Someone please send Barbara Forrest a thesaurus

_{February 9, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Barbara Forrest responds to David DeWolf in The News Star.

Early in the article Forrest puts forth a false dichotomy which undermines all that follows. My emphasis:

DeWolf’s portrayal of ID as scientific is falsified by his defining it as involving the “actions of an intelligent agent as the cause of phenomena that natural processes are unlikely to produce.” If phenomena are not naturally caused, they are supernaturally caused. There is no other alternative.

Not only are there other alternatives but supernatural isn’t even an antonym for natural. If we go to a thesaurus and look up the word natural we find listed among the antonyms the words technological and artificial. Notably we do not find the word supernatural listed as an antonym.

Maybe Babs should spend more time improving her vocabulary and less time disproving the assertion that ID is science.

Of course there’s an alternative explanation here. Perhaps Forrest is well aware that natural/supernatural is a false dichotomy and she’s just an unapologetic liar. In fact that makes more sense as you usually can’t get a PhD without at least a college entrance-level vocabulary.

Comments

Daveb --Does anyone here on the ID side really want to argue that intelligent design excludes the supernatural - e.g. an almighty creator? Dave, I'm waiting for someone on the ID's-not-science-because-it-won't -address-the-cause side, to explain why Big Bang Theory or thermodynamics is not science because they don't excludes the supernatural with regard to cause. Neither theory nor laws, of course, invoke the supernatural. They merely describe traits of observed events. But Big Bang Theory does not say what caused it and thermodynamics does not say what caused energy and matter to come into being, just as ID does not say what caused DNA and proteins to come about. So, if ID is not science because it avoids addressing cause, then neither is the conservation of energy.tribune7_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

----JayM: "I make a point of reading your posts because they generally make me think, but this is just gratuitously insulting to the other participants, with no support for your claims." OK, I'll try to behave with a bit more judicious restraint. Perhaps the most diplomatic approach would be to begin with a couple of questions: [A] I "have" a Canon printer. Do you think that I am also "in" it? [B] I once made a sand castle. Barbara Forrest tells me that this act occurred "in" nature. Under the circumstances, do you think that the same forces that formed the beach also caused the sand castle?StephenB_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

----seversky: "Again, on this understanding, we can see what Barbara Forrest meant. Any intelligent agent has a ‘nature’ and is thus a part of the natural world and falls, at least in principle, within the domain of scientific study." I gather, then, that you think that "having" a nature is synonymous to being "in" nature. Here is a quick tip: The two formulations are not even being close to the same thing. In any case, let's get to the bottom line. Are you prepared to argue that the same forces that form mountains and streams also designed the paragraph that you just wrote. According to Barbara Forrest, they both occurred "in" nature, so they can both be explained by the same cause. Since that is her argument, I assume that is also your argument.StephenB_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

StephenB @38
After reading some of the comments, it is evident that Barbara Forrest is not the only ID critic who has trouble reasoning in the abstract.
I make a point of reading your posts because they generally make me think, but this is just gratuitously insulting to the other participants, with no support for your claims. We should be welcoming disagreement -- it shows that people are taking our arguments seriously. JJJayM_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

After reading some of the comments, it is evident that Barbara Forrest is not the only ID critic who has trouble reasoning in the abstract.StephenB_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Paul Glen @36
DeWolf apparently is contrasting an intelligent agent with natural causes. Forrest is saying that the proper contrast to natural causes is supernatural causes. That means that humans must be supernatural, as they obviously have intelligence. Somehow, I don’t think she quite meant that.
My reading of Forrest's words, being as generous in interpretation as possible, is that humans are natural causes. By this reasoning, intelligent human causes are not qualitatively different from unintelligent natural phenomena but the intelligent agent posited by ID theory is not natural. The two possible responses to this are to show that human intelligence is not explainable by natural mechanisms or to show that the intelligent agent of ID theory is so explainable. JJJayM_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Seversky (#28), Perhaps you could clarify:
Again, on this understanding, we can see what Barbara Forrest meant. Any intelligent agent has a ‘nature’ and is thus a part of the natural world and falls, at least in principle, within the domain of scientific study.
Is it your contention that since presumably God has what the classical Greeks would call a nature, that God is thus a part of the natural world and falls within the domain of scientific study? Or do you contend that God does not exist, and that therefore any nature of God is purely hypothetical? Or does God not qualify as an intelligent agent? Which of those alternatives would you attribute to Dr. Forrest? tribune7 (#29) I agree with you. Let's look at that quote again:
DeWolf’s portrayal of ID as scientific is falsified by his defining it as involving the “actions of an intelligent agent as the cause of phenomena that natural processes are unlikely to produce.” If phenomena are not naturally caused, they are supernaturally caused. There is no other alternative.
DeWolf apparently is contrasting an intelligent agent with natural causes. Forrest is saying that the proper contrast to natural causes is supernatural causes. That means that humans must be supernatural, as they obviously have intelligence. Somehow, I don't think she quite meant that.Paul Giem_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Does anyone here on the ID side really want to argue that intelligent design excludes the supernatural - e.g. an almighty creator?
Does anyone here think that natural processes can account for the ORIGIN of nature seeing that natural processes only exist in nature?
Does anyone here even think the designer (and by necessity the creator) is anything other than the God of Abraham?
Me.
If evolution actually didn’t happen, it isn’t even necessary to resort to the design hypothesis.
But ID is NOT anti-evolution. The debate is about the MECHANISMS.
And if you claim that intelligent design actually does demonstrate a creative intelligence naturalistically — you’ve actually falsified Christianity!
Just stating something does NOT make it so.Joseph_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Does anyone here on the ID side really want to argue that intelligent design excludes the supernatural - e.g. an almighty creator? Does anyone here even think the designer (and by necessity the creator) is anything other than the God of Abraham?
I'd be happy to. ..you go first.Upright BiPed_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

Since ID offers no methodology to distinguish the technological or artificial from the divine or supernatural, this is a distinction without a difference. Forrest could have been more precise, but her criticism of the introduction of supernatural causes by ID is legitimate, if disputed.
Imagine for a moment that these kind of questions had been answered a thousand times over.Upright BiPed_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

Dave:
You need to get a dictionary yourself. You don’t die a shirt. You dye a shirt. What grade are you in, anyway?
Touche'. I'm sure my "die" flub left my face a lot redder than your "supernatural isn’t even an antonym for natural" left yours. You win hands down.
Babs used the definition of natural in a biological context and its antonyms in that context are technological or artificial.
Actually, she was simply talking about "phenomena" when she used the term. I don't see anywhere that she used it in a biological context.
re; Dembski’s use of transcendent design
Fortunately, we don't need to ask Webster what Dembski meant, since Dembski himself clarified it nicely. He also made it clear that transcendent design applies to both cosmological and biological specified complexity, and we know that the flagellum falls in the latter category. Dembski:
The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. ... When applied to the fine-tuning of the universe and the complex, information-rich structures of biology, it demonstrates a design external to the universe. In other words, the complexity-specification criterion demonstrates transcendent design.
(Emphasis mine) Quotes aside, I realize that ID proponents eschew the term supernatural, but some people may see ID's characterization of design and intelligence (irreducible to chance and necessity, immaterial) as falling under that category.R0b_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Since ID offers no methodology to distinguish the technological or artificial from the divine or supernatural, this is a distinction without a difference. Forrest could have been more precise, but her criticism of the introduction of supernatural causes by ID is legitimate, if disputed. Does anyone here on the ID side really want to argue that intelligent design excludes the supernatural - e.g. an almighty creator? Does anyone here even think the designer (and by necessity the creator) is anything other than the God of Abraham? If evolution actually didn't happen, it isn't even necessary to resort to the design hypothesis. Either evolution can be falsified within the strictures of methodological naturalism, or it can be exposed as an unscientific - i.e. unfalsifiable - hypothesis. And if you claim that intelligent design actually does demonstrate a creative intelligence naturalistically -- you've actually falsified Christianity! I'm appealing directly to intelligent design's Christian supporters: watch Uncommon Descent's equivocation carefully - like the faith healers and televangelists that have exploited your good will in the past, intelligent design cannot produce the goods they've offered for sale.daveB_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

re; Dembski's use of transcendent design Again, if we look up the defintion of transcendent (from my handy dandy Princeton Wordweb online dictionary) we get:
1. Exceeding or surpassing usual limits especially in excellence 2. Beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding
Other definitions are religious in nature. Since Dembski clarified it was a non-religious context we can safely assume he meant one of the above. Also, since he mentioned cosmology along with biology in the former case transcendent is particularly apt. I doubt Dembski would argue that the flagellum is beyond human understanding. The human mind may transcend biology but I personally wouldn't bet on it.DaveScot_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

That means, of course, that either a human agent, a superhuman agent, or even a Divine agent can be a “non-natural” cause for an event. SB, but don't forget the words she is being quoted as using:
DeWolf’s portrayal of ID as scientific is falsified by his defining it as involving the “actions of an intelligent agent as the cause of phenomena that natural processes are unlikely to produce.” If phenomena are not naturally caused, they are supernaturally caused. There is no other alternative.
If she is saying everything designed by an intelligent agent has a supernatural cause she has either joined our side at its edgiest or dived into the deep end without water being in the pool.tribune7_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

DeWolf’s portrayal of ID as scientific is falsified by his defining it as involving the “actions of an intelligent agent as the cause of phenomena that natural processes are unlikely to produce.” If phenomena are not naturally caused, they are supernaturally caused. There is no other alternative.
Perhaps there is an historian of science around who can give a better explanation but my understanding is that the concept of 'naturalism' traces its roots back to classical Greece. The idea was that everything has its 'nature', in other words, those intrinsic and distinguishing properties which make something itself and not something else. The belief was that by studying these natures we could come to understand how the world works. And these natures were not chaotic or random. They embodied law-like regularity which could be observed, studied, measured, tested, explained and predicted. On this understanding the scope of the natural world is vast. Anything which has a nature, from quantum fluctuations to God, is a part of it and can be studied, at least in principle. Most people think of things like ghosts or spirits as supernatural but, for a scientist, if they exist at all, they have a regular form which can be studied and understood. They may be, like the neutrino, very difficult to detect and observe but they are not 'supernatural' in that they do not stand outside that class of things which have a 'nature'. The only limits to this natural world are our own, the boundaries of our powers of observation. There may be phenomena which we do not yet have the means to observe directly but, if they influence what we can observe then, given time, we should be able to detect that effect. Again, on this understanding, we can see what Barbara Forrest meant. Any intelligent agent has a 'nature' and is thus a part of the natural world and falls, at least in principle, within the domain of scientific study. Any means used by that agent to influence the world will be part of that same natural world and, again, are phenomena which can be studied by science. What DeWolf and others that refer to supernatural causes are trying to do is have their cake and eat it. They want to posit a cause that has a 'nature', that exists within and influences the natural world but is shielded from scientific scrutiny by being called "supernatural". The problem is that "natural" and "supernatural" are not so much antonyms as discrete domains or sets or, to borrow a phrase, Non-Overlapping MagisteriA. There may, indeed, be supernatural phenomena or entities but they are of no relevance to us because they have absolutely nothing to do with this world.Seversky_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Rob You need to get a dictionary yourself. You don't die a shirt. You dye a shirt. What grade are you in, anyway? Everyone arguing with the thesaurus: Babs used the definition of natural in a biological context and its antonyms in that context are technological or artificial. She used supernatural in the only context it can be used in - religious or mystical. Its antonym in that sole context is thus natural. A take home lesson here is that that the antonyms of antonyms are not necessarily synonyms. Artificial and technological are not even close to synonymous with supernatural. DaveScot_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Forrest is logically challenged but there is a perverse method to her madness. ID says that there are not two categories, but three, [A] intelligence, which is defined as a non-natural cause, [B] Law, which is defined as a natural cause, and [C] chance, which is defined as a natural cause. That means, of course, that either a human agent, a superhuman agent, or even a Divine agent can be a “non-natural” cause for an event. Thus, if innovation occurs, whether it comes from the mind of God, the mind of a superhuman, or from the mind of man, ID says that the patterns involved will be of a similar texture. It is those very patterns that help us to detect the presence of intelligence from any source at all, Divine or human, and to know that natural forces did not cause the event. Darwinists, however, would like to reframe the issue and change terms so that ID can no longer make its case. By displacing the three-part ID formulation (Law, Chance, Agency) with their own two-part dichotomy (natural-supernatural) they hope to radically divide intelligence, which in a singular non-natural category, into two categories, Divine, and human, thus placing the effects intelligence in radically different categories and rendering ID impossible. If the effects of Divine intelligence must be radically separated from the effects of superhuman or human intelligence, then there can be no way to measure all three with a common denominator and all ID paradigms are rendered useless. A Darwinist once tried to convince me that an ancient hunter’s spear emerged from “natural causes,” because, in his judgment the hunter was “in” nature, which is another way of saying that his “mind,” or at least his power of agency, is also “in” nature. If that were the case, then the mind (or agency power) could not alter nature because it is all part of that which is being altered by something else, namely, natural laws. If any designing agent is “in” nature, then it obviously cannot also be what it is defined to be, namely non-natural. That is why the proper categories should be listed as [A] Intelligence (Divine, superhuman, and human) [B] law, and [C] chance. The terms Supernatural and natural muddy the debate waters and forces ID to enter the debate having already conceded that non-material entities, if they exist are “supernatural” and that all material entities are natural. To concede that is to concede the debate before it begins. It means that the effects of Divine intelligence are defined as being radically different from the effects of human intelligence, which means, of course, that we are out of business because, under the circumstances we cannot measure the effects of both with the same method. So, the solution is simple. We should replace the word "supernatural" with the words "superhuman" or Divine. If we allow our adversaries to frame our issues and define our terms, we lose.StephenB_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

FWIW, I agree that Forrest seems to be interpreting the term natural in a way that benefits her argument, but I think we'd have to see the context of DeWolf's statement to know for sure that Forrest's interpretation is not the natural one - pun intended. Unfortunately, DeWolf's article doesn't seem to be available online. I do find it ironic that Dave would make the strange claim that "supernatural isn’t even an antonym for natural" in the same post that he disparages Forrest's vocabulary.R0b_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Mark #22 (I then retract my coment as well).Upright BiPed_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Mark, Step back from the keyboard. Relax. Realize. There is no need to conduct a comparitive analysis of on-line dictionaries. The energy spent trying to lend support or justify Barbara Forrest's perrenial attack on ID is wasted...Why?...because her point doesn't matter (its not in the material evidence). The question quickly becomes: In order to prolong the debate, should we ignore the material evidence? If the answer is yes, then by all means continue.Upright BiPed_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

My [21]. I should have read all the comments before commenting. I just saw half the world already said the same thing.Mark Frank_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Most dictionary/thesaurus sites seem to include natural as the opposite of supernatural as one meaning of the word "natural". What's the antonym of supernatural? (Hint look it up in Encarta).Mark Frank_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

So, do I understand you correctly to say that it’s okay for a pastor to use this dichotomy, but it’s not okay for Barbara?
From the material evidence they make the same mistake......by the way, whose mistake has been used to set public policy and sought to be codified into law? Is it the one we seek (as a public) for our society's understanding of material evidence, or the one we seek for the personal understanding of a spiritual existence?Upright BiPed_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

DonaldM: Its true that Christian theology holds that there is a supernatural realm that impinges upon the natural realm in many ways. However, it does not follow from that that the only alternative to ‘natural’ is ’supernatural’, which is main point of Dave’s OP. So, do I understand you correctly to say that it's okay for a pastor to use this dichotomy, but it's not okay for Barbara?riddick_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

R0b, any perceived dichotomy is irrelavent to ID, as has been explained ad nauseum, including by me in #11. Barbara Forrest was scoring points of her ideology, her comment has nothing to do with the material evidence, and nothing to do with ID. Bait, anyone?Upright BiPed_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Dave:
Notably we do not find the word supernatural listed as an antonym.
Unless we look up "supernatural" in the same thesaurus.
Perhaps Forrest is well aware that natural/supernatural is a false dichotomy and she’s just an unapologetic liar.
To say that natural/supernatural is a false dichotomy because natural has more than one meaning is to say that die/live is a false dichotomy because we can die shirts.R0b_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

riddick:
Or, maybe she’s been watching Christian TV, listening to Christian radio, or reading Christian books. This “false dichotomy” is ubiquitous in current religious thinking.
How is this comparison relevant? Its true that Christian theology holds that there is a supernatural realm that impinges upon the natural realm in many ways. However, it does not follow from that that the only alternative to 'natural' is 'supernatural', which is main point of Dave's OP.DonaldM_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: Perhaps Forrest is well aware that natural/supernatural is a false dichotomy and she’s just an unapologetic liar. Or, maybe she's been watching Christian TV, listening to Christian radio, or reading Christian books. This "false dichotomy" is ubiquitous in current religious thinking.riddick_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Dave:
Let’s apply this to the flagellum and ask when and where an ID proponent ever said that the design or construction of a flagellum requires transcending the laws of nature.
I wouldn't blame Forrest or anyone else for interpreting Dembski's work as saying exactly that. For instance:
The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world.
And lest we interpret that as Dembski's religious view:
Demonstrating transcendent design in the universe is a scientific inference, not a philosophical speculation.
R0b_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

DaveScot @12 . . . the Kitzmiller trial where Forrest perjured herself on the witness stand. This is the first I've heard of this. I followed the Kitzmiller trial while it was going on, but didn't read the transcripts in any depth. How did she perjure herself? JJJayM_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply