Science’s Blind Spot

_{Cornelius Hunter

August 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

A friend of mine likes to invest in stocks. He understands computer companies so he trades only those stocks. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward investing strategy. Evolutionists also limit themselves. They investigate only those phenomena that are the result of strictly natural causes. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward research strategy, though it does create a blind spot. Read more

Comments

Tell me, can you please offer up an example of a supernatural phenomena that cannot be pursued by science, and why it cannot?
It might be interest first for someone to offer up an instance of a phenomenon known to be supernatural.Petrushka_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

BTW, jurrassic, could you explain how one marks the difference from "obviously designed by humans because of similarities" to "not apparent enough to warrant design-related research"? Where does the obviousness end, and "no warrant for such conclusion" begin? Is it scientific? Quantifiable? Nothing but intuition? Where do we draw the line, and how? I also notice neither of you have answered this question, which I asked above: Tell me, can you please offer up an example of a supernatural phenomena that cannot be pursued by science, and why it cannot?William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Mathgirl, So, there is no way to ever scientifically determine that an object found on another otherwise uninterestin, desolate, empty planet is the object of alien intelligent design? Like a crashed, alien, "unmanned", automated cargoship that has been there for thousands of years? We'd be completely unable to distinguish it as an artifact of intelligence? It can't be a productive scientific hypothesis that the object might be best explained as the product of intelligence? It's best just to try to explain the object in terms of non-intelligent forces and materials intercting according to chance and necessity?William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

jurassicmac said: "... or the artifact is similar to other artifacts that are known to be designed." Bingo. That is the entire ID argument, and that the "similarity" can be a well-defined, quantifiable commodity that simultaneously precludes all other known, natural processes, and also excludes "chance" (at least as "best explanation"). That quantifiable "similarity" is currently called functionally specified complex information, and the quantity necessary for a scientific finding of "similarity to what human ID produces" is 1000 bits.William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Let's say we did find an artifact on a distant planet that had buttons, levers, glass screens, wiring and girders. knowing nothing else about it - purpose, origin etc, - we probably would determine that it was designed - do you know why? Because all of those things are associated with known designs and methods, and more specifically, known kinds of designers. (intelligent biological entities) You're right, after something is determined to most likely be the product of design, then we can start to identify the precise identities and agents mechanisms involved in its origin. But in this example, we already know a little bit about both of those, because we have similar designed artifacts that we can directly compare it too. Lets say that a few feet from this little device, the space explorers find a large, calcium-like, mushroom shaped object with thousands of intricate markings around its surface, and repeating colored stripes running vertically along its base. Is it designed? Well, so far we can't say for sure. Now if we were to come across a village of little green aliens with chisels and paint and other tools in the middle of constructing similar objects in various stages of completion, then yes, we could say it was probably designed, because we would have something to compare it to. Likewise, if instead, the space explorers saw a mushroom shaped calcium deposit break free from a geological formation, roll down a hill, and land right side up, then observe little bug-like creatures eating their way through the surface, leaving marks similar to the the ones on the first object, and they watch as reaction with that planet's atmosphere causes the colored vertical stripes to appear. In that case, they would be right to conclude that the structures probably weren't designed. (they watched one form naturally.) What we have in biology is like neither of these scenarios. We didn't see the origin of life take place, and the Designer didn't care to leave His 'chisel marks' in the DNA. (mammals with feathers or crocodiles with compound eyes would have done quite nicely.) Like in the case of the mushroom-rock, You simply cannot declare something as 'designed' unless you have a plausible candidate for the designer, or the artifact is similar to other artifacts that are known to be designed. (if the mushroom-rock were only 'as complicated as' the gadget, that still wouldn't cut it for classifying it as 'designed')jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
There is either a way to scinetifically find that the universe is “best explained” as the product of artifice, or there is not. It is only after such a finding is made that one has license to pursue research into the nature of any designer.
I'm afraid you are reifying "artifice" again. Without some knowledge, or at least working assumptions, about the nature of an agent, it is literally impossible to identify whether or not a particular phenomena is a result of action by that agent. In the case of human beings, we know a lot about motivations and capabilities. We know the kinds of things that humans create and we know the means by which they typically do so. More importantly, we know the restrictions under which humans operate. Without an understanding of the nature of the agent, we have no way to tell if a particular phenomena is designed by that agent. Literally anything could be a product of design by an unknown and unevidenced designer, but that's not a productive scientific hypothesis.MathGrrl_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

jurrasic, We were not arguing about any supposed designer of the universe. However, once again, such speculation is premature to a finding that the universe is best explained as the product of design. There is either a way to scinetifically find that the universe is "best explained" as the product of artifice, or there is not. It is only after such a finding is made that one has license to pursue research into the nature of any designer. Let me ask you: since we know the universe to have "began" about 15 billion years ago, and since before that point no time, space, or "nature" existed (as we know it), doesn't that make the "first cause" of the universe necessarily "supernatural" by definition, whether it was an intelligent designer or not? When you define "supernatural" in a way that doesn't indict any "first cause" of the universe - intelligent or not - as definitionally "supernatural", then you might have an argument here. Tell me, can you please offer up an example of a supernatural phenomena that cannot be pursued by science, and why it cannot?William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

If the designer isn't supernatural, then by definition it is part of the universe, and therefore, subsequent to the Big Bang. In that case, by what process did the designer arise? I'm not contesting the existence of an Intelligent Designer. I'm just asking how it (or 'He' wink wink) could be both natural, (read: un-supernatural) and not the result of some kind of evolutionary process. If He isn't the result of some kind of evolutionary process, who designed him? And if He is the result of some evolutionary process, what reason is there to think that we're not? That's not a rhetorical question; what reason is there to think natural processes like NS are insufficient to explain the current diversity of life? I assure you, I'm not being combative, I'd just like to hear your thoughts on the above predicament. Personally, I find more convincing those who say "The ID is supernatural, and therefore undetectable; That's why we've been unable to detect His presence or mechanism for design thus far."jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

jurrassicmac: ID is a science of design detection, and doesn't necessarily extend into "designer detection" or "manufacturing detection", although both are obviously ares of future research warranted by the finding of design. Look at it this way: let's say we find an artifact on an otherwise desolate and deserted planet. We determine that the object was most likely designed and manufactured by intelligent agents of some sort - aliens, let's say. We have no idea what purpose it serves, how it got there, how it was manufactured, or what/who created it, but because of the wiring, girders, glass screens, buttons and levers, it is fairly obvious it is an artifact of intelligence of some sort. Now, after we find that the object is best explained as the product of ID, a different investigatory heuristic results; we no long attempt to explain the object in terms of erosion, gravity, vulcanism, etc.; we now start investigating the design concepts, the purpose, getting an idea of the users and designers, and manufacturing techniques from evidence found in the materials. However, none of that investigatory research that proceeds forward can do so unless there is a means of scientifically determining that the object is best explained from artifice, and not other natural causations. That is all that ID theory, stripped down to its bare essential, attempts to do: quantify when and why we should make the scientific call that something is best explained as the product of artifice. What ensues from there is additional investigatory methodology and directions based on the ID finding, but not necessary for that finding. Identifying the agent, or figuring out their manufacturing process, is not a necessary aspect of ID detection; indeed, such investigation can only come after ID has been confirmed.William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

MathGrrl and Jjurrassicmac: Since both of your positions seem to be that, under methodological naturalism, artifice should be an unobjectionable category of potential explanations, then we have no quarrel there. All we have done is disagree on whether or not "nature" and "artifice" are contrapositive claims, but that's trivial because we both agree that such explanations can be fully scientific, making ID theory a fully scientific theory, since it does not posit anything "supernatural".William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

WIlliam J. Murray: "Artifice is either a scientifically allowed explanation, or it is not. Which is it?" Artifice absolutely is allowed as a scientific explanation. (I assume that by 'artifice' you mean something along the lines of 'intent' by an intelligent agent.) I'm not sure how you got that anyone was arguing against that point. I assure you, I am quite familiar with the ID position; I held it myself for about 20 years. "It is a clearly hypocritical activity to allow artifice as explanation for stonehenge, when we do not even know if the buiders of stonehenge were human (we assume it), We do not 'assume' the builders of Stonehenge were human, we deduce that they were from ample archaeological evidence. That humans bot existed and lived in that area is known with an incredibly high degree of certainty. And again, with stonehenge we A: Know the identity of the agents, and B: Know the methods by which the agents acted to create the structure. "and then to disallow artifice as even a potential explanation for the the flagellum." As a Christian, I'm all for allowing artifice as a potential explanation for the flagellum. But first, we do have to answer these questions: 1. What known (testable, verifiable in some way) agent created the flagellum? 2. By what methods did the agent create the flagellum? (again, as you've said, supernatural explanations need not apply.) Until those questions are answered, (not even to satisfaction, just at all) You are more than welcome to believe that the flagellum was designed to the same degree of certainty that Stonehenge was, but you just can't call it science. I'm taking you at your word that ID isn't about the supernatural. So what kind of non-supernatural agents or processes were at work? Any answer will suffice.jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
The ID argument is based on two contrasting explanations; “natural” (which is defined as the product of necessity – natural law – and chance), and “artificial”, which is defined as the product of an intelligence manipulating materials and forces found in nature to produce results quantifiably distinct from those produced by “nature”. My well-grounded conclusion (and empirical fact) is that (human) intelligence artificially generates phenomena like stonehenge, or murder, or arson, and science has no problem making a finding that intelligent artifice is the best explanation, as opposed to natural (necessity or chance) explanations.
Thank you for the clarification. Please read my response to Clive where I note that artificial, in the sense you are using it, is a subset of natural rather than a disjoint set. I also note that you add the qualifier "(human)" to "intelligence" when talking about specific phenomena. This makes perfect sense since we have considerable knowledge of humans but no experience with other similarly intelligent agents.
However, when it comes to certain other candidates for intelligent artifice, the institutions of mainstream science use a bait and switch tactic and substitute “supernatural” for “artificial” as the contrasting category to “natural”, and claim that such theories are making claims of “the supernatural”. It is a clearly hypocritical activity to allow artifice as explanation for stonehenge, when we do not even know if the buiders of stonehenge were human (we assume it), and then to disallow artifice as even a potential explanation for the the flagellum.
I don't think that is what is happening. In the case of Stonehenge and your other examples, we know that humans do such things and were around at the time. In the case of the bacterial flagellum (of which, I'm sure you know, there are many different types), we have no evidence for intelligent agents existing at the times the flagella appeared.
Artifice is either a scientifically allowed explanation, or it is not. Which is it?
Artifice by known agents for which there is strong evidence is always allowed. Claims of artifice by undefined agents for which there is no evidence are not. This is not a hypocritical position.MathGrrl_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

There are only two possible definitions of "nature" and "natural" which are really clear and consistent: 1) All that really exists 2) All that we can explain with our current map of what really exists I have no problems with 1), but I am afraid that 2) is the most common use of the word. Under 1), everything can be considered "natural", even a god if it exists really. So, the word is in a sense a synonym of "real" or "existent", not particularly useful indeed. Under 2), some unpleasant consequences appear. In particulart, any definition of "naturalism", be ot methodological or not, is an encouragement to consider out map of reality as final and absolute. It is, definitely, an ecouragement to conformistic thinking. Because, obviously, our map of reality is not final and absolute, and never will be. Are the laws of physics really as we understand them today? What is dark energy? Can consciousness exist separate from a physical body? Does God exist? Can He interact with the physical world? Does free will exist? Is a satisfying Great Unification Theory possible? What is life? How did it originate? And so on. Everybody can legitimately believe that he has good answers for some or all of these questions, but for nobody it is legitimate to state that his answers are final and absolute, that they should be shared by all, or that they should necessarily be the foundation, methodological or not, of all science or, even worse, of all knowledge. So, I cannot find anything good in the concept of methodological naturalism: either it does not mean anything, or it means very bad things.gpuccio_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden:
I suggest reading C. S. Lewis’s work Studies in Words, he discusses the word nature starting on page 24.
Thanks for the link, Lewis is always fun to read. I don't think that addresses my issue with William's comment though. Let me see if I can clarify. Taking the example of Stonehenge, we know the capabilities of human beings. We know something of their motivations. We know something of their methods. All of their capabilities and methods to achieve their motivations are natural, e.g. rolling stones on logs, fashioning rocks into columns, etc. Referring to humans as non-natural is therefore incorrect. Distinguishing between natural and artificial, where artificial refers to the action of a human, must, to be useful, recognize that artificial effects, using this definition, are a subset of natural effects, not a disjoint set.MathGrrl_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

oops, I see that WJM was already on the mic.Upright BiPed_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

jurrassicmac: If, as you say, "artifice" is a subset of "the natural", then in your opinion it is completely and fully within the proper realm of science to theorize that DNA might be the product of intelligent artifice, just as it is proper for science to theorize that stonehenge is the product of intelligent artifice?William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

jurassic, Methinks you missed WJM's point, by a long shot perhaps.Upright BiPed_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

jurassicmac: Your straw man excursion into "the supernatural" has already been addressed by myself and others, and is addressed in the FAQ linked to on this page. You really should acquaint yourself of the FAQ, so you can have at least a basic understanding of the ID position and argument, if you wish to make the best possible contribution to debates here. I didn't equiate artificial with supernatural; in fact, I specifically dilineated the difference. ID makes an argument about artifice, not "the supernatural".William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray: "Well, science is tolerant of non-natural (read: artificial) explanations in many areas, or else they’d still be searching for a natural explanation of stonehenge and many other ancient world artifacts..." Sir, you are using a non-standard definition of natural. Human beings are natural agents - they are not supernatural. We know that Mount Rushmore was crafted by intelligent workers, yet if someone made the claim that the origin of Mount Rushmore was supernatural in nature, or that it was built by a supernatural agent, we could rightly tell them: "No, we have a natural explanation: It was built by humans." 'Artificial' does not equate to 'supernatural' in any sense. We are able to ascribe agency to the construction of Stonehenge for two reasons: A. We know of agents that were present in the area at the time of construction, [humans] and B. We know those agents to be capable of building structures like Stonehenge, because we can directly compare it to other structures that are observed to have been built by humans. "It isn’t that scientists are unwilling to entertain non-natural (artificial) explanations; they are just unwilling to entertain them as explanations to problems in those areas of investigation which would represent a threat to their worldview." Scientists are unwilling to entertain supernatural explanations in all areas of investigation; and that is why science works as an explanatory paradigm. And your phrasing suggests that you believe all scientists have a singular worldview; this is most decidedly not the case. There are many distinguished scientists who are also Christians like Francis Collins and Ken Miller, among countless others. "and forensic investigators could never come to a conclusion of murder or arson, unless someone confessed." The reason forensic investigations are conducted in the absence of a confession or eyewitness in the first place is because methodological naturalism is assumed. It is assumed that the murder or fire has a non-supernatural cause; that it wasn't perpetrated by demons or ghosts or fairies. The same thing is true in every branch of science. In medicine, when someone is diagnosed with epilepsy, the hypothesis that it is caused by an evil spirit isn't entertained for a second. All of science works by presupposing methodological naturalism, not just biology.jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Mathgrrl: The ID argument is based on two contrasting explanations; "natural" (which is defined as the product of necessity - natural law - and chance), and "artificial", which is defined as the product of an intelligence manipulating materials and forces found in nature to produce results quantifiably distinct from those produced by "nature". My well-grounded conclusion (and empirical fact) is that (human) intelligence artificially generates phenomena like stonehenge, or murder, or arson, and science has no problem making a finding that intelligent artifice is the best explanation, as opposed to natural (necessity or chance) explanations. However, when it comes to certain other candidates for intelligent artifice, the institutions of mainstream science use a bait and switch tactic and substitute "supernatural" for "artificial" as the contrasting category to "natural", and claim that such theories are making claims of "the supernatural". It is a clearly hypocritical activity to allow artifice as explanation for stonehenge, when we do not even know if the buiders of stonehenge were human (we assume it), and then to disallow artifice as even a potential explanation for the the flagellum. Artifice is either a scientifically allowed explanation, or it is not. Which is it? ---- Thanks, kf.William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

PS: Onlookers, notice how the term non-natural now stands in for "supernatural" in the methodological naturalist rhetoric of strawman fallacy dismissal.kairosfocus_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

MathGrrl Re your:
I think you have the logic reversed. The issue isn’t a preconceived commitment to methodological naturalism but that methodological naturalism is a required assumption in order for hypotheses to be testable. If anyone could come up with a way to objectively define and test non-natural phenomena, the scientific method could be used to investigate them.
Please read (and watch) here. Also, examine how the design filter as presented here allows us to test hypotheses on "natural" [- chance + mechanical necessity] and ART-ificial causatrion per reliable distinctive empirical traces and consequences of such causal processes. Then, we can talk beyond the usual talking points. To start the ball rolling I excerpt from Lewontin's revealing remarks in his 1997 article in NYRB: ________________ >> . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [this is a PHILOSOPHICAL knowledge claim, so here L. is self-referentially inconsistent and by def'n irrational] . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [revealing, cf here on what real self evidence looks like] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world [note loaded language] rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [talk about having a a priori, question-begging worldview level ideological agenda that locks out otherwise credible possible explanatory causes for observed phenomena! And the onward rationale for such that a theistic worldview with miracles is chaotic, is rubbish. If L had even read so humble a commenter as C S Lewis, he would have seen that batted for six: for miracles (= signs) to stand out, and for us to be morally responsible, the general course of the world HAS to be orderly. And science studies the general course of the world, mostly. guess why Newton and a lot of other key founders of modern science were theists?] [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis added. (NB: The key part of this quote comes after some fairly unfortunate remarks where Mr Lewontin gives the "typical" example -- yes, we can spot a subtext -- of an ill-informed woman who dismissed the Moon landings on the grounds that she could not pick up Dallas on her TV, much less the Moon. This is little more than a subtle appeal to the ill-tempered sneer at those who dissent from the evolutionary materialist "consensus," that they are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Sadly, discreet forbearance on such is no longer an option: it has to be mentioned, as some seem to believe that such a disreputable "context" justifies the assertions and attitudes above!)] >> ________________ Sorry if this is a bit sharpish, but the talking point you cited is a notoriously loaded one, and has materially contributed to abuse of scientists who do not toe the now politically correct evolutionary materialist party line set by the materialist high priesthood in lab coats. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

MathGrrl,
You seem to be assuming that human beings are non-natural. Do you have a definition of “natural” that differs from the normally accepted one?
If I may, William is very obviously claiming that humans have an ability of artifice, different than anything happening by wind and rain and corrosion, etc., in building something like Stonehenge. If you would like a good definition and history of the word nature, and how it has been used throughout the ages, I suggest reading C. S. Lewis's work Studies in Words, he discusses the word nature starting on page 24.Clive Hayden_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
Well, science is tolerant of non-natural (read: artificial) explanations in many areas, or else they’d still be searching for a natural explanation of stonehenge and many other ancient world artifacts, and forensic investigators could never come to a conclusion of murder or arson, unless someone confessed.
You seem to be assuming that human beings are non-natural. Do you have a definition of "natural" that differs from the normally accepted one?MathGrrl_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

I think you have the logic reversed. The issue isn't a preconceived commitment to methodological naturalism but that methodological naturalism is a required assumption in order for hypotheses to be testable. If anyone could come up with a way to objectively define and test non-natural phenomena, the scientific method could be used to investigate them.MathGrrl_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

WJM: Spot on. We need more from you! Gkairosfocus_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

I think one could make a really great set of movies, along the lines of "The Invention of Lying", such as "The Invention Of Intelligent Design", where we show what civilization would be like without the capacity to reach a conclusion that anything was done artificially unless the artificer was there to claim his work; or, the Invention of Sufficient Cause, where we show what life would be like if people actually operated in the world with the conceptualization of infinite regress (imagine a trial with an endless regress of evidence); or the Invention of Free Will, which shows how society would be if people actually believed in determinism and acted and spoke as if it was true (although I suspect it would end up looking a lot like "the Invention of Lying").William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Well, science is tolerant of non-natural (read: artificial) explanations in many areas, or else they'd still be searching for a natural explanation of stonehenge and many other ancient world artifacts, and forensic investigators could never come to a conclusion of murder or arson, unless someone confessed. It isn't that scientists are unwilling to entertain non-natural (artificial) explanations; they are just unwilling to entertain them as explanations to problems in those areas of investigation which would represent a threat to their worldview.William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply