Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Materialist Double Standard

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
It seems rather foolish to eliminate intelligent design as a POSSIBLE answer to the origin of life question, especially in light of modern molecular biology and chemistry. To me, the evidence for intelligent design is overwhelming. The real question is who (or what) caused it. Also, the intelligent design community has done a great service to science by highlighting the many difficulties in the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution (of all varieties). Jonathan Wells points out the many fraudulent icons of Darwinian theory and a/mats hate him. Not because he pointed out the proven frauds, but because he dares to challenge the theory of Darwinian evolution. Michael Behe points out the highly efficient nano-machinery within the cell and is hated by a/mats because he argues against Darwinian theory being able to build those machines. Stephen Meyer points out the computer-like coding and information bearing properties within the DNA molecule and a/mats hate him for daring to think that such coding might have arose from an intelligent source. Me thinks the a/mats doth protest too much!Truth Will Set You Free
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
And whether the designer is God or an alien is of absolutely no concern to ID*
Whether or not there is design apparent in living things, it should be irrelevant who the designer is. That seems obvious. On the other hand, I dont think its unreasonable to think that the nature of the designer will have some influence on the type of design, though I cant think of an example now. I think Stephen Meyer has actually contradicted this core principle of ID. In recent years he's tied the justification for using ID for biology to the 'fine-tuning' argument. Fine tuning of the physical constants could only be accomplished by GodRodW
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Sebestyen @23:
. . . we’d have to identify this designer before we could even begin to investigate?
Investigate what? Whether something is designed? Certainly not. Unfortunately you apparently don't understand the design inference and how it works, whether in biology or in any other field (archaeology, forensics, etc.). You need to think through the chain of inquiry more carefully.Eric Anderson
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Let me also add this critical point: Design does not have to answer a “how” in the same way that purely natural explanations need to. That is because we are dealing with two different domains. Design is not a mechanistic theory. It is a theory about choice, about intentionality, about intelligence. You don’t need to know how the ancients built the pyramids or stonehenge, or the precise design and manufacturing process for how a solid state flash drive was built, to know that such things were designed. In stark contrast, chance and natural-law-driven processes are all about the mechanism. They are purely mechanistic theories that live or die by identifying a natural physical mechanism. Many materialists (because, again, they can’t see past their materialism), want to demand that ID provide some kind of detailed mechanistic explanation for design. That demand is based on a misunderstanding, because ID is not a mechanistic theory. That is not a failure of ID. It is a failure by the materialist to understand the different domains we are dealing with.Eric Anderson
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Seriously, what is the IDers’ answer to the “who designed the designer” question?
I can't speak for others, but my stance is as follows: No matter if the designer is part of this universe (e. g. an alien lifeform of any sort) or if the designer exists outside our universe (e. g. a God or someone who runs our universe as some sort of computer simulation), we'd have to identify this designer before we could even begin to investigate. Until then, any discussion regarding this topic is purely philosophical/speculative simply because there's no data available. This and the fact that ID doesn't even work on identifying the designer should make it obvious that ID doesn't have an answer, nor does it strive to find one. SebestyenSebestyen
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
they cannot seem to let go of their concern in the face of countless corrections
This is a characteristic of those who live under bridges. Andrewasauber
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Bob O'H @1:
Seriously, what is the IDers’ answer to the “who designed the designer” question?
Why should answering this (potentially faulty) question be an obligation of ID? Do you recognize that identifying design is logically separate from identifying a designer? And that identifying a designer is logically separate from questions about where such designer came from? As I have said previously and will repeat here: ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself.Eric Anderson
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
If the designer is God then an argument agaist God is an arguement against the designer. If the designer can be aliens then its not.
And whether the designer is God or an alien is of absolutely no concern to ID*. It may be of concern to some (though not all) who hold an ID view of life's origins, but it is of no concern to ID. It cannot be of any concern to ID unless ID has within it a mechanism for determining whether the designer was God or an alien. ID has no such mechanism. If you believe it should have such a mechanism, then feel free to propose one. * However, it often appears to be of immense concern to those who oppose ID, often to the point that they cannot seem to let go of their concern in the face of countless corrections.Phinehas
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
In the most general sense? No
If the designer is God then an argument agaist God is an arguement against the designer. If the designer can be aliens then its not. And its certainly not if one takes ID in the general sense of detecting design in nature, whether the design is in Stonehenge or the Yonaguni temple.RodW
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
No, it isnt an argument against ID at all, if ID is construed in the most general sense.
In the most general sense? No. Only as ID actually presents itself rather than as its detractors would really rather it presented itself. I don't doubt that detractors feel more comfortable attacking their own straw men, but that says more about them than about ID.Phinehas
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
but it isn’t an argument at all against ID, let alone a bad one.
No, it isnt an argument against ID at all, if ID is construed in the most general sense.RodW
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
RodW
The “Who designed the designer” argument is not a bad argument, despite what Barry and others (such as Willam L Craig) have said.
The "Who designed the designer" argument may not be a bad argument against some proposition or another out there, but it isn't an argument at all against ID, let alone a bad one. To demonstrate this, what is it in ID that this question is arguing against? Please be specific.Phinehas
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
The "Who designed the designer" argument is not a bad argument, despite what Barry and others (such as Willam L Craig) have said. The problem is that theists always interpret this argument as if it is making some claim about God. The claim that its bad contains the unspoken assumption that God exists. I think this is obvious in Macaulay's comment. But of course if the whole point of the argument is to challenge the idea that God exists in the first place you cant assume that God exists to refute that argument. Thats actually the definition of "begging the question" I think if the argument was properly phrased it would be along the lines of: You cannot use the existence and complexity of the world as evidence for God. If you could then Gods existence and complexity would require the existence of another God, ad infinitum.RodW
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
EricMH:
If ID cannot be explained by materialism, then the designer must necessarily be immaterial, i.e. supernatural. The whole point of ID is that materialism is inadequate to explain design. Ergo, the designer is supernatural.
No, no, no, a thousand times no! The whole point of ID is that non teleological forces are inadequate to explain design. ID doesn't really say anything at all about whether the requisite teleological forces are immaterial vs. material or supernatural vs. natural. It really can't answer those questions. All it can really say is that whatever teleological forces were responsible, they are capable of affecting or influencing the material and the natural. That's it. If you believe ID can say more, then what mechanism do you propose ID use to determine the immaterial or supernatural nature of the designer? Please lay it out for us.Phinehas
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Intelligent design theory does not identify the Designer. It merely claims that intelligence is the best explanation for what modern science reveals. I agree with that assessment.Truth Will Set You Free
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Even though I think I.D. provokes some interesting questions, I am actually not an "I.D. proponent" as Barry is defining it here, because I don’t think I.D. is “science” (the empirical study of the natural world) any more than naturalism/materialism is science. So questions like “who designed the designer” are not scientific questions; they are philosophical theological questions. However, many of the question have philosophical/theological answers. For example, the theist would answer the question, “who designed the designer,” by arguing that the designer (God) has always existed. The materialist can’t honestly reject that explanation because historically materialism has believed that the universe has always existed. Presently they are trying to shoehorn the multiverse into the discussion to get around the problem of the Big-Bang. Of course, this is a problem because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of a multiverse. In other words, it just an arbitrary ad hoc explanation used in an attempt to try to wiggle out of a legitimate philosophical question. However, this is not to say that science can’t provoke some important philosophical and theological questions-- questions, which at present, can’t be answered scientifically. For example:
Scientifically it appears the universe is about 14.5 billion years old. Who or what caused the universe to come into existence? If it was “a what”-- just natural causes-- how do we know that? Why does the universe appear to exhibit teleology, or design and purpose? In other words, what is the explanation for the universes so-called fine tuning? How did chemistry create the code in DNA or RNA? How dose mindless matter “create” consciousness and mind? If consciousness and mind are “just an appearance” how do we know that?
These are question that arise out of science which are philosophical and/or theological questions. Is it possible that they could have scientific explanations? Possibly. But even if someday some of them could be answered scientifically that doesn’t make them at present illegitimate philosophical/theological questions-- because we don’t know if they have, or ever could have, scientific answers.john_a_designer
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
EricMH - another possibility would be to provide a plausible material explanation of the designer. Either approach would be fine by me (as if that really matters). The problem with ID saying that the designer is supernatural is that it makes the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" accusation harder to counter.Bob O'H
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
EricMH, I don't think you can equate immaterial with supernatural, strictly speaking. 'Natural' cannot be clearly defined, therefore, neither can 'supernatural'. Andrewasauber
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
If ID cannot be explained by materialism, then the designer must necessarily be immaterial, i.e. supernatural. The whole point of ID is that materialism is inadequate to explain design. Ergo, the designer is supernatural. Avoiding this very straightforward logic puts ID proponents in a bad light. It makes us look dishonest. Really, we need to instead be arguing that supernaturalism is not unscientific, and providing methodologies to rigorously handle supernaturalism.EricMH
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Seriously, what is the IDers’ answer to the “who designed the designer” question
Irrelevant. Hamlet cannot deny the existence of Shakespeare because he would then have to account for Shakespeare's origin. Besides, the same question can be asked to a materialist; who designed the singularity or the multiverse?Macauley86
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
If I wanted to do sum trollin’, I’d use the blackboard in our departmental coffee room.
How about you just go to the coffee room and not come back here for awhile?. ;) Andrewasauber
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
If I wanted to do sum trollin', I'd use the blackboard in our departmental coffee room. :-)Bob O'H
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
I came here for an Argument
Looks like you came here ta do sum trollin'. Andrewasauber
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Ah, so the serious answer is Abuse. Oh poo, I came here for an Argument.Bob O'H
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
If anyone wants a specific example of what trolls do, look at comment #1. Andrewasauber
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
Seriously, what is the IDers’ answer to the “who designed the designer” question?
Bob, have you ever heard the old saw "there's no such thing as a stupid question?" It is false. Stupid questions abound. The one you just asked is one of them. As has been pointed out on these pages 1,303,261 times (all of which apparently sailed right over your head), the design inference is independent of the provenance of the designer.Barry Arrington
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Seriously, what is the IDers' answer to the "who designed the designer" question? (failure to answer this will - of course - immediately condemn all IDers as poopyheads, despite any efforts by the Federation of Creationist Scientists, International/Overseas to suppress this categorisation)Bob O'H
May 15, 2017
May
05
May
15
15
2017
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply