The Materialist Double Standard

_{Barry Arrington

May 15, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

Yet again a materialist comes into these pages (this time rvb8) and asserts that ID necessarily entails a supernatural designer. The conversation usually goes something like this:

Materialist: ID is not science, because it studies the supernatural.

ID Proponent: No, that’s wrong. ID is the study of design in nature. While the designer may be supernatural, he is not necessarily so.

Mat: No, you are dissembling.

ID: Why do you say that?

Mat: Because the design of living things would require a miracle, and miracles are, by definition, supernatural.

ID: Let me get this straight. You believe that blind, unguided natural forces are sufficient to account for the staggering complexity and diversity of life.

Mat: That’s right. That is why it is a superior scientific explanation to ID, which requires a miracle-working designer.

ID: Wait. If the design of life is not beyond the reach of blind unguided natural forces, it must follow on your own premises that the design of life involves nothing but chemistry; no miracles are necessary.

Mat (starting to feel queasy as the logic begins to unfold): Well, yeah.

ID: And if blind unguided natural forces can manipulate the chemicals sufficiently to create life without a miracle, surely there is nothing in principle that would preclude a designer wielding super-sophisticated technology from doing the same thing without resort to a miracle.

Mat: Well, who designed the designer? And besides ID is part of an international plot to establish a theocracy. You’re a poopyhead. . . .

The double standard on display here is quite amusing. The materialist swallows right down the camel that blind unguided natural forces can design staggeringly complex life forms. Then he strains at the gnat of a non-supernatural designer wielding sophisticated technology doing the same thing.

Comments

Bob O'H: Why shouldn’t we ask questions about the nature of the designer?
Obviously, we are perfectly free to ask questions about the nature of the designer. I think we should ask those questions. We are also free to ask questions about the origin of time. However, ID and radiocarbon dating are not helpful in answering those questions.
Bob O'H: “Because that’s not what we do” is not a convincing answer, I’m afraid.
That was not the answer I gave you. “Because that’s not what ID does”, was my answer. See ID as a tool, an instrument, which can provide an answer to a specific question during research — "is it designed?" Don't think of ID as steering and dominating the entirety of the research.Origenes_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Origenes - well, quite. But it fails to answer the question of why it is that way. Why shouldn't we ask questions about the nature of the designer? "Because that's not what we do" is not a convincing answer, I'm afraid. Andrew - to repeat, see my post at 31.Bob O'H_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

BO'H: A long time ago now, I first heard of TRIZ from ID thinkers, and have discussed it here at UD many times. This very week, I have pointed out the relevance of Venter et al and molecular nanotech labs to what can be said abbout OOL on earth. And that same basic point I can trace to Thaxton et al in TMLO 30+ years ago, which is readily accessible and which has been discussed as to import many times at UD. Uniformly, it is objectors who refuse to actually consider what is discussed in this vein, in haste to rush on to knocking over strawmen -- which speaks volumes and not in their favour. The problem still remains, that the first, foundational question is warranted inference to design. Until I see some semblance of willingness to acknowledge that, I have to see the demand to go elsewhere as red herrings led away to strawmen duly set up to be pummelled rhetorically, if they are lucky. KFkairosfocus_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

“who designed the designer” is a poor question (see my post @ 31)
BobO'H, See your post @ #1 Andrewasauber_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: To get back to my question – why not? Why does ID restrict itself so that it will not even make the attempt?
First, only persons restrict themselves. Second, you might as well have asked "Why does radiocarbon dating restrict itself so that it doesn't even attempt to explain what caused time?" We are informing you what ID is and what it is meant to do. You are wondering why radiocarbon dating is not about the origin of time. Well Bob, it is not about that, because it was not intended (by persons) to be about that.Origenes_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

kf - are you agreeing with me that those who espouse ID can do more to "make inferences on designers"?Bob O'H_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

BO'H: I will pick up your first point: >>First, I asked the question as Barry had stated it, and it’s only a sensible question under certain assumptions.>> 1 --> That is, it is not a good question, though it seems to be a favourite rhetorical resort. 2 --> As in, cf 99 supra. >> So if I might shift my goalposts a bit, I think better questions would be “who or what is the designer?”,>> 3 --> That is, subject changes, under challenge. 4 --> This now becomes the more generic, subject-shifting red herring, with a dash of question begging. 5 --> The prior question is, empirically grounded warrant on signs (e.g. FSCO/I, fine tuning of complex unified systems, etc) that leads to a well founded conclusion that an entity X is designed. 6 --> On the proper order, we then move to the issue, what sort of approach, what difficulties, what solutions, how elegant. 7 --> This then allows us to see what sort of capabilities are needed, and how well did the designer fulfill them. Given Jutland + 101 is coming up end of month, ponder British vs German WW 1 era battlecruisers, and onward evolution. 8 --> We may then fill out a job eval on the designer that allows us to move on to a list of candidates. 9 --> But by dragging away from warrant and proper methodical approach to a rhetorically loaded question, prejudiced dismissal is invited. >> and “what can we say about the designer?”. >> 10 --> Back ways around. 11 --> Design is process, leading to artifact that often has revealing traces in it. Again, ponder Mauser's G98 vs Lee's design and the SMLE, as well as the P14 that copied the Mauser philosophy. (This became the US Enfield.) Sidelight the Ross. Contrast the Swiss straight-pull rifles. 12 --> From Artifact we may make inferences on designers. But first, we settle the issue of "archaeology vs natural" in the terms of that discipline. KFkairosfocus_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

kf - that doesn't help - I agree with people that "who designed the designer" is a poor question (see my post @ 31), and the ideas I laid out in 31 can still be applied to a finite and short chain of designers.Bob O'H_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

BoH , Who designed the designer ? I don`t know. How did life begin, what were its origins , if you can`t answer this you must be a poopyhead I assume.Marfin_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

BO'H: I suggest you see 99 above: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-materialist-double-standard/#comment-631774 KFkairosfocus_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

WJM -
The point being that while “who designed the designer” is a valid question, it is irrelevant to ID theory because ID doesn’t even attempt to identify the first designer, much less any designer of that designer.
To get back to my question - why not? Why does ID restrict itself so that it will not even make the attempt? Why doesn't it even refuse to address the simpler problem of what does the pattern of design say about the designer?Bob O'H_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Pindi @ 95 said:
WJM @57: yes, of course they ask those questions. There are a number of theories on what causes gravity for example, eg the bending of space/time around a massive object. Gravity is further analysed as to whether it is composed of particles or waves etc. Scientists are constantly asking the next questions. I think you just shot yourself in the foot.
Pindi has a habit of not actually addressing what is said, but rather addressing some straw man. I don't know if this is deliberate or if Pindi doesn't really understand what is actually said. First, a descriptive model is not a cause, Pindi. It is a description of what occurs. Second, I didn't say that scientists don't ask those questions; I asked if it was reasonable to dismiss those descriptions if the causes of those behaviors were currently unknown or could not be explained. The point being that while "who designed the designer" is a valid question, it is irrelevant to ID theory because ID doesn't even attempt to identify the first designer, much less any designer of that designer. So, dismissing or criticizing ID theory because it doesn't address the question of "who designed the designer" is dismissing or criticizing a straw man.William J Murray_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

Axel - I've no idea who this Bob O'Hare is, but with a name like that they're probably Catholic.Bob O'H_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

If we must know the designer of the designer, in order for a designer to be a "proper cause", then there are no proper causes at all. "Natural" causes included. First we ask: “If our universe is just one of many in a multiverse, where did the multiverse come from? And where did the multiverse’s cause come from, and where did its cause come from?” And so on, ad infinitum.Origenes_{May 17, 2017
May
05
May
17
17
2017
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

Haters are gonna hate, and a/mats are really good at hating.Truth Will Set You Free_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Axel @100: seriously, you don't know who or what designs cars?Pindi_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

'Mat: Because the design of living things would require a miracle, and miracles are, by definition, supernatural.' Insofar as all matter ultimately issuing from the Singularity at the Big Bang has a non-local dimension, it must all be supernatural. What is your beef ?Axel_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

As an atheist, Bob O'Hare, it's none of your business whether the Designer was God. Just answer the question, theological enquiries can follow. If the Designer is God, and not the Personification of Randomness, you're plum out of luck. If you prefer to assume the Designer is God, however, in order to further science, by answering the actual questions, that's OK, too. When you look at a new car, do you ask who was the designer of the designer ? Of course not.Axel_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

F/N: The who designed the designer objection is actually a philosophically loaded objection. We are interested to assess causal process credibly accounting for X on signs relevant to X. The objection implies that designs require designer so you cannot properly discuss X without discussing the -- in the nature of the case, unobserved -- designer D1, and then the further inferred unobserved designers in cascade D2, D3 etc. So, the shift is to pull away from empirical signs and warranted causes per observation to a projected infinite regress, itself likely to be loaded with a priori evolutionary materialist assumptions and talking points. The red herring is dragged away from the empirical evidence and inductive warrant issue to shift to a strawman designer chain, to be soaked in loaded accusations and set alight. Meanwhile, the point that evidence of design is by reasonable second inference evidence of a designer with relevant capabilities, is distracted from and tainted by switching to an ideologically polarised debate not anchored in evidence. Frankly, I find this trifecta rhetorical tactic -- and in various forms it repeatedly comes up in contexts discussing design evidence -- to be cynically dishonest. It is high time such shabby and deceitful stratagems were acknowledged as improper, retracted and apologised for. Of course, some of the more naive objectors don't realise the nature of the dirty tactics in the talking points they are being misled to use by those they look to for leadership. KF PS: I have already recently argued as to why a temporal-causal successive chain will be finite and non-circular in the past, pointing to a world-root of necessary being character. But that result is of course across the border, in philosophy. And no, "everything has a cause" is ignorance to be addressed through studying the nature of being, for which I find a possible worlds approach useful. the phil just will not go away.kairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Who designed the designer?
"So you think you understand the cosmological argument?" by Edward Feser http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.htmlMacauley86_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

KF "And so yes, some philosophical considerations are inevitable." Don't read me wrong. Of course, some philosophy is unavoidable and even desirable because it helps chart the territory. But it feels a bit more focus won't harm. That is, of course, IMHO.EugeneS_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

BO'H (Attn ES): I should add a thought or two, i/l/o Newton's rules for things not accessible to direct inference. In essence, the remote reaches of space and the remote past alike are not amenable to direct close hand inspection, sampling, direct testing etc. Accordingly we must reckon from traces to their credible causes and relevant narratives. Star light to spectra to comparative spectra to inferred composition etc. Likewise, traces of the past to causal processes that produce the like result in our at close hand observation, to inferred likely or at least plausible account. Thus, we see inference to best explanation and need to appeal to causal processes shown to be adequate to the observed effects. This is of course a discussion of logic of induction (support, not demonstration) and warrant of knowledge claims in the soft, defeatable, sense of knowledge. and it is weaker than with cases we can make repeated observations of phenomena close at hand. And so yes, some philosophical considerations are inevitable. In all of this, FSCO/I is observable (cf texts in this thread, or something like a watch, or -- in principle -- a von Neumann kinematic self-replicator, etc. On trillions of cases, its reliably observed causal process involves intelligently, purposefully directed configuration. This is also backed up by blind search challenge analysis. Thus, we see cases of inferred design that do not sit well with the evolutionary materialist establishment and their Internet footsoldiers. Who will never be pleased with any inference to design in an origins science context of any relevance. That boils down to, if you keep rigging the game, at some time Charlie is going to walk away, Lucy. And he ain't ever coming back once that happens. KF PS: The rules:
Rule I [[--> adequacy and simplicity] We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true [[--> it is probably best to take this liberally as meaning "potentially and plausibly true"] and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. Rule II [[--> uniformity of causes: "like forces cause like effects"] Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets. Rule III [[--> confident universality] The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which is wont to be simple, and always consonant to [398/399] itself . . . . Rule IV [[--> provisionality and primacy of induction] In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by [[speculative] hypotheses.
kairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

WJM @57: yes, of course they ask those questions. There are a number of theories on what causes gravity for example, eg the bending of space/time around a massive object. Gravity is further analysed as to whether it is composed of particles or waves etc. Scientists are constantly asking the next questions. I think you just shot yourself in the foot.Pindi_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

ES, thing is, if we try to focus science q's, we get pestered with phil issues. If we take time out and highlight those to answer, we get accused of not dealing with science. Where, of course, there is never any evidence of design as far as some objectors are concerned, save for actually videotaping the designer at work. The matter looks like decision already made, what was the argument to get there without seeming to be too much the kangaroo court, hence word games like methodological naturalism and redefining science etc. Those are phil q's and the matter becomes unavoidable. As another case in point the issue of an infinite past came up a year and half ago, and the logic of temporal causal succession raised issues on infinity and traversing endlessness, nature of being, world roots etc. And more. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Bob, I understand. I am sorry if my answer is not well-structured but anyhow... There are many takes on ID. In my view, the Designer is supernatural. I guess many would argue that this is a science stopper. Well, if it is, than so be it. It is much better to know where it stops than to invent unrealistic answers. After all, that scientific inquiry has no limits is a scientistic belief. It may be argued that it is a pragmatically useful belief but it is a belief nonetheless. Somewhere the scientific method has to misfire. I believe this is exactly the question of how it all started, where science can only elucidate so much. By necessity anything we say about the beginning is a hypothesis. In my opinion, naturalism is in principle incapable of unravelling the problem of origins simply because the origin of nature necessarily cannot be natural. On the contrary, ID at least can match reality e.g. in maintaining that for a holistic teleological decision making system such as the proto-cell to come about, decision making (and hence intelligence) must have been required. Realistically, there is no other option in this world. I still think that ID even in this limited form of reasoning about the artefact not the Designer, is science in the same way as forensics or archaeology is science. By the way, science has got this far not in the least degree because of creationism of its great contributors of the past. The assumption that rational principles are at the basis of how this world (including the living nature) operates is extremely fruitful scientifically. This assumption is so powerful that mainstream science cannot help accepting it, albeit tacitly. And this is, in fact, why it has achieved what it has achieved. What is really important in my view is: - the scientific agenda ID generates is non-trivial and vastly different from the current mainstream agenda. - ID is able to generate testable hypotheses that are richer and have more explanatory power than those generated by mainstream evolutionist science (note that evolutionism and evolution as a phenomenon are different things). - the current mainstream view is in principle incapable of explaining observed goal-directedness of living nature because it apriori excludes choice from the set of causal factors. - mainstream biology runs into insurmountable difficulties just for the same reason. Which is better: to have the right but uncomfortable answer or to have the wrong answer? Building upon the correct set of assumptions gets your further towards the right answer. What I don't quite like about this blog is it spends too much effort on philosophical questions trying to be too broad. Instead it should really focus on developing ID per se as applied to biosystems. This is why I think that OPs like ones by gpuccio are great.EugeneS_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

BO'H: Sounds like origins and historical sciences. A span from cosmology to astrophysics and planetary sciences, to biology, geology and geography, on to origins of man, culture, sociology, anthropology and even archaeology and history plus issues in linked philosophy, economics, political science and more, even technology and military science. A huge span, but I suspect you will find things in UD that cover much of that span. In much of that, the design inference on relevant sciences will be applicable. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

kf @ 88 - OK sorry. That was loosely worded by me. Perhaps I should have written something like "how the world came to be the way it is today". That would, I think, cover much more than cosmology.Bob O'H_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Also Eric @ 85 -
Darwinism, unfortunately, is unhelpful in addressing these kinds of research questions. Indeed, it has shown itself to be a science stopper. It doesn’t even ask these kinds of questions, just naively and simplisticly assuming answers — answers that become less and less supportable the more we learn about biology.
I don't think that's true. To take he questions you don't think evolution answers:
For example, What is the edge of evolution? (what can it actually accomplish with real organisms in real populations in the real world?)
Ary Hoffman has reviewed these issues, for example. There are other people who have written about this too.
Is there another possible explanation for the pattern we see in the fossil record, given that it obstinately still refuses to confirm the Darwinian narrative?
I've no idea what you mean here. Palaeontologists think the fossil records does "confirm the Darwinian narrative". We've had no sitings of Cambrian rabbits yet.
Is it easy to transverse the protein space from one protein to the next and one protein family to the next?
This is precisely what is studied when looking at fitness landscapes. There's a whole literature (both experiments to estimate the landscapes, and theoretical work about the shapes of the landscapes, and what determines that).
To what extent can molecular machines be perturbed and continue to function, what constraints exist on mutations to remain functional?
That can be seen as a subset of the issues dealt with in the estimation of fitness landscapes. It's also related to the concept of canalisation. What makes this even more fun is that canalisation is positively linked to the potential to evolve through beneficial mutations.Bob O'H_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Eric @ 85 -
It is wrong to claim that no-one is willing to ask these questions or address them. To the extent that such questions can be done in a scientific and rigorous way, ID proponents are certainly willing to entertain them.
OK, I'll bite. Can you point me to the people who are addressing these questions, and the ID research that has been done to address them?Bob O'H_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

BO'H: How the world came about is the subject of cosmology, and the issue there is fine tuning and its import. This is utterly separate from the usual design inference on FSCO/I or the like, as applied to the biological world. If you mean instead the origin of C-Chemistry, Aqueous medium cell based life, this is indeed a focus of ID investigation, and of particular relevance is the FSCO/I found in D/RNA and proteins. On that basis, i/l/o the power of the design inference on sign, it is inferred as best current empirically anchored explanation that the text in DNA and the result of processing in the NC machinery that uses that text, proteins are designed. This is backed up by the clear evidence of islands of function in AA sequence space. A few weeks back, GP did a short series here on how those islands factor out in the usual timeline of origins. Right here at UD. The empirical evidence points to design of life and design of a cosmos fitted for life. Taken together, that cluster of evidence has worldview level import, but so does the usual imposed a priori Lewontin-Sagan evolutionary materialism. KF PS: the character of designs does reflect on the designer, at least in constraining ways. Cell based life could be designed in a molecular nanotech lab. The observed cosmos set up for life, requires an extra-cosmic designer capable of building a cosmos. As for the rather unlikely case of a massive simulation -- the world is too fine grained for that to be seriously credible -- we need a designer of the software and the hardware to run a cosmos scale sim [90+ bn LY across . . . ] that has in it things observed down to what 10^-23 s or so? The scope of such a computer is so big that we might as well infer to a physical cosmos instead or a cosmic mind that is as capable. In any case we are looking at a temporal causal system that on relevant logic of cause and of being, requires a finitely remote necessary being world root. But that is across the border in phil, not physics.kairosfocus_{May 16, 2017
May
05
May
16
16
2017
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply