Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Optimus, replying to KN on ID as ideology, summarises the case for design in the natural world

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The following reply by Optimus to KN in the TSZ thread, is far too good not to headline as an excellent summary of the case for design as a scientifically legitimate view, not mere  “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo”  ideology motivated and driven by anti-materialism and/or a right-wing, theocratic, culture war mentality commonly ascribed to “Creationism” by its objectors:

______________

>> KN

It’s central to the ideological glue that holds together “the ID movement” that the following are all conflated:Darwin’s theories; neo-Darwinism; modern evolutionary theory; Epicurean materialistic metaphysics; Enlightenment-inspired secularism. (Maybe I’m missing one or two pieces of the puzzle.) In my judgment, a mind incapable of making the requisite distinctions hardly deserves to be taken seriously.

I think your analysis of the driving force behind ID is way off base. That’s not to say that persons who advocate ID (including myself) aren’t sometimes guilty of sloppy use of language, nor am I making the claim that the modern synthetic theory of evolution is synonymous with materialism or secularism. Having made that acknowledgement, though, it is demonstrably true that (1) metaphysical presuppostions absolutely undergird much of the modern synthetic theory. This is especially true with regard to methodological naturalism (of course, MN is distinct from ontological naturalism, but if, as some claim, science describes the whole of reality, then reality becomes coextensive with that which is natural). Methodological naturalism is not the end product of some experiment or series of experiments. On the contrary it is a ground rule that excludes a priori any explanation that might be classed as “non-natural”. Some would argue that it is necessary for practical reasons, after all we don’t want people atributing seasonal thunderstorms to Thor, do we? However, science could get along just as well as at present (even better in my view) if the ground rule is simply that any proposed causal explanation must be rigorously defined and that it shall not be accepted except in light of compelling evidence. Problem solved! Though some fear “supernatural explanation” (which is highly definitional) overwhelming the sciences, such concerns are frequently oversold. Interestingly, the much maligned Michael Behe makes very much the same point in his 1996 Darwin’s Black Box:

If my graduate student came into my office and said that the angel of death killed her bacterial culture, I would be disinclined to believe her…. Science has learned over the past half millenium that the universe operates with great regularity the great majority of the time, and that simple laws and predictable behavior explain most physical phenomena.
Darwin’s Black Box pg. 241

If Behe’s expression is representative of the ID community (which I would venture it is), then why the death-grip on methodological naturalism? I suggest that its power lies in its exclusionary function. It rules out ID right from the start, before even any discussions about the emprical data are to be had. MN means that ID is persona non grata, thus some sort of evolutionary explanation must win by default. (2) In Darwin’s own arguments in favor of his theory he rely heavily on metaphysical assumptions about what God would or wouldn’t do. Effectively he uses special creation by a deity as his null hypothesis, casting his theory as the explanatory alternative. Thus the adversarial relationship between Darwin (whose ideas are foundational to the MST) and theism is baked right into The Origin. To this very day, “bad design” arguments in favor of evolution still employ theological reasoning. (3) The modern synthetic theory is often used in the public debate as a prop for materialism (which I believe you acknowledged in another comment). How many times have we heard the famed Richard Dawkins quote to the effect that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’? Very frequently evolutionary theory is impressed into service to show the superfluousness of theism or to explain away religion as an erstwhile useful phenomenon produced by natural selection (or something to that effect). Hardly can it be ignored that the most enthusiastic boosters of evolutionary theory tend to fall on the atheist/materialist/reductionist side of the spectrum (e.g. Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer, P.Z. Meyers, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Peter Atkins, Daniel Dennett, Will Provine). My point simply stated is that it is not at all wrong-headed to draw a connection between the modern synthetic theory and the aforementioned class of metaphysical views. Can it be said that the modern synthetic theory (am I allowed just to write Neo-Darwinism for short?) doesn’t mandate nontheistic metaphysics? Sure. But it’s just as true that they often accompany each other.

In chalking up ID to a massive attack of confused cognition, you overlook the substantive reasons why many (including a number of PhD scientists) consider ID to be a cogent explanation of many features of our universe (especially the bioshpere):

-Functionally-specified complex information [FSCI] present in cells in prodigdious quantities
-Sophisticated mechanical systems at both the micro and macro level in organisms (many of which exhibit IC)
-Fine-tuning of fundamental constants
-Patterns of stasis followed by abrupt appearance (geologically speaking) in the fossil record

In my opinion the presence of FSCI/O and complex biological machinery are very powerful indicators of intelligent agency, judging from our uniform and repeated experience. Also note that none of the above reasons employ theological presuppositions. They flow naturally, inexorably from the data. And, yes, we are all familiar with the objection that organisms are distinct from artificial objects, the implication being that our knowledge from the domain of man-made objects doesn’t carry over to biology. I think this is fallacious. Everyone acknowledges that matter inhabiting this universe is made up of atoms, which in turn are composed of still other particles. This is true of all matter, not just “natural” things, not just “artificial” things – everything. If such is the case, then must not the same laws apply to all matter with equal force? From whence comes the false dichotomy that between “natural” and “artificial”? If design can be discerned in one case, why not in the other?

To this point we have not even addressed the shortcomings of the modern synthetic theory (excepting only its metaphysical moorings). They are manifold, however – evidential shortcomings (e.g. lack of empirical support), unjustified extrapolations, question-begging assumptions, ad hoc rationalizations, tolerance of “just so” stories, narratives imposed on data instead of gleaned from data, conflict with empirical data from generations of human experience with breeding, etc. If at the end of the day you truly believe that all ID has going for it is a culture war mentality, then may I politely suggest that you haven’t been paying attention.>>

______________

Well worth reflecting on, and Optimus deserves to be headlined. END

Comments
To solidify the claim that,,,
,,,if Theism is not held as unconditionally true prior to scientific investigation then nothing else can ever be held as unconditionally true there afterwards!,,,
I would like to offer, besides niwrad's "Comprehensibility of the world" post which I've already referenced, and Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) which I also just referenced, I would like to offer Dr. Torley's post from February, in which Dr. Torley, in his usual meticulous style, searched high and low for a basis of rationality within Darwinism and found none,,,
Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
I was particularly stuck by Dr. Torley's finding of the lack of any rigid mathematical basis in neo-Darwinism so to make concrete predictions. A particularly troubling 'scientific' dilemma as is highlighted in this quote from Dr. Berlinski that Mr. Arrington highlighted on March 6 shortly after Dr. Torley's 'devil is in the details' post :
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)
And then on March 24 niwrad posted "The Equations Of Evolution" in which I came to the realization that,,,
,,"neo-Darwinism can have no mathematical basis because of the atheistic insistence for the ‘random’ variable postulate at the base of its formulation (which prevents any ‘mathematical certitude’ from ever being achieved)" https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-equations-of-evolution/#comment-450540
I go on in that entry to point out that the 'random variable postulate', that Atheists absolutely insist on using as a 'Designer substitute' (so as to be 'scientific' in their minds), is what in fact drives their preferred materialistic version of 'science' into irreconcilable epistemological failure. This epistemological failure is driven home not only in Plantinga's EAAN but also at the beginning of the universe with 'Boltzmann's Brain' in which it is found that on materialism,,
,,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.
Music and Verse:
Where The Spirit Of The Lord Is - Chris Tomlin , Christy Nockels , Nathan Nockels http://worshiptogether.com/songs/songdetail.aspx?iid=1794631 Job 12:13 "But true wisdom and power are found in God; counsel and understanding are his.
bornagain77
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
LT: I was just making sure there would be no continuing misrepresentation, given a widespread and pernicious false narrative on the history of the rise of science that needs correction. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
One of those neat 'coincidental surprises': video - In Two Minutes or Less: Plantinga on Naturalistic Evolution as a Self-Defeating Proposition April 5, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/in_two_minutes070881.htmlbornagain77
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
I particularly liked the dictum of David Ben-Gurion: 'Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles is not a realist.' If his name was unfamiliar, you could be forgiven for thinking he was probably a molecular biologist or nuclear physicist. At least, in the earlier age of the giants of relativity, quantum physics and maths, of the last century, before the rise to power of the corporate-driven dirt-worshippers, who couldn't shift a paradigm with a forklift.Axel
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
The continuum of faith and reason are given a mighty impetus by the book of Mary Read, the orthopaedic surgeon, who experienced a remarkable 'posse' of miracles, in relation to the accident and subsequent NDE she experienced, while kayaking in Chile. Better than any of the videos, much as I love finding and watching the best of them.Axel
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
bornagain77, kairosfocus, You are both right, of course. While science should not smuggle in foreign philosophical concepts into its methodology, it owes it rationality to reason's rules (Philosophy) and its existence to the Biblical teaching that God created a rational universe ripe for discovery (Theology)--and, at a deeper level still, a philosophical/theological truth arrived at a few centuries earlier-----faith and reason are compatible and mutually reinforcing.StephenB
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Hi Larry! One of your skeptic ink buddies owes me money. Andy Schueler is blathering on about nested hierarchies. I told him that if all the transitional forms still existed that we wouldn’t have a strict, objective nested hierarchy. He called me a moron. So to support my claim I offered:
Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14
Denton agrees with me:
There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)
We have a $10,000 bet on who knows more about nested hierarchies. He will never pay me though. What do you think about that?Joe
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
KF- I have not said one word to the effect that Christianity retarded or obstructed the development of science.LarTanner
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
PS: A really weird captcha game popped up just now.kairosfocus
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
LT: Allow me to draw your attention to Nancey Pearcey's thoughts summarised here. Let me clip: ____________ >> Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper By Nancy Pearcey [ . . . . ] Most historians today agree that the main impact Christianity had on the origin and development of modern science was positive. Far from being a science stopper, it is a science starter. One reason this dramatic turn-around has not yet filtered down to the public is that the history of science is still quite a young field. Only fifty years ago, it was not even an independent discipline. Over the past few decades, however, it has blossomed dramatically, and in the process, many of the old myths and stereotypes that we grew up with have been toppled. Today the majority view is that Christianity provided many of the crucial motivations and philosophical assumptions necessary for the rise of modern science.[6] In one sense, this should come as no surprise. After all, modern science arose in one place and one time only: It arose out of medieval Europe, during a period when its intellectual life was thoroughly permeated with a Christian worldview. Other great cultures, such as the Chinese and the Indian, often developed a higher level of technology and engineering. But their expertise tended to consist of practical know-how and rules of thumb. They did not develop what we know as experimental science–testable theories organized into coherent systems. Science in this sense has appeared only once in history. As historian Edward Grant writes, “It is indisputable that modern science emerged in the seventeenth century in Western Europe and nowhere else.”[7]. . . . The church fathers taught that the material world came from the hand of a good Creator, and was thus essentially good. The result is described by a British philosopher of science, Mary Hesse: “There has never been room in the Hebrew or Christian tradition for the idea that the material world is something to be escaped from, and that work in it is degrading.” Instead, “Material things are to be used to the glory of God and for the good of man.”[19] Kepler is, once again, a good example. When he discovered the third law of planetary motion (the orbital period squared is proportional to semi-major axis cubed, or P[superscript 2] = a [superscript 3]), this was for him “an astounding confirmation of a geometer god worthy of worship. He confessed to being ‘carried away by unutterable rapture at the divine spectacle of heavenly harmony’.”[20] In the biblical worldview, scientific investigation of nature became both a calling and an obligation. As historian John Hedley Brooke explains, the early scientists “would often argue that God had revealed himself in two books—the book of His words (the Bible) and the book of His works (nature). As one was under obligation to study the former, so too there was an obligation to study the latter.”[21] The rise of modern science cannot be explained apart from the Christian view of nature as good and worthy of study, which led the early scientists to regard their work as obedience to the cultural mandate to “till the garden”. . . . Today the majority of historians of science agree with this positive assessment of the impact the Christian worldview had on the rise of science. Yet even highly educated people remain ignorant of this fact. Why is that? The answer is that history was founded as a modern discipline by Enlightenment figures such as Voltaire, Gibbon, and Hume who had a very specific agenda: They wanted to discredit Christianity while promoting rationalism. And they did it by painting the middle ages as the “Dark Ages,” a time of ignorance and superstition. They crafted a heroic saga in which modern science had to battle fierce opposition and oppression from Church authorities. Among professional historians, these early accounts are no longer considered reliable sources. Yet they set the tone for the way history books have been written ever since. The history of science is often cast as a secular morality tale of enlightenment and progress against the dark forces of religion and superstition. Stark puts it in particularly strong terms: “The ‘Enlightenment’ [was] conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists and humanists who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science.”[22] Stark’s comments express a tone of moral outrage that such bad history continues to be perpetuated, even in academic circles. He himself published an early paper quoting the standards texts, depicting the relationship between Christianity and science as one of constant “warfare.” He now seems chagrined to learn that, even back then, those stereotypes had already been discarded by professional historians.[23] Today the warfare image has become a useful tool for politicians and media elites eager to press forward with a secularist agenda . . . [The whole article is well worth the read, here.]>> Nancy Pearcey, author of Total Truth, is editor at large of The Pearcey Report and the Francis A. Schaeffer Scholar at World Journalism Institute. This article appears, with minor changes, in Areopagus Journal 5:1 (January-February 2005): pp. 4-9 (www.apologeticsresctr.org). Copyright © Nancy Pearcey. >> ____________ There are a few secularist myths concerning the roots and nature of science that need to be popped, so that we can see a bit more clearly and without a lot of the silly "warfare" baggage that dates to particularly bad reporting of history from C18 and 19. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
that ‘science’ would have never gotten off the ground without ‘improperly’ injecting the Theistic philosophy into science.
Having a class of people with sufficient time, education, and inclination to devote themselves to performing scientific activities was also important to getting science off the ground. See Aristotle's Physics:
When the objects of an inquiry, in any department, have principles, conditions, or elements, it is through acquaintance with these that knowledge, that is to say scientific knowledge, is attained. For we do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles, and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements. Plainly therefore in the science of Nature, as in other branches of study, our first task will be to try to determine what relates to its principles. The natural way of doing this is to start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature; for the same things are not 'knowable relatively to us' and 'knowable' without qualification. So in the present inquiry we must follow this method and advance from what is more obscure by nature, but clearer to us, towards what is more clear and more knowable by nature. Now what is to us plain and obvious at first is rather confused masses, the elements and principles of which become known to us later by analysis. Thus we must advance from generalities to particulars; for it is a whole that is best known to sense-perception, and a generality is a kind of whole, comprehending many things within it, like parts. Much the same thing happens in the relation of the name to the formula. A name, e.g. 'round', means vaguely a sort of whole: its definition analyses this into its particular senses. Similarly a child begins by calling all men 'father', and all women 'mother', but later on distinguishes each of them.
See also Epicureus, who saw the study of nature as driven by the desire to banish fear of the world and to increase happiness:
10. If the objects which are productive of pleasures to profligate persons really freed them from fears of the mind, -- the fears, I mean, inspired by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, the fear of death, the fear of pain; if, further, they taught them to limit their desires, we should never have any fault to find with such persons, for they would then be filled with pleasures to overflowing on all sides and would be exempt from all pain, whether of body or mind, that is, from all evil. 11. If we had never been molested by alarms at celestial and atmospheric phenomena, nor by the misgiving that death somehow affects us, nor by neglect of the proper limits of pains and desires, we should have had no need to study natural science. 12. It would be impossible to banish fear on matters of the highest importance, if a person did not know the nature of the whole universe, but lived in dread of what the legends tell us. Hence without the study of nature there was no enjoyment of unmixed pleasures.
LarTanner
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Nightlight - As everybody at UD knows, y'all are welcome to join in the discussion at The Skeptical Zone. You, Nightlight, are personally invited by Lizzie and I am extending this invitation on her behalf (since she has long since been banned by the authorities at UD and can't post here). Of course, Lizzie has also, many times, invited Kairosfocus to join the discussion on an open forum, and that invitation is still stands.hotshoe
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Looked at from the another angle one could rightly argue, as niwrad did so eloquently yesterday,,,
Comprehensibility of the world Excerpt: ,,,Bottom line: without an absolute Truth, (there would be) no logic, no mathematics, no beings, no knowledge by beings, no science, no comprehensibility of the world whatsoever. https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/comprehensibility-of-the-world/
,,, that 'science' would have never gotten off the ground without 'improperly' injecting the Theistic philosophy into science. Sure science is dependent on empirics for validating various competing 'interpretations' of the Theistic philosophy that science is dependent on to be rationally practiced, but we must never forget that unless Theism is held as unconditionally true throughout investigation then the entire enterprise of science winds up in epistemological failure. It is not that Theists are demanding that Theism is the only answer allowed to be considered true prior to investigation, as atheist demand with their artificial imposition of methodological naturalism, it is that if Theism is not held as true prior to investigation then nothing else can be held as true afterwards! Notes:
Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Neo-Darwinism insists that every phenomenon, every species, every trait of every species, is the consequence of random chance, as natural selection requires. And yet, Nagel says, “certain things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as non-accidental if we are to pretend to a real understanding of the world.” Among these remarkable, nonaccidental things are many of the features of the manifest image. Consciousness itself, for example: You can’t explain consciousness in evolutionary terms, Nagel says, without undermining the explanation itself. Evolution easily accounts for rudimentary kinds of awareness. Hundreds of thousands of years ago on the African savannah, where the earliest humans evolved the unique characteristics of our species, the ability to sense danger or to read signals from a potential mate would clearly help an organism survive. So far, so good. But the human brain can do much more than this. It can perform calculus, hypothesize metaphysics, compose music—even develop a theory of evolution. None of these higher capacities has any evident survival value, certainly not hundreds of thousands of years ago when the chief aim of mental life was to avoid getting eaten. Could our brain have developed and sustained such nonadaptive abilities by the trial and error of natural selection, as neo-Darwinism insists? It’s possible, but the odds, Nagel says, are “vanishingly small.” If Nagel is right, the materialist is in a pickle. The conscious brain that is able to come up with neo-Darwinism as a universal explanation simultaneously makes neo-Darwinism, as a universal explanation, exceedingly unlikely.,,, ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html
bornagain77
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
F/N: I see SB has remarked. I will just add, that when people load materialism into science, they are improperly injecting philosophy. Science should be driven by empirical evidence, not materialist ideological a priori's or a more or less imposed "consensus." KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
WJM, I was responding to nightlight's application the term "philosophical narrative." The event that prompted the exchange was his claim that Stephen Meyer is a sloppy thinker and writer on the grounds that he uncritically interchanges the philosophical concept of "mind" with the scientific construct of "intelligent agent," contaminating the scientific hypothesis.StephenB
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
WJM: Pardon an interjection (as I don't know when SB will pass by again), but it seems to me that a scientific hyp fits into the more or less plain vanilla, generally accepted and widely used framework of observations and pattern detection, abductive inference as to a candidate best simple explanation, predictions of future discoveries, testing based on experiment or observation studies, and the like techniques. On such, provisional general explanatory frameworks -- models, theories, etc -- can be built and are recognised as provisional but so far empirically reliable. When the discussion shifts to challenging that framework and/or the question of world view level a prioris being injected, the issues are now in phil of sci and possibly general phil. On that basis, intelligent designers who make contrivances showing choice contingency towards functionality of systems, are empirically observed entities. But, debating on how such come to have intelligence and what intelligence and mind are as "stuff" or for that matter what matter is as stuff, increasingly shifts into worldview and epistemological considerations. A test is, that because of the canon of empirical observability, the discussion is in principle relatively independent of the worldview brought to the table. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
StephenB:
I think that each of us, kairosfocus first, agrees that ID should not offer a philosophical narrative in the place of a scientific hypothesis.
Just so I understand you here, how are you differentiating a "philosophical narrative" from a "scientific hypothesis" since, as far as I can tell, any scientific hypothesis must also be part of a philosophical narrative.William J Murray
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
F/N: intelligence [?n?t?l?d??ns] n 1. (Psychology) the capacity for understanding; ability to perceive and comprehend meaning 2. good mental capacity a person of intelligence 3. Old-fashioned news; information 4. (Military) military information about enemies, spies, etc. 5. (Military) a group or department that gathers or deals with such information 6. (often capital) an intelligent being, esp one that is not embodied 7. (Military) (modifier) of or relating to intelligence an intelligence network [from Latin intellegentia, from intellegere to discern, comprehend, literally: choose between, from inter- + legere to choose] intelligential adj Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 --> I see no good reason to infer that biochemical networks etc have intelligence, or are capable of choice contingency towards a purpose. At best they may be programmed. (Recall, a computer has no intelligence of its own, it is programmed.) KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
F/N: For a basic and uncontroversial case, consider signal to noise power ratio in communications. Intelligent signals have known expected and/or observed characteristics, and noise has reasonably known characteristics shaped by stochastic processes. So one may measure and distinguish the two theoretically and practically. The ratio, S/N, is a major quality metric in comms systems. One, that rests on a design inference, right in its heart. KF PS: This is an example I have long used, and noted on in discussions, including the briefing note linked through my handle.kairosfocus
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
NL:
natural science can’t do anything to start research on “intelligent cause” since that’s not an object that natural science can recognize as any part of its models. ‘Intelligence’ and ’cause’ are only an attribute and a role (in causal chain of biological artifacts) of something, but neither is an object that can be researched without hypothesis as to what might have that attribute and play that role.
As just pointed out, intelligent designers are a fact of life all around us. The subject for design theory is not designers but candidate designs and the features thereof that may potentially reliably indicate the type of cause acting. That is, a fundamentally origins/"historical" science oriented investigation along the lines pioneered by Lyell and Darwin etc. That is, to reconstruct the credible past -- unobservable -- causal roots of phenomena we can see. To do so, the process is to identify acting causes in the present and their effects, thence testable, reliable signs pointing to the processes. Just as we seek to reconstruct the life cycle of a star on the model of what happens with a ball of hydrogen rich gas of sufficient scale, and compare with the HR diagram based on observations [e.g. reconstructing as a model the life of the sun, or explaining branching off to the Giants bands for clusters], we can seek to ask, what happens when a designer acts, and what traces are commonly left. Then we can note things such as FSCO/I and see that by intentional choice towards functional purpose, designers often create FSCO/I. Such as with posts in this thread -- this isn't rocket science! On testing and analysis -- needle in haystack -- we can see that FSCO/I is a good sign of design as cause, with literally billions of test cases. then, we look in the heart of the living cell and behold: DNA with complex, functionally specific digital code that makes proteins, with the help of an organised cluster of molecular nanomachines. A simple exploration has now gone right to the heart of the world of life, with startling implications. Sort of like an apple falling from a tree on a farm in Lincolnshire, c. 1664, while the crescent moon swings by in orbit. As in, a simple connexion, with startling consequences. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
NL: It seems to me that the inductively arrived at conclusion that there are certain empirically observable signs (such as FSCO/I) that -- on inductive investigation -- reliably point to the material role of design as causal process is sufficiently scientific to be a basis for investigations. And there is a growing body of peer reviewed work on such. Where the study of the methodology of science (which routinely crops up in cases of debate) is inherently a matter of logic and epistemology, showing how philosophical matters are inextricable from sciences once we ask hard questions. But, we can be confident that something like FSCO/I can be explored in light of the empirical fact of intelligent designers and the traces they often leave. I would believe it is a fair and reasonable step in science to seek to study such on empirical terms. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
nightlight
My critique (a) which was used until this morning, is under assumption that ID has a “scientific hypothesis” about the nature of “intelligent cause”.
I am pleased to hear that you did not understand ID methodology since that would indicate that you were not consciously misrepresenting the facts. Indeed, ID does not hypothesize about the nature of the intelligent cause. This is fundamental to ID's minimalist approach, which is based on abductive reasoning--an inference to the best of two or more competing explanations.
So critique (a) argues that “intelligent mind” which appeared to play that role, cannot be a valid scientific hypothesis in natural science since there is no counterpart for “mind” or “consciousness” in present natural science (that may be a gap in the present science, but that is what it is now).
Since ID does not, at least for now, hypothesize an "intelligent mind," your comment does not seem relevant. It seems as if we have been down this road before.
There is essentially only one objection to KF’s defense which is: ID cannot get away without making a proper scientific hypothesis, by mere offering of philosophical narrative as a substitute (of for whatever other purpose).
I think that each of us, kairosfocus first, agrees that ID should not offer a philosophical narrative in the place of a scientific hypothesis.
Namely, natural science can’t do anything to start research on “intelligent cause” since that’s not an object that natural science can recognize as any part of its models.
It is always a mistake to make dogmatic statements from an incomplete knowledge base.
‘Intelligence’ and ’cause’ are only an attribute and a role (in causal chain of biological artifacts) of something, but neither is an object that can be researched without hypothesis as to what might have that attribute and play that role.
Try to appreciate the fact that you are not yet familiar enough with ID methodology to hold court on the matter. Among other things, it would help if you could learn something about the methods of historical science, the meaning of causal adequacy, and the nature of abductive logic.StephenB
April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
StevenB, #259, #260: Well, it seems that we have added yet another incompatible piece to the puzzle: [a] Mind is part of the ID hypothesis, which disqualifies it as a scientific enterprise [b] Mind is not really a part of the ID hypothesis, but it is a philosophical add on that shouldn't be there. [c] Even if Mind is not part of the ID hypothesis, it doesn't matter since ID fails to explain the nature of the designer. There is no contradiction, since those conclusions arise from different starting assumptions. My critique (a) which was used until this morning, is under assumption that ID has a "scientific hypothesis" about the nature of "intelligent cause". So critique (a) argues that "intelligent mind" which appeared to play that role, cannot be a valid scientific hypothesis in natural science since there is no counterpart for "mind" or "consciousness" in present natural science (that may be a gap in the present science, but that is what it is now). This morning KF suggested that "mind" was only a part of general philosophical discussion surrounding the subject, not a scientific hypothesis. Since I didn't state (b) and (c) which is your rephrasing of my quotes, I'll defend below what I said. There is essentially only one objection to KF's defense which is: ID cannot get away without making a proper scientific hypothesis, by mere offering of philosophical narrative as a substitute (of for whatever other purpose). Namely, natural science can't do anything to start research on "intelligent cause" since that's not an object that natural science can recognize as any part of its models. 'Intelligence' and 'cause' are only an attribute and a role (in causal chain of biological artifacts) of something, but neither is an object that can be researched without hypothesis as to what might have that attribute and play that role. As far as present natural science knows, only humans can be characterized with an attribute and a role "intelligent cause" (perhaps some animals, too), but humans (or animals) obviously cannot be hypothesized to be the ID's "intelligent cause" since the cause has to precede its effects (humans and animals). Hence some other scientific hypothesis needs to be made, so science can do something constructive with it. Mind or consciousness won't do, since they don't have a counterpart in present natural science. Natural science is not going to absorb sterile elements that it cant do anything with. The only scientist involved in this debate I have seen trying to fill in the missing hypothesis is James Shapiro, who is suggesting that cellular biochemical networks might be the source of the intelligence behind the evolutionary innovations. That still leaves the origin of life and fine tuning as open questions (which is where Planckian networks were aimed at), but at least he provides scientifically legitimate hypothesis that can be followed up.nightlight
April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
NL: Re:
ID cannot get away with offering philosophy or religion as a substitute for legitimate scientific hypothesis as to what “intelligent cause” might be and how can it be researched. Natural science is just not going to walk over that edge without seeing the next foothold, the falsifiable scientific hypothesis about the “intelligent cause”.
1 --> What part of the argument I summarised here today constitutes anything beyond empirically warranted inductive inferences on observable and often measurable phenomena? 2 --> Given that we observe and experience intelligent causes in action, and given that we have placed on the table specific, observable phenomena on the table as proposed reliable signs [on billions of test cases] how can you suggest that you do not know what an intelligent cause is? Can it and its suggested signs not be investigated on the exact same inductive criteria that lie at the heart of science? 3 --> What part of FSCI (given the just linked discussion) is an empirically reliable sign of design as cause, is not subject to empirical test and potential falsification? 4 --> As in, is it in principle impossible to show a counter example to the inductive generalisation? If not, just why? KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
nightlight
As explained in post #250, this is not a strawman argument, but observation that the ID refusal to provide scientifically legitimate hypothesis about the nature of the “intelligent cause”, and offering instead the ontological mind-matter debate is as unwise strategy as if Spartans had picked to battle Persians in the widest planes they could find.
Well, it seems that we have added yet another incompatible piece to the puzzle: [a] Mind is part of the ID hypothesis, which disqualifies it as a scientific enterprise [b] Mind is not really a part of the ID hypothesis, but it is a philosophical add on that shouldn't be there. [c] Even if Mind is not part of the ID hypothesis, it doesn't matter since ID fails to explain the nature of the designer. This is all very entertaining, but it certainly tugs away at my perception of what it means to have a rational discussion.StephenB
April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
nightlight
Not in those words....,
The difficulty, it seems to me, is what appears to be your two contradictory arguments. On the one hand, you argue (falsely) that "mind" is a part of the ID hypothesis
It is what is attached to that link (“intelligent mind” or “mental agency”) that is vacuous as a hypothesis within the present natural science.
On the other hand, you also argue that "mind" is an extraneous philosophical add on to the hypothesis that comes from sloppy writing and careless public communication.
ID cannot get away with offering philosophy or religion as a substitute for legitimate scientific hypothesis
Do you grasp the problem. Mind is either part of the ID hypothesis or it is not. If you could affirm one position and negate the other, there might be some potential for a rational discussion.StephenB
April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
PS: Such a hyp has been on the table all along, indeed we could have started from what Crick said in 1953. All they have done is play tricks to duck it and distort it to change the subject to play dirty politics. Try here, just today for a summary.kairosfocus
April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
NL: If they hold the institutional keys, and are so ruthless as we have seen, then they are not going to be troubled over mere niceties of duties of care to correct terminology, or truth, or to fairness, etc. When we don't line up with their gotcha tactics, they will make up stuff, like in how I am supposedly a Nazi. And that is coming from the ilk who are playing outing tactic games and have harboured a man who has threatened my family. We just have to make sure that we operate on a sound basis, and then expose the tricks and nasty power games. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
kairosfocus 254: Are you unaware that a priori ideological materialists have set out to redefine science on their metaphysical assumptions, and are busily censoring and expelling those who do not go along with such tactics? I am not saying they are playing fair. But they are the guys holding the keys, and ID has got to offer what they are looking for, a legitimate scientific hypothesis about "intelligent cause". There is no way around it via philosophy since they are not going to give you half written signed check, for you to fill in the amount.nightlight
April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
StephenB #252: No, that is not what you have been saying. Your argument has been that in the scientific context alone, ID injects "mind" into its methodology. Not in those words, since my focus was on following up with next steps. As explained in post #253 above, ID cannot get away with offering philosophy or religion as a substitute for legitimate scientific hypothesis as to what "intelligent cause" might be and how can it be researched. Natural science is just not going to walk over that edge without seeing the next foothold, the falsifiable scientific hypothesis about the "intelligent cause".nightlight
April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply