Jack Krebs continues to feed mis-information to his fellow Darwinists

_{Salvador Cordova

September 12, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

I’ve been meaning to post this to give the Uncommon Descent community a chance to respond to an essay by Jack Krebs. Jack Krebs is president of a militant pro-Darwin organization in Kansas, and he writes in ID Moving On in Fighting the Culture War:

So where is the ID movement going now in this post-Dover, post-Kansas world?

Well, it seems to me that they are giving up on trying to seriously sell ID as science. Instead, they are forging full-steam ahead with their cultural Ã¢â‚¬Å“war of the worldviewsÃ¢â‚¬Â agenda, pitting materialism and atheism (as represented by science) against religious belief (as represented by their particular flavor of fundamentalist Christianity.)
….
LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s get these social and cultural issues out on the table and work on them. This is not about science and never has been. Perhaps now ID can just die away, and we can focus on the real issues.

Jack effectively repeats the tired old misrepresentation that it’s ONLY about cultural issues, that it’s not about science.

His assertion is contradicted by people like Edward Sisson, David Berlinski, John Davison, Richard Sternberg, Stanly Salthe, Michael Denton, Frank Tipler or several others who don’t have a particular stake in some sort of culture war.

But Jack’s reasoning is understandable given that Jack is the sort of fellow that swallows the party line and repeats it. In 2005, in a discussion about Dembski’s work over at ARN I asked him repeatedly whether he read Dembski’s books, to which he reluctantly confessed he’d only read Shallit, Elsberry, and Perakh’s misrepresentations of ID theory. He was trying to debate me over Dembski’s works which he didn’t even read or have access to!

Jack is symbolic of the kind of leadership the militant pro-Darwinists have in office. Perhaps we should enlighten Jack’s closed mind. To that end, I invite those sympathetic to ID to answer the following two questions:

1. For me personally, ID is ONLY about cultural issues

2. I believe Blind Watchmaker evolution is a proven fact of science, and it’s ONLY because my religious faith and upbringing that I question Blind Watchmaker evolution

I answer “No” to #1 and #2.

How much you bet that Jack Krebs, after reading our answers, will continue to misrepresent our views and say it’s ONLY about cultural issues (it’s not about science and never has been)?

Salvador

PS
I’m not really involved in selling ID to public school boards or peer-reviewed journals. I’m involved in getting the discussions going in cyberspace, at the colleges, and among church members interested in science. I challenge Jack Krebs to find anywhere where I assert it’s ONLY about a culture war, or that Darwinian evolution should be disbelieved primarily because it is a cause for social or spiritual or moral ills.

Comments

Telic Thoughts enables preview. Guts is their administrator. I wonder if that was the same Guts that was part of UD????? May be he knows a trick or two? Salscordova_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

It would be nice to be able to PREVIEW these comments and Wordpress doesn't do that either. :-(DaveScot_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Jack, I\'m sorry about some of the technical issues. If you\'d like you can repost a correction and I\'ll delete the old. Unfortunately word press inserts nasty back slashes so I can\'t simply insert your edit. If we pull a delete/repost maneuver, the ordering may get peculiar, but if doesn\'t bother you, I\'m happy to do it if you request. Salvadorscordova_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Please pardon the various typos and other grammatical mistakes above. It would be nice to be able to edit these posts, but I know Wordpress doesn't do that. I'll try to proofread better.Jack Krebs_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

to SteveB. You wrote a good serious question yesterday, and I write what I think was a serious and thoughtful reply. I must admit it is disheartening, from the point of view of wanting to engage in genuine discussion, to have my reply dismissed thusly: "I imagine this is intentional on the part of those of you who work in DarwinismÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“marketing wingÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬â€œyou can throw a bone to the Ã¢â‚¬Å“god people,Ã¢â‚¬Â while keeping philosophical naturalism fully entrenched as the order of the day." So let me try again. You wrote, "Your definition of theistic evolution seems to hold that God exists and may have at some point done something other than play Cosmic Golf, but that somethingÃ¢â‚¬â€œwhatever it is or might have beenÃ¢â‚¬â€œis not knowable. I see the evolution here, but not anything that can rightly be called theism." First of all, I said that the position of theistic evolution is that because God acts through natural causes, there are not specific instances of design that stand out as scientifically detectable. As I discussed in comment 22 above, being scientifically detectable and being knowable are not equivalent: we know many things, or at least strive to, that are beyond the reach of science. But more importantly here, I don't think it is correct to say there is nothing here "that can rightly be called theism." Orthodox Christian theology holds that God is omni-everything: omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-present. Human beings, being embedded in time and being limited to empirical knowledge of the physical world see the world as flowing causally through time - with each moment causing the next. To the theist, this flow of events follows what we perceive as natural laws because the physical world manifest the rational nature of God. God, however and of course, doesn't see the world the way we do. God is omni-present: He stands outside of time and knows the entire history of the world all at once, from its beginning to end. Causal connections to us are instantaneous relationships to God: they don't happen sequentially: they exist together, all of a piece. Carlos said this well earlier when he wrote: "The processes whereby organisms evolve are entirely within the natural order (Ã¢â‚¬Âsecondary causationÃ¢â‚¬Â), God sustains the natural order as a whole (Ã¢â‚¬Âprimary causationÃ¢â‚¬Â). That is, GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s causal relationship with Nature is metaphysically different from the causal relationships between natual beings." Here is one more point. "Theistic evolution" is a misleading phrase because it implies that the theistic evolutionist has taken a particular position on evolution as a special topic. But that is not correct. The theist who accepts the omni-everything view of God described above sees God presence in all events, big or small, here and now in our daily lives or spread out over millions of years. God's presence in the process of evolution is no different than His presence in the daily lives of people every day. Many Christians believe strongly in the daily presence of God, continually and thoroughly immanent within the course of events that surround them. If one believes this, then one has every reason to believe that God was equally present in the lives of millions and millions of organisms over the eons; and thus the process of evolution expresses God's presence in the course of history just as much as God's presence is expressed in the course of our one's individual life. What I have described above is, I think, one orthodox Christian, and a fairly conservative one at that, that can be labeled as "theistic evolutionism." It fully supports the enterprise and results of science and is also fully compatible with a large body of accepted Christian theology.Jack Krebs_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Jack, I appreciate your visit and courage in posting here. Let me state that I think what you are doing will only hurt your side. I'm only pointing out your error for the sake of the pro-IDers at Uncommon Descent, not that I really want to change your mind.... Here is what I see on the college campuses: pro-ID scienc students (from freshman to post Docs) and college professors. In the professional world I meet pro-ID engineers and medical doctors. Do you think the approach of telling them "this is only about culture and nothing to do with science" will fly with such individuals? Do you think they'll be especially warmed when they are criticized for doubting Darwin supposedly because of their religious biases, as if truth to them is secondary to holding on to superstitions??? Virginia is right down there at the bottom of the pile with Kansas in the Fordham foundation Darwin rating. Yet Viriginia is quietly known as the silicon valley of the East. The County I grew up in has more scientist and engineers per capita than any place in the world. Many of the IDEA members in our clubs started college at age 15, one was a triple major in science and the son of a university professor. Others are children of medical doctors, lawyers, engineers, and working scientists. Do you think they'll have any respect for someone like Liz Craig (who has no scientific background) saying to them in so many words, "the reason you deny blind watchmaker evolution is because you're religiously motivated and it has nothing to do with science". Do you think that will fly? I can at least say that I take pride in the fact I encouraged IDEA members to study evolution, to take classes in it and decide for themselves. I encourage them to hold even what I say with high degree of skepticism. I've yet to meet one of these pro-ID members in the modern day after studying both sides at the university level who found Darwinian evolution as the cause of biological complexity an adequate explanation. You can keep trying to say it's a cultural issue, but honestly Jack, I had one IDEA member biology major honors grad who did phyologeny work in the lab for three years. She saw rampant convergence in her results. Combined with the complexities of the cell and the empty explanations in terms of Darwinism, she just found these just-so stories untenable. She was not from an evangelical home either. She'd probably be insulted to hear that her conclusions have nothing to do with science. Not that I expect you'll be persuaded, but I thought I had to publicly challenge your premise that ID had nothing to do with science. For students and professionals in scientific disciplines, they may be private about their scientific opinions, but it is still about science for many of them. Finally, correlation does not mean causation. Just because many pro-IDers are religiously motivated does not always mean rejection of evolution is religiously motivated. Did it ever occur to you the opposite might be true for many? Dawkins said, "it was hard to be an atheist before Darwin: the illusion [sic] of living design is so overwhelming". Several find faith possible today because of the design argument, not in spite of it.scordova_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

For some of us, the scientific method is how we arrive at important answers in life. For me, personally, it is that way. It may not be that way for others, but it is for me. If an atheist like Frank Tipler can say that the laws of physics suggest ID, God, and miracles are possible, then so can a Christian like myself. Tipler is formally a provisional atheist, meaning he is not fully persuaded in theism, but thinks the laws of physics suggest theism and ID and miracles a very plausible scientific hypothesis. I would have little reason for accepting the Christian faith if the physical evidence was not at least pointing in that direction. What point is there in believing in something that has little chance of being true? If spontaneous generation and large scale complexities were evolved via Darwinian evolution under our microscopes, then I probably would not be a believer today. That may not be the case for others but it is for me personally. The degree of faith is not what is important, but rather the truthfulness of what is believed. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow (unless of course the world ends). That is a reasonable step of faith. By way of deduction, I think there must be an Ultimate Cause for all things. That is a very simple form of ID which I, Tipler, and Barrow and lots of others think has good theoretical and empirical grounding in physics and math alone. That being the case, I don't think it's too much to suppose life proceeded from some Mind. Given the problems Irreducible Complexity poses, I hypothesize Polyphyletic origins, and thus at least some form of special creation (which even Darwin was willing to accept in his Origin). Perhaps the rest for me and my set of beliefs are faith based (like Christ's resurrection), but the step of faith is much easier in light of the scientific evidence of the design and miracle of life. Issues of someones belief or disbelief in Christianity are of a personal nature and I'm not involved or will I support attempts to promote personal beliefs through govenment channels. The issue for me and many others is not public schools or culture wars. The issue is whether ID is true. That is why these discussions take place so we can engage ideas and sort out which ones have a good chance of being true. Salvadorscordova_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Hi Jack, Good answer. So many subtleties... Your definition of theistic evolution seems to hold that God exists and may have at some point done something other than play Cosmic Golf, but that something--whatever it is or might have been--is not knowable. I see the evolution here, but not anything that can rightly be called theism. I imagine this is intentional on the part of those of you who work in DarwinismÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s "marketing wing" --you can throw a bone to the "god people," while keeping philosophical naturalism fully entrenched as the order of the day. Cha-ching. I think we would both agree that design has not been scientifically _proven_, but I actually think that the juryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s still out on the detectability question--having come to be interested in ID through BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s book when it first came out (and to close the loop here, my votes are No and No). The primary difference between ID and the NDE crowd is that the former consider detectability a valid question to consider, while the latter rule it out on the basis of an a-priori set of assumptions. For them, "not scientifically detectable" means not now, not ever, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m-not-even-going-to-consider-the-possibility, and anyone who does will be summarily excommunicated from the fold of the faithful (ie, Sternberg). How is this "scientific" again?SteveB_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education: 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Blind watchmakerÃ¢â‚¬Â thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. The debate isn't as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated. (Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don't seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don't appear to understand the issue. The TE's I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE's are closet IDists.) Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW lifeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were. With Creation vs. "Evolution #6" the 4 main debating points are clear: 1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?) 2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?). 3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from "simpler" bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans) 4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process. With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: LifeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more Ã¢â‚¬Å“simpleÃ¢â‚¬Â viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes. IDists understand that if life didn't arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose soley due to those type of processes (point 1 up top). What does the data say? Well there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit. Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything: Extrapolating from small change
If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don't know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don't truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1). Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation. One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a "black box" and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What's more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution. In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn't understand evolution.
However Father Time, Mother Nature and the blind watchmaker does make for an interesting trinity...Joseph_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

"Again- it seems to me that this definition of TE is basically Ã¢â‚¬Å“IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve no evidence to back up my claim that God guided evolution and that man is the end result, but the thought itself makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll stick to it.Ã¢â‚¬Â" I think what they're saying is that their faith doesn't depend on the validation of science.Chris Hyland_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

If Thomism is a viable version of theistic evolution, then one could say that, while the processes whereby organisms evolve are entirely within the natural order ("secondary causation"), God sustains the natural order as a whole ("primary causation"). That is, God's causal relationship with Nature is metaphysically different from the causal relationships between natual beings. God's creative power is therefore not like the first shot in a game of pool which breaks the balls; His creative power is more like the pool table, which makes the entire game possible. (This can't be a good analogy, but I'm somewhat taken by it, so I'll run with it.) In any event, this is an important philosophical move which could distinguish theistic evolution -- or at least the Thomistic (and Maimonidean?) version of it -- from both intelligent design (in which the causal power of the Intelligence is detectable within the natural, immanent order) and from materialist interpretations of Darwinism (in which the natural, immanent order is self-sustaining and so does not require any sort of transcendent being to sustain it).Carlos_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

If a theistic evolution thinks that God guided evolution, how are they not Divine interventionists? Again- it seems to me that this definition of TE is basically "I've no evidence to back up my claim that God guided evolution and that man is the end result, but the thought itself makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so I'll stick to it." If God guided evolution, as I would see the theistic evolutionist perspective as claiming, then nature itself would be his act. If you think God exists and that he guided evolution, then surely you think nature itself is the result of God. Nature is all there is. God is responsible for nature, thus he's really the one responsible for everything period. He need not act to subvert natural processes, as natural processes would be part of his work to begin with. If God exists, then a natural process is merely something he either set in motion or is working on behind the scenes. If you're saying neither is true- I would think this would mean a completely weak God...really no God at all if he's not even powerful enough that natural processes are part of his work. That's where we get to natural and supernatural processes. If we define natural as things that exist in nature and the dictionary shows that nature really just means all there is- from the atomic to subatomic, all space and matter, etc. Then, there's really NOTHING that is supernatural. God, if he exists, surely created nature- as this would be the role of God, else he wouldn't be called God. If he created nature then all his actions are part of nature (he might be outside of nature in some manner, but he's surely still inside nature too as being the creator of nature means that he's part of it..), thus his actions are natural processes as well. It seems like to say this isn't true is to pit God against nature, which seems absurd. Or God against natural causes/processes, when God is clearly part of nature and natural processes and causes. When did "natural" come to mean something that happened without the aid of God?JasonTheGreek_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

First, thanks Dave for removing mr from the moderation list, and thanks to everyone here for the interesting conversation. Next, SteveB wrote "#To me, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“culture warsÃ¢â‚¬Â itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s about logic. ... So, a summary of the available options: 1. God (or some other higher intelligence) does not exist. Evolution is strictly materialistic. ID is false. 2. God (or some other higher intelligence) does exist, but has done _nothing_ to cause, motivate or otherwise guide evolution. Again, evolution is strictly materialistic and ID is false. 3. God (or some other higher intelligence) exists AND has acted either to explicitly create, or at a minimum, to guide evolution in some way. Evolution is not strictly materialistic. ID is true. What is not possible logically is the position implied in your post: Evolution is not strictly materialistic AND ID is false. Love to hear your reply." The problem here is that what ID is is not well-defined. Most definitions of ID include the idea that the design of specific aspects of the world can be scientifically detected. This is the crux upon which theistic IDists and theistic evolutionists disagree, and that disagreement goes more deeply into the general theology of how God relates to the flow of events in the physical world. Option 3 above is not a valid assertion, as there are quite a few non-materialistic views of the world that wouldn't include ID, theistic evolution being only one (and it has different flavors.) Also, I don't think anyone holds to 2. Deists believe in a God that created the world and then steps back and lets the world unfold according to the structures he has created. But even in this deistic view, God's causes evolution to happen in the same way he caused everything else to happen: by creating a world whose structure (entities, forces, processes, etc.) in which life forms and evolution happens. I don't see deism fitting into your schema anyplace. To be more explicit about 3: 3a. If ID means that design is scientifically detectable in some aspects of the world, then 3 is a false statement. 3b. If ID more broadly refers to the metaphysical belief that some type of non-material intelligence exists, then 3 is a tautology: if the world is not entirely materialistic, then it contains a non-material component. The problem with purely logical arguments is that they are no better than the beginning premises from which they proceed. I have tried to show here that the options given do not exhaust the possibilities. In this same vein, Jasonthe Greek writes, "If God worked through nature to create all of life- is that divine intervention? If, as many TEÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s believe- God is sustaining the world at ALL times, then is it considered a divine intervention?" I would say no. Divine intervention means, I believe, that God in some way contravenes the flow of natural processes so that something other than what would have occurred via natural processes happens instead, Theistic evolutionists are not Divine interventionists.Jack Krebs_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

I don't see anyway to reconcile belief in the Bible with this statement from Jack (I think it was Jack that the other poster was quoting:
"I will say that the theory of evolution does state that the special creation of species by Divine intervention is wrong. This is not an argument against a God that creates within the context of natural processes."
I think most of us can agree that the Bible is clear in that man is the pinnacle of God's creation, not the result of an accidental process or some natural process that never had him in mind. Special creation via divine intervention is sort of tricky itself. If God worked through nature to create all of life- is that divine intervention? If, as many TE's believe- God is sustaining the world at ALL times, then is it considered a divine intervention? I think that you can't get around the fact that Judaism and Christianity (even Islam) make it clear that mankind is the intended outcome of the process no matter how it happened- that man is at the pinnacle of it all, that God willed mans existence. So, if ToE argues against God creating man and that he did this as his ultimate creation- then ToE is clearly anti-theistic.JasonTheGreek_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Sorry...my first comment should have read "No" and "No." (I don't know why the first no got cut off.) I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t take around a dozen courses dealing with evolution during my undergraduate and graduate science studies because my church told me to. Thanks for the invitation Jack. CaseyCasey Luskin_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

and No. I didn't take around a dozen courses dealing with evolution during my undergraduate and graduate science studies because my church told me to. Thanks for the invitation Jack. CaseyCasey Luskin_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, Very good comment at #22. I disagree with you here:
I will say that the theory of evolution does state that the special creation of species by Divine intervention is wrong. This is not an argument against a God that creates within the context of natural processes.
I believe that this is usually an argument against such a God. "God would not create: a cat that plays with a mouse; a parasite whose larvae grow in a living host; species which go extinct; a world such as this ...". These are statements, neither scientific nor empirical, which are used as arguments against special creation, but are also statements against any actions or intent of a Creator in the natural history. The argument against special creation is not empirical, but theological, and hinges upon God not doing anything at all to express his will through natural history. As was said above, used as evidence for ToE itself is the claim that God would not do such and such. Special creation, then, is not argued against by what is found in nature (in fact, many will argue that nature argues for it instead of against ) but rather is asserted in support of naturalistic evolution.Charlie_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs I removed you from the moderation list. Your comments will now appear immediately.DaveScot_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

So -- to follow up on my own post -- what should a Quinean say to a theistic evolutionist, and vice-versa? A Quinean may say that, although evolutionary theory doesn't posit a Creator or Intelligence, it also does not show that there isn't one. So a theistic evolutionist may claim that there is a God, and show that religious and scientific belief-systems are at least good neighbors (with good fences?). Although theistic evolution is not inferred from the metaphysical commitments of the scientific theory itself, the theory is not without metaphysical commitments of its own. Miller is at liberty to show that his theology and his science do not conflict, but when he does so, he does not do as a scientist, but as a philosopher. (Whether he is a good philosopher is another question.)Carlos_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

If there's one thing that's to be learned from the history of 20th century philosophy, it's that the attempt to purge science of metaphysical commitments -- an attempt called logical positivism -- cannot succeed. I can readily agree that science should be free of a priori metaphysical commitments. But it doesn't follow from that that it should be metaphysically neutral. (For one thing, that presumes that any set of beliefs could be metaphysically neutral.) Now, what do I mean by "metaphysics" here? Here's a quick and dirty way of putting it: the metaphysical commitments of a theory consist of what the theory tells us must exist, if the theory is true. E.g. the germ theory of disease tells us that germs must exist, quantum mechanics tells us that entities with both wave-like and particle-like properties must exist, etc. So, what must exist if neo-Darwinian theories of evolution are true? Organisms, genes, environments, and the relationships between them. This does not license the inference that there is no Creator or Intelligence, but it does license the inference that, if the theory is true, one is not committed to such belief. Interestingly, the view of ontological commitment outlined here -- which was developed by the philosopher W.V.O. Quine -- has implications that Quine himself mightily resisted. For one can ask, what are the advantages of saying that elementary particles exist, and the Greek gods do not? All metaphysical commitments are theory-specific, but all theories stand equally before what he called "the tribunal of experience." His response to this problem is striking:
...in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.
But we also know that more than one theory -- that is to say, more than one set of metaphysical commitments -- is compatible with any set of experiences. So it's hard to see Quine's own physicalism and atheism as inconsistent with his own epistemology. This tension in Quine's thought has been helpfully explored by subsequent philosophers, such as Nelson Goodman, Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam, and John McDowell. In particular, Putnam has shown that Quine's own epistemology actually helps give conceptual pluralism -- the view that there's no single right way to describe the world, but rather many different ways, each of which is legitimate -- a new lease on life. As a pragmatist and pluralist myself, I'm therefore in Quine's debt. I don't know how useful, or even intelligible, any of this is to the rest of you, but I'd hope to show that the division between science and metaphysics is difficult to show.Carlos_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Chris: Re 27: "this does not mean it is scientifically detectable." If by this you mean that the cause of the fantastic complexity we are able to detect scientifically is not itself scientifically detectable, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m inclined to agree, although thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the standard pro-darwin talking point. Just recently McKee was quoted as saying, "the events leading to my birth were the culmination of nothing more than dumb luck-a product of chance." This kind of broad-brush philosophical conclusion (or assumption...) is routinely passed off as "scientific," "informed" and "objective." However, if I were to change a couple of words and say, for example, "the events leading to my birth were the culmination of nothing more than design-a product of intent," this becomes "religious," "fundamentalist," or even "wicked," as Dawkins has famously claimed. This sort of changing of the rules depending on which side of the ball you're playing on is something I expect from a backyard game with the neighborhood kids; it's dismaying, however, that this sort of rhetorical gamesmanship is consistently employed by an entire class of phd scientists who are ostensibly committed to intellectual integrity.SteveB_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Jason - to your point on fundamentalism, note that Jack's comment is hedged to pertain to only a "particular flavor" of fundamentalism. There are fundamentalist Christians who have put a specific literalism as a priority in their belief system, such as Young Earth Creationists. A YEC might argue that the early chapters of Genesis are not "in the form of" a historical narrative, they ARE a historical narrative. I agree that it is commendable for believers in a book to not pick and choose from it. However, a book such as the Bible deserves careful treatment. Most Americans pin beliefs to it without regard to its history, editing, redaction, translation, etc. or to the existence of a large number of literary forms which the original work employs. Not all of its prose is historical narrative.David vun Kannon_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Phil argues: I agree with Jack Krebs. Here is the proof from Dover, PA and Kansas.
So you're going to take the words of others and attribute them to me and those like me? Is that the way you do businesse Phil?scordova_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Carlos wrote: But Ã¢â‚¬Å“only culturalÃ¢â‚¬Â is slightly misleading. I would say that most of the ID sympathizers IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve interacted with here are convinced, for ethical or religious pr metaphysical reasons, that evolution cannot be true, and that this motivates the support of ID. If that werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the case, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d expect some genuine materialists among the ID supporters Ã¢â‚¬â€ Ã¢â‚¬Å“AID,Ã¢â‚¬Â as I would have said Ã¢â‚¬â€ people who are fine with materialistic metaphysics Ã¢â‚¬â€ or at least who just donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care about it one way or the other Ã¢â‚¬â€ but who find that the preponderance of the evidence requires intelligent intervention at some stage.
Carlos, Materialists metaphisics have no place in science. Here is what Darwinist Ken Miller writes, and it is consistent with Tipler, Davies, and Gribben, who as far as I can tell are ambivalent to the metaphysical issues compared to people like me:
This [quantum uncertainty] is something biologists, almost universally, have not yet come to grips with. And its consequences are enormous. It certainly means that we should wonder more than we currently do about the saying that life is made of Ã¢â‚¬Å“mereÃ¢â‚¬Â matterÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. This means that absolute materialism, a view that control and predictability and ultimate explanation are possible, breaks down in a way that is biologically significant. It means that after we have obtained understanding of so much of the world around us, the ultimate mastery of even the tiniest bit of matter in the universe will always elude usÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. [b][Thus] The core assumptions supporting the Ã¢â‚¬Å“scientificÃ¢â‚¬Â disbelief [atheism] of the absolute materialist are wrong, even by the terms of science itself...[/b] What matters is the straightforward, factual, strictly scientific recognition that matter in the universe behaves in such a way that we can never achieve complete knowledge of any fragment of it, and that life itself is structured in a way that allows biological history to pivot directly on these tiny uncertainties. That ought to allow even the most critical scientist to admit that the breaks in causality at the atomic level make it fundamentally impossible to exclude the idea that what we have really caught a glimpse of might indeed reflect the mind of God. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦. In the final analysis, absolute materialsm does not triumph because it cannot fully explain the nature of reality. pages 208-209, 214, 219 Finding DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s God
And Miller has criticized the Atheist for their unscientific materialist metaphysics, he wrote, "much of the problem lies with atheists". Science is agnostic to the issue of materialist metaphysics. However, Davies and Gribben's book, Matter Myth has a chapter, "The Death of Materialism" which shows that materialism is scientifically self contradictory, thus, as Miller asserts correctly, it has no place in science.scordova_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

"How is design automatically banned from science? Is there any good reason? Why is the idea that any evolution is directed outside of science?" I never said design was banned from science. "You say itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not science but philosophy, but who says whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s part of science?" Currently there is no empirical proof of Gods existence, and the concept of the supernatural cannot currently be used in science. Howver as DaveScot pointed out a while back, if a supernatural force causes an effect in the natural world, we may be able to detect it, but we currently can't attribute it to the supernatural. "isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a genetic mutation Ã¢â‚¬Å“cancerÃ¢â‚¬Â basically?" No. A cancer is a malignant cell line caused by uncontrolled cell division. "Is God only allowed to be relegated to the philosophical and unobservable?" In science God is currently in the philosophical and unobservable category. Assuming He exists there are plenty of ways that could change, depending on your idea of what God is of course. "It seems to me that leads it to two conclusions. 1. God exists, but heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s very deceptive. 2. God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist." Or that evolution was guided but proceeded according to what we understand to be natural law, I don't see why that nesseceraly has to be deceptive. It could be for many reasons, including our limitations in the understanding of natural law. Just as an example if key mutations were directed at the quantum level (by God or anyone else) that has resulted in evolution taking this particular course, I can't see any way we could currently detect that. "If from a scientific point of view, thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no difference between blind watchmaker and theistic evolution- then that means the theistic evolutionists are just foolish people who WANT to believe, right?" From talking to several people who would call themselves theistic evolutionists I can't see any evidence of that, but in the end I guess that's between them and their God and we will never know. "So, a summary of the available options: 1. God (or some other higher intelligence) does not exist. Evolution is strictly materialistic. ID is false. 2. God (or some other higher intelligence) does exist, but has done _nothing_ to cause, motivate or otherwise guide evolution. Again, evolution is strictly materialistic and ID is false. 3. God (or some other higher intelligence) exists AND has acted either to explicitly create, or at a minimum, to guide evolution in some way. Evolution is not strictly materialistic. ID is true." This comes down to the definition of ID I suppose. The point is that if 'God (or some other higher intelligence) exists AND has acted either to explicitly create, or at a minimum, to guide evolution in some way' this does not mean it is scientifically detectable.Chris Hyland_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Jason - there are religious world views in which the hiddenness of God is an important and well accepted principle. Such people are not one day a week believers in a warm and fuzzy theism, they can easily be 24x7 believers with very specific ideas about God and God's relationship to the world. You don't have to invent and denigrate religious positions to make a valid point.David vun Kannon_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Salvador, I understand that the initial questions were only meant for ID supporters, but I thought it important to indicate why an ID critic would agree with Kreb. That said, I won't take it personally if you decide to erase (3), or any other comments I make in this thread. ----------------------------------------- It is getting harder and harder to distinguish Miller's theistic evolution from the intelligent design theory of Behe, Dembski, and others. Catholic theology permits one to distinguish between "truths of reason" and "truths of faith," if I understand it correctly. So a theistic evolutionist could maintain that neo-Darwinian evolution is a truth of reason and that the existence, love, and wisdom of God is a truth of faith. Now, this is pushing against Thomism towards fideism. Thomas, from what I understand, argues that the existence of God is a truth of reason, even though the nature of God -- that He loves us, cares about us personally, etc. -- is a truth of faith. And if even the existence of God is pushed over into truths of faith, it begins to look a lot like fideism. (Apparently that's bad.) On the other hand -- just to make the various options clear -- someone like Miller could hold that the existence of God is a truth of reason but not scientifically confirmed or indicated. This requires a broader notion of reason than science. But there's a venerable tradition which holds that reason can go where science cannot, and so there might be resources for working this into better shape. In other words, I agree that the difference between theistic evolution and "blind watchmaker" evolution is not a scientific difference, but a philosophical one -- and this is a big difference, and it is a rational difference. One needn't be committed to fideism on account of insisting on this distinction. On the other hand, the difference between "blind watchmaker" evolution and intelligent design is purported to be a scientific difference, and must be assessed in those terms.Carlos_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

A quick response to David, and then more in response to SteveB later. My comments about the cultural aspect were motivated laregly by recent events as outlined in my post on the Panda's Thumb: the recent Kennedy show on Hitler, the Salvo magazine I got, John Calvert's recent series of presentations in Kansas, and the continual widespread assertions that evolution essentially suports atheism. These are all cultural and religious concerns. As David says, "The best, and only effective, way to counter JackÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assertion is to produce the science backing ID." I agree with that statement. Arguing for metaphysical ideas is important, as my post above indicates, but that is different than science.Jack Krebs_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

I think that Jack's original comments were not so much motivated by a survey of individuals associated with ID, as they were by the Wedge Document. This document lays out a strategic program in which intelligent design is a tool to promote an explicitly Christian agenda. Jack's feelings are directed towards the authors of that strategy, not the fellow travelers of Uncommon Descent, IMHO. The best, and only effective, way to counter Jack's assertion is to produce the science backing ID.David vun Kannon_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Jack, To me, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not about the "culture wars" itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s about logic. You say: "However this phrasing mixes science and metaphysics, because you (and many others) use \"Blind Watchmaker evolution\" to mean a strictly materialistic interpretation of evolution." Never mind the fact that we all know itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s DawkinsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, and not SalvadorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s term. But IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m wondering what non-"strictly materialistic evolution" is really. If (someone like) Miller claims that god exists and has anything whatsoever to do with the evolutionary process, then he belongs, strictly speaking, in the ID camp: God acted. God guided. God designed--even if it was only getting the ball rolling or tinkering around the edges. On the other hand, if MillerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s god did nothing, what you call "strictly materialistic" is the only game in town. So, a summary of the available options: 1. God (or some other higher intelligence) does not exist. Evolution is strictly materialistic. ID is false. 2. God (or some other higher intelligence) does exist, but has done _nothing_ to cause, motivate or otherwise guide evolution. Again, evolution is strictly materialistic and ID is false. 3. God (or some other higher intelligence) exists AND has acted either to explicitly create, or at a minimum, to guide evolution in some way. Evolution is not strictly materialistic. ID is true. What is not possible logically is the position implied in your post: Evolution is not strictly materialistic AND ID is false. Love to hear your reply. -sbSteveB_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply