjecture as to how this would be done. Until you demonstrate that design is even possible you don't even have a contender. One of the recent UD comments asserted that we can't model biological function mathematically or in simulations. Think about what that means. How do you design if you can't model or simulate? How do you get around the need to actually invoke evolution? What is your alternative design process?Petrushka_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
But postulated non-material causes aren’t explanations. They are just default inferences: “no material explanation therefore non-material cause”.
No, no, NO! It is NOT "no material explanation and therefore non-material cause." This is the favorite straw man of the ID critics. It is rather, "We have demonstrated that a material cause is so improbable as to be virtually impossible. Furthermore, the phenomenon bears all the hallmarks of things we know to have been designed (principally that it exhibits complex, functionally specified information). Therefore we conclude that design is the best explanation for its existence." It is an explanation. The only explanation for anything that actually was designed is that it was designed. How did the computer on which I am writing this comment come into existence? It was designed and built by intelligent agents. That is the explanation. And the fact is, I repeat, that methodological naturalism, at least as it is practiced by the vast majority of its adherents, rejects design as an allowable explanation whenever the designer could not have been a human being.
Yes, it is silent. That’s exactly my point. It’s a science stopper.
Any scientific theory, once accepted, is a science stopper...and is not. To the extent that the theory is accepted, scientists stop looking for alternative explanations. On the other hand, there are always those who question the established orthodoxy. Darwinism itself has been a "science stopper". For example, the assumption by Darwinists that non-coding DNA is "junk" stopped geneticists from exploring the possibility that it performed some function in the cell. But not all of them. And now more and more of the non-coding portions of the genome are being found to have function. The conclusion that the first living cell was designed will stop Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, and Jonathan Wells from doing origins research, but it hasn't stopped them from doing science. And it won't stop those who are convinced that there is a naturalistic explanation from pursuing that line of inquiry. That's how science works. One's accepted theory regarding their area of expertise will shape and inform what they choose to explore, whatever that theory is. Science advances in part because there are always differences of opinion regarding what has been established. And most certainly, methodological naturalism as it is understood and practiced by most of its adherents, is absolutely a science stopper when it comes to the question of whether something which came into existence before human beings did can be shown scientifically to have been designed.Bruce David_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

That would not be methodological naturalism because the definition of methodological naturalism is that only explanations that invoke material causes are allowed. My formulation allows any explanation that fits the facts. Methodological naturalism does not.
But postulated non-material causes aren't explanations. They are just default inferences: "no material explanation therefore non-material cause". Methodological naturalism simply replaces that inference with "therefore we need to look a bit harder".
The fact is that the vast majority of methodological naturalists reject ID precisely because they (not the proponents of ID) feel that ID as an explanation of the origin and development of life is not a naturalistic explanation, even though proponents of ID explicitly state repeatedly that the scientific conclusion that ID is the best explanation of a phenomenon is silent on the question of the nature of the designer.
Yes, it is silent. That's exactly my point. It's a science stopper. A methodological naturalist would not remain silent - she would (and I do) ask: "so what can we find out about this designer, the design process, and the mechanisms of implementation"? "An Intelligent Designer Did It" is not an explanation that "fits the facts". It is merely an inference drawn from ignorance ("we do not have an explanation that fits the facts to our satisfaction").
The fact that any particular proponent of ID may believe that the designer is in fact God is entirely irrelevant to the scientific conclusion of ID in a particular case. “Was it designed or not?” is the question for scientific research to answer. “What is the nature of the designer?” is a question which may be answered by theology or philosophy or just simply left open.
No. Both are scientific questions, but refusal to address the second scientifically renders the first question useless.
In some cases, it may even be a question that can be addressed by scientific inquiry, as in the case of archaeology, as champignon pointed out.
Exactly. And should be. Inferring that something is the output of an intelligent agent is a perfectly good conclusion as long as you don't stop there. Methodological naturalism is, in effect, the methodology that refuses to stop there. And yes, I refuse to accept a methodology that forces me to stop just when I get to the exciting part. That's what rejecting "methodological naturalism" would entail.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
And why would that not be “methodological naturalism”?
That would not be methodological naturalism because the definition of methodological naturalism is that only explanations that invoke material causes are allowed. My formulation allows any explanation that fits the facts. Methodological naturalism does not. The fact is that the vast majority of methodological naturalists reject ID precisely because they (not the proponents of ID) feel that ID as an explanation of the origin and development of life is not a naturalistic explanation, even though proponents of ID explicitly state repeatedly that the scientific conclusion that ID is the best explanation of a phenomenon is silent on the question of the nature of the designer. The fact that any particular proponent of ID may believe that the designer is in fact God is entirely irrelevant to the scientific conclusion of ID in a particular case. "Was it designed or not?" is the question for scientific research to answer. "What is the nature of the designer?" is a question which may be answered by theology or philosophy or just simply left open. In some cases, it may even be a question that can be addressed by scientific inquiry, as in the case of archaeology, as champignon pointed out.Bruce David_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

I may be mischaracterising Shapiro's argument, but he seems to be suggesting that organisms 'respond' to times of difficulty by increasing mutation. Of course, there are numerous explanations for such an increase, including infestation by various genetic parasites, a breakdown of mutation protection in times of stress, or an increase in recombination rate (crossovers are mutagenic). The issue is whether these mutations are simply the unavoidable fallout of circumstance, or whether they can be seen as a mechanism of responding, in an evolutionary manner, to environmental change. The mutations caused by these various processes are, on the face of it, as 'random' as those caused by cosmic rays, chemical mutagens or DNA polymerisation errors. The reason all germline mutagens are random is because they have no access to the 'rules' of gene expression - it's just a jumble of letters to them. Even if they did, they would struggle to distinguish between favourable and unfavourable phenotypes, because the proof of that pudding is out there in the rest of the world. What a particular sequence does when expressed, or whether it is expressed at all, is in the hands of its interaction with the rest of emergent organismal complexity. All a mutagen can get at is a raw DNA sequence, and that applies just as much to the transposon as to the cosmic ray. Viewing transposons as an active means of doing what cosmic rays do (and which organisms are at great pains to eliminate) is a stretch. The other side of the argument that bothers me is that times of stress, as 'detected' by current populations, must be prolonged to be worth actively responding to, by chucking more mutations at the selective sieve. At a particular time, a stressor may increase the mutation rate. Among the scattergun mutations that ensue will be some beneficial ones - beneficial in the 'stressed' environment. But as soon as the stressor is removed, these mutations are no longer beneficial - they could, indeed, be detrimental. The lineage has cocked up - it has responded to a short-term change by promoting a mutational load that made matters worse. A population can't distinguish capricious change from longer-term. So, although I can buy that mutation rates are affected by all manner of genomic stresses, and that those have had a profound historic effect on the evolution and diversity of 'higher' taxa, I don't see production of those mutations as the function of the various elevators of mutation rate, but merely a consequence.Chas D_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

I think Dr. Bruce Gordon does a very good job of nailing the overall 'unpredictability' problem with methodological naturalism here;
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027 Last power point in video states The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
bornagain77_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

This is cool too:
What pi sounds like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOQb_mtkEEE
bornagain77_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, this comment is so over the top nonsensical that I am surprised that even you would make such a comment:
There are no “predictions of theism” except, possibly the prediction that things will be unpredictable.
Perhaps you would care to write these following scientists and have them retract their statements:
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.” Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ ,,, 'And if your curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere;
Moreover, strict materialism, as methodological naturalism is commonly understood to imply, is itself what demands 'unpredictability' as a cornerstone precept in its formulation. i.e. Materialism, insists on 'randomness' being the primary 'creative' source for everything we see around us, from the creation of the universe itself, to all life within in the universe. Randomness is ultimately, at the end of the day, given full credit for creating everything in the atheistic mindset. Moreover this insistence on randomness (unpredictability) as some kind of creative transcendent entity that is responsible for everything we see around us destroys to very possibility to practice science rationally: This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139
Atheists, in the headlong rush to have a purposeless universe, never stop to think why we should even be able to comprehend reality to such a deep level in the first place.
Epistemology - Why Should The Human Mind Even Comprehend Reality? - Stephen Meyer http://vimeo.com/32145998
Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" (materialistic) models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Materialism, with its insistence on random unpredictability, simply cannot guarantee that our beliefs will be true. In fact the randomness of materialism guarantees the exact opposite:
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw
The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth he is giving in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html
Quotes of note:
“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...” CS Lewis – Mere Christianity "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
In realizing atheism's failure to provide a foundation for either objective truth, it is interesting to point out that Christianity was necessary for the sustained development of modern science in the first place:
Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to do with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html
Verse and music and notes:
Matthew 7:25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. What Tau (The Golden Spiral) Sounds Like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3174T-3-59Q Tau in Mathematics is,,,, *The golden ratio (1.618...), although ? (phi) is more common. *Ramanujan's tau function in number theory. *The divisor function in number theory, also denoted d or ?0. *Torsion of a curve in differential geometry. *Kendall's tau rank correlation coefficient as a non-parametric correlation measure in statistics. *A proposed alternative constant equal to 2?. ,,, *In ancient times, Tau was used as a symbol for life and/or resurrection,,, *Tau is usually considered as the symbol of Franciscan orders due to St. Francis' love for it, symbol of the redemption and of the Cross.
bornagain77_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Nice bluff- If you don't know of any predictions then you should just say so.Joe_{January 17, 2012
January
01
Jan
17
17
2012
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply