Theistic Evolutionists, Your Position Is Incoherent — But We Can Help You!

_{Thomas Cudworth

June 21, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

In this, my first column for Uncommon Descent, I’d like to address what seems to be a fundamental contradiction running through the writings of many “theistic evolutionists,” and propose an adjustment to their theoretical framework.

Critics of theistic evolution (TE) have often suggested that theistic evolutionists (TEs) have to put themselves through mental contortions in order to remain Christian while embracing Darwin. Yet a person very well versed in TE literature has informed me that many TEs do not appear to feel any such intellectual discomfort. They reconcile Christianity and Darwin, he suggests, by holding to an “old earth creationist” position, by interpreting Genesis non-literally, and by treating evolution as God’s “creation tool.”

The first two points are non-controversial. There is plenty of room within orthodox Christianity for the belief that the earth is very old, and for less-than-completely-literal interpretations of Genesis. However, the proposition that evolution could be “God’s creation tool” is open to more than one interpretation, and bears closer examination. Given that most TEs appear to be strict Darwinists with respect to the mechanism of evolution (i.e., chance mutations plus natural selection), critical observers are justified in inquiring about the suitability of the Darwinian mechanism as a “creation tool” for a specifically Christian God.

I would not have a problem understanding evolution as God’s “creation tool,” if TEs conceived of evolution as a “tool” in the strict sense. A tool in the strict sense is fully in the control of the tool-user, and the results it achieves (when properly used by a competent user) are not due to chance but to intelligence and skill. But Darwin’s mechanism leaves room for neither intelligence nor skill; it is the unconscious operation of impersonal natural selection upon mutations which are the products of chance. It follows that Darwinian evolution is not a tool, but an autonomous process, and therefore out of God’s control.

This has a theological consequence. If evolution is out of God’s control, it is incompatible with the notion of providence — the notion that God provides for the future needs of the earth and its inhabitants. God can hardly, for example, provide for the need of Hagar in the desert, if he can’t even guarantee that the human race, of which Hagar is a member, will ever emerge from the primordial seas. (The radical contingency of the Darwinian mechanism is captured well by Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould, when he wrote that if the tape of evolution were rewound and played again, the results would be entirely different. Once God sets a truly Darwinian process in motion, he has no control over whether it will produce Adam and Eve, a race of pointy-eared Vulcans, or just an ocean full of bacteria.)

A non-providential God is clearly not an orthodox Christian God, and it therefore appears that theistic evolutionism generates heretical Christianity. As I see it, the only way for theistic evolutionists to escape this consequence is to argue that mutations seem like chance events from the human perspective, but from God’s perspective are foreordained. But in that case, “evolution” is really just the actualization of a foreseen design over a very long time frame; the “purely natural causes” spoken of by the TEs are really just the unrecognized fingertips of the very long arm of God. This view, which we might call “apparent Darwinism,” fails to get God out of the process of natural causation, which was (as Cornelius Hunter has argued) Darwinism’s historical raison d’être.

In response to this, TEs could say: “Well, we are Christians, so of course we believe that these apparently chance events were divinely foreordained and therefore are not ultimately chance events. Our goal is not to deny the ultimate agency of God, but only to establish that the design of living things, though certainly in the mind of God at the beginning of the world’s creation, is not humanly DETECTABLE, as the ID proponents say it is. Evolution proceeds as if directed by chance; neither our sense nor our instruments are capable of registering the difference between mutations produced by the hidden hand of God and mutations produced by chance. Operationally, science must proceed as if chance alone is at work. There is therefore no legitimately scientific design inference. Design is a theological interpretation of the natural data, not a scientific one. And that is why we remain theistic evolutionists, appealing to strictly Darwinian causation in our science and keeping our theological interpretation of nature out of the labs, schools and universities.”

This has surface plausibility. But note that, if this argument is accepted, there is no longer any metaphysical difference between TE and ID. Given this argument, both ID and TE acknowledge that living creatures are in fact designed by God and brought into being exactly in accord with God’s will. The difference that remains between TE and ID is not over metaphysics but over epistemology, i.e., over the question: How do we KNOW that the flagellum or the wing of a bird or the circulatory system is a consequence of design rather than chance? And here is where TE takes its final stand: it is only by faith, not by the scientific study of nature, that we can know this.

But how does TE verify this doctrine? Surely the question whether design detection can be an empirical science is itself subject to empirical investigation, and cannot be prematurely settled by any dogmatic pronouncement. TE is thus obliged to look at the work of those who claim that design detection can be an empirical science, and to consider that claim on its merits, not dismiss it out of hand. It thus must engage the arguments of Dembski, Behe, etc. TE is of course free to argue that Dembski and Behe and the others fail to provide an adequate basis for a science of design detection, by pointing to real or alleged flaws in their arguments. But this still means that TE must abandon a priori epistemological declarations and enter whole-heartedly into the honest consideration of whether design in nature is detectable by scientific means.

Thus, we see that the foundational contradiction at the very core of TE (that orthodox Christianity is 100% true, and that the Darwinian mechanism is also 100% true), puts TEs on the horns of a dilemma. Accept the complete truth of the Darwinian mechanism, and one must deny at least one key Christian doctrine, i.e., providence. Alternately, accept the complete truth of all the core Christian doctrines, including providence, and “chance” is a fiction, Darwinism is a guided process, there is design, and design may in principle be detectable. TEs thus have a choice. If their priority, their most important motivation, is to ban the notion of design from science, they can do so, by affirming that chance rather than providence is ultimately real; the cost is the adoption of a non-Christian theology. If, on the other hand, their priority is to account for the origin of species and of man within the framework of providence, they must affirm that chance is not ultimately real; the cost is the abandonment of the Darwinian mechanism.

Let me summarize. It is possible to be a theistic evolutionist without contradiction. It is possible to be a specifically Christian theistic evolutionist without contradiction. It is not, however, possible to be a Christian DARWINIST without contradiction. A Christian Darwinist is bound to maintain logically incompatible positions: that evolution is both a tool and an autonomous process, that providence and chance are both ultimately real, that design is potentially detectable and that it is a priori indetectable. This intellectual schizophrenia cannot be maintained. TEs must decide whether or not their grudge against ID and its proponents is more important to them than the maintenance of a consistently orthodox Christian theology.

TEs, you can join us at no real cost. You can keep your Christian faith (which incidentally is more highly respected by even non-Christian ID advocates than it is by many of your current colleagues). You can keep evolution (understood as common descent) and all its evidences, including the fossil record, Darwin’s arguments about biogeographical distribution, and a 4.5-billion-year-old earth. We don’t even ask you to pledge allegiance to intelligent design; we just ask you to abandon your a priori prejudice that design in nature can’t possibly be detectable, and to join us in investigating the question.

And there’s an added bonus. You’ll finally be able to abandon the unsavory company of angry, paranoid, condescending atheists like Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers, Jeffrey Shallit, and Barbara Forrest. Talk about the icing on the cake!

Think about it.

Comments

kariosfocus, I am not sure I understand the point of your comment. There is really nothing in it I disagree with and you have made it numerous times before but it does not pertain to the point I was making. The point I was making is that there would not be any meaningful discussion of evolution without the evidence in the fossil record. Do you disagree with that. That once a discussion on evolution proceeds, whether philosophical, theological or scientific. it must not digress into anything that is not supported by the fossil record and other empirical data which is the basis for the idea in the first place or else it is only a mind game.jerry_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Jerry Pardon, I am back. (Answering some back-forth emails today . . . ) SB was pointing out that there are some issues that may arise incidental to a discussion of empirical data but which are then actually logically prior. In fact, ever since Darwin's day and beyond, there was enough to see the fossil record as one of gaps and jumps in form, with stasis and disappearance in some cases, in others, endurance of forms to this day. Darwin hoped that his branching tree of life would be filled in when new data came in, but in fact that is less in prospect today after millions of fossils and 1/4 million or so fossil species if memory serves, certainly tens of thousands. But, more to the point, the issue is that once FSCI is encountered, we have one reliably observed source for it: agency, through deliberate, targetted action, i.e design. More than that, as my always linked pp 1 point 6 discusses, we have good reason for why we reliably see agency as the source of design, and why we see design as being characterised by functionally specified, complex information. The Evolutionary materialists contend that chance plus natural selection can account for such design, but run into all sorts of barriers when they are forced to show that apart form question-begging worldview level impositions [as say methodological naturalism usually turns out to be]. TE's seem to want to say that design is only conceptualised -- a la Kant I suspect on the noumenal vs phenomenal -- not empirically observable. ID thinkers hold that design is an empirically detectable phenomenon, once we can see certain diagnostic factors. I think it is fair to say on the strength of common sense reality, scientific-statistical work and related principles and techniques of design detection, that the ID thinkers are right. We do have good empirical evidence of design once we see FSCI, and that stands until and unless we see reliable signs that chance + mechanical necessity without agent action can reliably give rise to such. It is a mark of the basic strength of the core case, that it is as a rule objected to on a priori grounds, distortions and strawmen, and irrelevancies. That should be telling us something. GEM of TKI PS: Am H Dict again:
de·sign (d-zn) v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs v.tr. 1. a. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference. b. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product. 2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program. 3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages. 4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend. 5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner. v.intr. 1. To make or execute plans. 2. To have a goal or purpose in mind. 3. To create designs. n. 1. a. A drawing or sketch. b. A graphic representation, especially a detailed plan for construction or manufacture. 2. The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details: the aerodynamic design of an automobile; furniture of simple but elegant design. 3. The art or practice of designing or making designs. 4. Something designed, especially a decorative or an artistic work. 5. An ornamental pattern. See Synonyms at figure. 6. A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development: the overall design of an epic poem. 7. A plan; a project. See Synonyms at plan. 8. a. A reasoned purpose; an intent: It was her design to set up practice on her own as soon as she was qualified. b. Deliberate intention: He became a photographer more by accident than by design.
kairosfocus_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Ted, I found the articles by Haarsma interesting and full of useful thought stimulators. In truth, I found the second article even more interesting since if gives the author a little more time to stretch out and provide his own take on the matter. There is simply too much there to comment on, but I will zero in one point because it is so important to him and to most TEs--- Self Assembly: This, it seems to me, the main TE argument, which seeks to integrate the idea of “inherent design” with the notion of randomness. Here, I must revert back to an earlier question: Does evolution proceed according to an internal principle that directs the entire process with an end in mind? Or, does it proceed by way of randomness just as Darwinian naturalistic processes would indicate? Or to simplify further, which principle is calling the shots? Does the process self assemble according to the wishes of the designer, in which case only one outcome is possible, or does it self assemble in a random way, in which case many outcomes are possible. If we are to be true to the Christian world view, we must hold that the finished product will match the designer’s intent perfectly. Only one outcome is acceptable, because God formed us in his mind prior to creating us. So, if he is using a process to accomplish that end, the finished product must match the intent perfectly. The process must produce more than mere homo sapiens, or mere human intelligence, it must generate nothing short of you and me. If, for example, the final result produces something that turns out to be almost like you and me that would be quite an accomplishment, even a Divine accomplishment, but it would not qualify as the act of a Christian God who knew us before we were formed in our mother’s womb. If we are to be true to the Darwinist scheme, or what TE’s call naturalistic processes, the outcome must remain in doubt, meaning that randomness must be given full play. That means that the process must allow for many possible outcomes. The modern evolutionary synthesis confers creative powers on the process itself and part of that power is its capacity to use time, trial, and error. In other words, an organism developing that way is adapting to the external environment; it is not to growing and maturing according to some internal plan for development. It is not possible to rely on solely random processes and, at the same time, match an intended result. Consider that two definitions offered by kairosfocus on this thread ran•dom (rndm) adj. 1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance. 2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. 3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. Idiom: at random Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck. And: chance (chns) a. The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause. b. A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome. 2. The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability. Often used in the plural: Chances are good that you will win. Is there any chance of rain? 3. An accidental or unpredictable event. Next: pur•pose•less (pûrps-ls) adj. Lacking a purpose; meaningless or aimless. CONTRAST: pur•pose (pûrps) 1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: “And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue” Sarah Josepha Hale. 2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. What the TE does is to use the language of purpose (teleology) while arguing on behalf of randomness (Darwinism). If the process is directed to self assemble with an end in mind, then it is not self assembling in a random way. If it doesn’t allow for many possible outcomes, then it isn’t random. That is one of many reasons why Christianity is incompatible with Darwinism. Now I am sympathetic to the TEs insistence that God’s plans musts allow for some contingency, otherwise there can be no such thing as free will. That is why I think that Christians can think of God’s plans in terms of his “ordained” will and in terms of his “permissive” will, On the subject of salvation history, for example, there is an element of risk: God’s ordained or perfect will is not always carried out. Through his permissive will, bad things are allowed to happen, but he is able to turn those things into good. Still, bad things do happen. We know, for example, that God found it necessary to reserve a place called hell for those who refused to do his will. It was his perfect will that “all men be saved,” but this is not likely to happen. In other words, the final result cannot be exactly what God intended. That doesn't detract from his infinite power, it simply reflects the fact that, in the moral realm at least, he gave us a small portion of that power so that we could use it to choose our own fate. We may even be able apply this kind of reasoning to God’s act of creation in a limited way, but we must keep one thing uppermost in our mind: unlike the moral context, the physical allows no room whatsoever for an undesirable outcome. The finished product must be exactly what God wanted, meaning that when God first formed us in his mind, he knew that, when he created us and by whatever means, the finished product, you and me, would match his intent or his specifications perfectly, with no room for variation or error. That is why I continue to press with the question about whether an organism's fate depends on its capacity to mature or unfold according to plan, or whether its fate depends on adapting randomly to an external environment. Its fate is determined either from the inside, meaning the way it unfolds according to an internal principle (programmed evolution), or from the outside, meaning the way it adapts randomly to the environment (unprogrammed evolution). In the first instance, its fate has already been decided; in the second case, we don’t know until we get there. Christianity says that is the former; Darwinism says it is the latter. In cannot be both.StephenB_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

StephenB, "We can’t inject empirical science in every discussion, especially when it is the philosophical and theological underpinnings of science that are being violated." And what else was I doing. Again I point to your lack of reading comprehension. You pounce on one word or maybe two which you take out of context and then proceed to some unwarranted conclusions. It seems the intent is to prove someone wrong rather than to understand their position and whether there is some insight there. Maybe there is none but you did not address my problems with the discussion. I made the point that the philosophical discussions were based on certain empirical evidence and it was lost as the philosophical discussion went on. How that leads to your diatribe that I do not appreciate philosophical discussion, I do not know. My understanding of philosophy and theology is that it is always based on empirical data and how to interpret it. Two great examples are Plato and Aristotle. Once philosophy gets away from its empirical underpinnings it is nothing more than a meaningless mind game and whoever is the cleverer at making a point or putting the other person down. It is one of the reasons philosophy is currently relegated in this world to a class C minor league status when it was once the Queen of the Sciences. As empirical findings became available, philosophy slowly sank out or relevance because it did not explain the empirical data. What passes for philosophy is often the verbal mind game I mentioned. I think the TE's are very guilty of this and I constantly read the ASA blog and see it all the time,jerry_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Jerry, unfortunately, all of TEs objections are philosophical and theological in nature. These kinds of objections cannot be refuted by empirical evidence, because they are not empirical in their formulations. If you are uncomfortable with philsophical discussions, that is your privilege, of course. But these discussions have their place and they matter just as much if not more than the scientific discussions. Without philsophical first principles, there would be no such thing as science. The principles of right reason can exist without science but science cannot exist without the principles of right reason. This discussion is about reason itself. Few things matter more. In keeping with that point,this blog covers ID from a multitude of perspectives and its texture is not nor was it meant to be solely scientific in scope. If that was the case, it would be just another web site. Its founder is grounded in philsophy, theology, and mathematics, and each of these disciplines deserve some attention. We can't inject empirical science in every discussion, especially when it is the philsophical and theological underpinnings of science that are being violated.StephenB_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

I believe all the philosophical discussions are interesting but the real issues are much more concrete and are not addressed by some. Change did take place in living organisms. Darwin's title was about origins. New species arose. And the only evidence we have of that is the fossil record. If there were no fossil record there would be no book by Darwin because the concept of a new species would be mute. We only have evidence for new species from the fossil record and not from any other experience. We have lots of evidence of variety but not new species. Of course biology would observe the closeness of several species and make hypothesis about possible relationships but the origin of new species would be pretty much a dead issue. And so would evolution. But since we have a fossil record and it was in its infancy during Darwin's time we are forced to speculate about what it means. All the philosophical talk on this thread flows from the patterns that have been observed in the fossil record. We should recognize that. These philosophical discussions are the direct result of empirical data and yet we neglect that empirical data as part of the discussion. So I find it uncomfortable when reading all the responses and the empirical data that is the underpinnings for it are ignored. I have yet to get a TE to discuss the empirical data and their philosophy or point of view. We most often get philosophical or theological discussions without much discussions of the data. But that is what ID doesn't do much at all but instead looks at the empirical data and discusses their positions based on that. Without the empirical data ID would not exist as a movement, science or world view. So I will make my case simply. If the origin of species were "random" or purposeless, we would expect to find certain patterns in the fossil record as well as certain patterns in the current range of species in the world. If God guided the progression of species by secondary causes such as quantum manipulation, we would expect to find a different pattern. It would not be the same pattern as the random purposeless process. Most people assume that it would be the same pattern as the random purposeless one but it would not be. If God guided the progression of species by more direct causes, then we should find a different pattern. The data underlying one's philosophy will then be empirical and which pattern of species origin best supports each conclusion. In each way there is a trail. God would have left a pattern if He was the cause and if He wasn't there would have been a different pattern. So we can philosophize all we want but eventually one has to go back and look at the real world and what is it telling us.jerry_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

KF, without design there is no purpose. Of course, when the Designer is rejected, man who is made in His image, will attempt to create a purpose of his own. And he will end up with death camps and gulags. And if a Darwinist wants to insist that the purpose of life is to survive until procreation, well, he's just as wrong as the one who accepts the inherent nihilism in that worldview but perhaps more pathetic.tribune7_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Trib: Passed back. A couple of observations from a handy online dictionary [Am H D]:
ran·dom (rndm) adj. 1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance. 2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. 3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. Idiom: at random Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.
And:
chance (chns) n. 1. a. The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause. b. A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome. 2. The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability. Often used in the plural: Chances are good that you will win. Is there any chance of rain? 3. An accidental or unpredictable event.
Next:
pur·pose·less (pûrps-ls) adj. Lacking a purpose; meaningless or aimless. CONTRAST: pur·pose (pûrps) n. 1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: "And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue" Sarah Josepha Hale. 2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.
Now, good old Materialism-leaning 'prof Wiki" on Natural Selection:
Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.
That seems a pretty good fit to terms such as "chance" and "random," as well as "purposeless," to me. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Great post, Thomas Cudworthtribune7_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

but science is incapable of deciding whether or not it’s purposeful from a scientific perspective? I'd just like to note that when we claim evolution is random, Darwinists object vociferously.tribune7_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

SteveM A couple of remarks (and not to try to initiate a long exchange): 1] Meyer vs McDonald: I note in 110, you attributed the relevant remarks to MEYER. In fact, he was citing/summarising a 1983 article by McDonald at that point. Further to that, the remarks in question are:
McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur.
Your link fails, and -- 25 years after McDonald wrote -- I do not easily see a relevant list of [a] observed AND [b] beneficial, [c] embryologically early, [d] body-plan transforming mutations in your blog, or for that matter elsewhere. [The sort of body-plan level change that would transform the embryo of a cow into that of a whale or the like. That is, you need to show OBSERVED cases of such embryological transformation, all at once or with known to be viable intermediates.] I would expect that any such cases would be hugely headlined, and would thus be easily accessible all over the Internet. But, it seems to me and many other observers, that they are curiously persistently missing, when the classic -- and too often highly misleading -- icons of evolution are/have been put forth over the past 150 or so years, right up to today's textbooks and museums etc. Kindly, enlighten me on what I have missed. 2] Link to Ps 139 and human embryological development Ps 139 speaks to God's omnipresence, sovereignty over and observation of the embryological process, among other things such as foreknowledge of our inner thoughts etc. In the embryologically relevant verses:
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful,I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
--> It is plain that God is declared to be the one who created the Psalmist and knows his whole life story from the outset [i.e The Eternal accesses and knows all of time and space directly], controls the span of his life, even through the intricacies of the development of life in the womb. --> This process -- as we now know -- is of course, finely-tuned, functionally specified, and embeds huge quantities of complex information tied to a genome of ~ 3 bn base pairs. --> It thus shows its authorship in an intelligent agency, per inference to best, empirically warranted observation on the origins of such FSCI. --> If you dispute this, kindly show me a case where random/chance processes and mechanical necessity have observably and reliably produced such FSCI, not 6 *10^9 bits worth [human genome as a storage unit] or even 500 k - 1 Mbits worth [smallest cells, more or less], but just in excess of 500 - 1,000 bite worth [Dembski UPB, extended to take in a reasonable allowance for islands of functionality]. --> In short, I am saying that the FSCI massively evident in embryology is testimony to agent at work, and also that we have excellent reason to see that chance plus mechanical necessity are probabilistically impotent to achieve the origin of such systems, on the gamut of the observed cosmos. --> Such generic inference to design, and onward to the nature of the relevant designer as intelligent, is empirically anchored, and not a matter of a priori assertion that such agency is actual, only that such agency -- per our own life experiences -- is possible. That is, it is evidence that our lives come from and reflect the characteristic marks of agency, not chance + mechanical necessity. --> Metaphysical, after the fact inferences to a quasi-infinite wider cosmos, with sub-cosmi with randomly distributed physics and opportunities for life to emerge are blatantly philosophical speculation, not empirically anchored science. 3] Design inference In short, we have empirically anchored, even self-evident reason to see that design is manifest in the facts of cell-based biological life. Such can be denied, but only on pain of absurdity. (Theologically interested parties may wish to cf Rom 1 on this, esp vv 18 - 23. But the argument is primarily an empirically anchored inference to agent action per characteristic hallmarks of such design.) In particular, it is not empirically credible that codes, algorithms and intricate implementing machinery can arise by chance processes acting on mechanical necessity in matter, on the gamut of the observed cosmos. For probabilistic resources would be exhausted long before that. But, per our own direct conscious experience, agents routinely produce such information, and indeed the machines to carry it out -- cf the PCs we are all using. 4] Incoherence of theistic evolutionism My first problem is as just outlined: TE runs into all the problems of NDT in accounting for the origins of FSCI, as it takes on board the mechanisms of NDT as its basis for accounting for body-plan level biodiversity. Thus, coming out the starting gate, it is empirically unfounded. Second, the typical TE inference that design is at most inferred behind the veil of chance processes adequate to create the observed biodiversity of today and the fossil record, is a case -- pardon the directness -- of verbal gymnastics. If chance is adequate to account for what we see, any speculation that invisibly behind the chance we have God at work is metaphysical speculation, not science. Speculation that immediately falls to the lance of Occam's Razor. (That is if chance can credibly account for what is observed, there is no good reason to look beyond chance for an otherwise invisible agent. And, the evolutionary materialists full well know that.) But in fact, it is plain -- and has been plain ever since we have known of the intricate complexity of information systems and of cell based life as an instance of such -- that chance plus mechanical necessity simply cannot account for the origin and body plan level diversity of life. 5] Theological footnote: Finally, it is fair comment to ntoe that TE runs into a problem, if it intends to be a Biblically anchored Judaeo-Christian system of thought:
Psalm 19: 1 The heavens declare the glory of God;the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
Thus, in the Judaeo-Christian view, the very heavens above speak to us about their origin . . . . Rom 1 is even more blunt:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Thomas Cudworth: I really like your summaries in #142 and 143, and I agree on most that you say. I can accept that the design inference has a philosophical aspect, but indeed all science has. The definition itself of what science is remains a philosophical, and unsolved, issue. But first of all, there is a part of the ID arguments, that is the falsification of the darwinian theory, which is perfectly standard science. We need no argument of design or designer to falsify existing explanations for biological information: we just have to show, as ID has repeatedly done, that they are both logically inconsistent and empirically unsupported. That would leave us with no explanation for biological information. That, in itself, would be a far better scientific scenario than the present one, where almost everybody believes that such an explanation exists in the form of darwinian theories, which is completely wrong. But ID goes beyond that, and makes an alternative explanatory theory, based on the concepts of design and designer. I understand that's the point where most have philosophical difficulties. And yet, the design inference can be expressed in a really simple empirical way, so that the philosophical implications are kept to a minimum. Let's say that the design theory is just based on three steps: 1) The empirical observation that a specifical property can be defined, which is functionally specified, complex information (CSI). That definition is completely empirical, unless one has problems with the definition of function, which IMO can easily be formalized. The complexity aspect has been well formalized by Dembski and others, and I don't think it can be criticized in any way. 2) The empirical observation that CSI can be observed only in two sets of objects: human artifacts and biological beings. 3) The perfectly reasonable hypothesis that the same causal process, or a very similar one, may explain those observations. With that formulation, not only nothing needs to be affirmed about the designer of biological information, nothing needs to be said also about the nature of the causal process, both in biological information and in human artifacts. I would like to affirm again here, as I have often done, that IMO the origin of CSI in human artifacts is as mysterious as its origin in biological beings, in the sense that, although we certainly know the agent in the case of human artifacts, we understand nothing of the process. Finally, there is obviously no necessity, for the theory, to understand the detailed mechanisms of the process, in other words to "catch the designer in the act". With that, I am not saying that it would not be good to know more about the designer and the process. Indeed, I believe that more (but probably not all) about those issues will be scientifically understood in the future. What I am saying is that nothing of that kind is necessary to make the ID formulation correct and complete. That's the core of ID. I can agree that all discussions about purpose and similar aspects are more philosophical and, though they can benefit from the ID framework, they go beyond it.gpuccio_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Just to highlight one point here, in these long and thoughtful exchanges... I've repeatedly mentioned my personal skepticism with the scientific project of ID on this site. I just don't think design is detectable, even if it (as I believe) is there. Not in a scientifically falsifiable way. That question is the stuff of philosophy and theology. But I'd like to ask fellow TEs contributing to this thread: If ID explanations (And not just YEC ones, but any and all claims of seeing design and purpose in nature) are unscientific, why does it seem like the exact opposite - the claim that design certainly is NOT present in nature, that evolution had and has NO purpose - gets a pass? If design can both be present in nature yet not detectable, that automatically rules out establishing the absence of design. You don't need to decide in either direction to learn the science, much less to practice it in the laboratory. Which leads me to another question: Are the TEs in this thread (who I'd like to speak for themselves, since I really want to hear their response) claiming that ID proponents should just accept evolution and natural science being taught as purposeless and without design? Do they view such descriptions as an unwarranted mix of science and philosophy? If not, why not? And if so, are they willing to come down on atheists who try to pass off the lack of design or purpose in nature as the stuff of scientific discovery - at least as hard as they do on ID proponents of even Behe's common-descent-accepting stripe?nullasalus_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

Ted Davis (#121): I have serious scientific doubts about quantum-level changes being able to alter the genome sufficiently to account for evolutionary change, but I won’t take up that line. Rather, I’ll accept the indeterminacy speculation as a plausible one, and look at its implications. What it boils down to appears to be this: 1. God does indeed act, but hides his action (of genetic variation and manipulation) behind quantum indeterminacy. 2. Therefore, while God is actually altering the course of nature, his action cannot be detected by scientific methods; all the investigator will find is chance variations plus natural selection. 3. Therefore, “science” must content itself with Darwinian explanations (though the Christian will privately maintain the reservation that the source of variation is really, but indetectably, God). Let’s go over this. What does this mean? First, it means that there is in fact design in nature, and that there are in fact no chance events in the march of life, because God is guiding it. So ID is in one major respect right, and there should be no friction between ID and TE on that score. Second, it means that God is in fact “The Great Mutator”, which was the sarcastic title Jerry Coyne gave to his nasty review of Behe’s EOE. This means that Jerry Coyne should be just as sarcastic to TE people as he is to Behe and ID, which raises the question why he isn’t writing 7,000-word diatribes in The New Republic against TE people. More generally, it raises the question: why do atheist Darwinists regularly find ID people a dangerous threat, yet regularly let TE people live in peace, even when they hold the same doctrine? I think we can see the answer from point 3 above. The TE people will never intrude their private belief – that the mutator is God, not chance – because they want to be good scientists and not mix up science with theology. Therefore, what happens is that the TE people play the game whose rules are established by the atheist Darwinists. And within those rules, “chance” counts as a “naturalistic” cause, not a supernatural one. As long as the TE people defer to the atheist Darwinists on this point – i.e., maintain silence about their notion of the real cause of the “chance” events -- they can remain scientists in good standing, because the atheist Darwinists feel no threat from them. They can be hired, granted tenure and research money, and even become department chairs and deans. The ID people, however, cannot be tolerated, because (a) they will not, within the practice of science, hide their suspicion that the “chance” events may often be caused by a designer, who could well be God; and (b) they will not, within the practice of science, hide their opinion that the pure Darwinian mechanisms are inadequate to explain the facts of biology. Third, the indeterminacy approach apparently justifies excluding ID from “science”. But does it really? The great misunderstanding about ID is that it offers up “design” as an efficient cause. This misunderstanding is unfortunately perpetuated by many ID proponents themselves. But Bill Dembski has formulated things rightly; in No Free Lunch, he explains that ID is not a causal theory, but an explanatory theory. ID is not an attempt to isolate the particular actions, physical or metaphysical, by which design becomes instantiated in nature. It is an attempt to show that certain phenomena in nature cannot be explained without reference to design. It is, in Aristotelian terms, not about “efficient causes”, but about something more like Aristotle’s “formal” and “final” causes. In this light, the indeterminacy scenario, which insists that God’s actions are indetectable and therefore cannot be established by design theorists, does not succeed in proving that ID is unscientific. ID has never claimed to be able to catch God in the act, or to show how the design is actualized. ID claims only to be able to verify the results of God’s activity -- wherever, whenever, or however it occurred. ID claims that God’s tinkering with genes under the cover of quantum indeterminacy (supposing that was how evolution was effected) has produced measurable, detectable design, with astonishing regularity, throughout the living kingdoms. And it argues that genuine chance mechanisms, as opposed to apparent chance mechanisms, could never have produced this symphony of design. It therefore argues that pure Darwinism is, overall, wrong, because it is rationally and empirically untenable. Of course, ID leaves room for watered-down Darwinism, i.e., some microevolutionary changes. But the great reorganizations, it argues, are beyond the reach of the pure Darwinian mechanisms. And in this it is entirely compatible with the “God hiding behind quantum indeterminacy” scenario put forward by several TEs. So again, there should be no bad blood between ID and TE here. In sum, any TE who takes the indeterminacy scenario seriously actually agrees with ID on much, and disagrees with the Darwinians on the crucial point of the adequacy of the Darwinian mechanism. This being the case, I would like to see an “indeterminacy TE” issue this public statement: “The great reorganizations of living structure are beyond the reach of pure Darwinian mechanisms, as conceived by Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin himself. I therefore postulate some intelligence acting, underneath the cover of quantum indeterminacy, which subtly shapes the genomes and creates radically new body plans.” Is there any TE who would be willing to say this at a secular scientific conference? Or publish it in a letter to the editor of the New York Times, just after an atheist Darwinist reviewer has savaged yet another ID book as unscientific “creationism”, amidst wild allegations of theocratic plots? I would think that this would be a minimum moral obligation for anyone who honestly holds to the above indeterminacy scenario. But as I’ve remarked, TEs are not noted for public statements of the kind that are likely to anger or even rankle believers in the self-sufficiency of the Darwinian mechanism, and this timidity, however it is to be explained, remains a sore point for ID proponents.Thomas Cudworth_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

Ted Davis (#131): Your interesting remarks on purpose are compressed, and therefore I may misunderstand them. Still, permit me to respond, and let me know if I've misunderstood you. First of all, it’s never been my understanding that ID asserts or even implies that “the universe is purposeful”, if that means that there is a purpose, a “reason why” for the universe as a whole. Old-fashioned Scottish Presbyterians would say that the purpose of the universe is to glorify God. Hegelians would say that the purpose of the universe is the progressive incarnation of the World Spirit. ID people would say that such grand statements of purpose belong to philosophy or theology, not science. ID is concerned with “purpose” only in a technical sense, a sense which we see in Greek philosophy. The Greek word “telos” means a goal or end or purpose. The predominant Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, articulated the notion of "telos" in nature in great depth. Aristotle, son of a physician, was particularly interested in the arrangement of means in relation to apparent ends which was visible in the structure of living things. ID is in one sense a continuation of the Greek, in particular Aristotelian, tradition. Now it’s of course possible to over-read “ends” or “goals” or “purposes” into natural events and structures. Behe admitted this clearly in Darwin’s Black Box when he criticized Paley for subjectivizing the notion of purpose in nature, rather than restricting it to cases where the interaction of parts is clearly required for function. So, while natural theology of the Paleyan type was sloppy about finding “purposes” everywhere, ID theory tries to be much more rigorous, not speaking of “purpose” except in relation to the function of complex integrated systems, which appear designed and therefore to require the input of intelligence to exist. In fact, ID can probably get along without the word “purpose” altogether, and stick with “design”. The contention of Behe, Dembski, etc., is that “purpose” in the sense of “design for function”, can be detected scientifically, at least in some cases. And I believe that in their heart of hearts, many TEs agree with ID people about the existence of design in the structures of living things. The dispute thus seems to be, at least in part, whether we shall call this design inference “scientific”, “religious”, “theological”, or something else. I think a strong case can be made that it’s scientific, but in any case it’s not religious or even theological. The inferences are utterly independent of revelation, and are at least very close to scientific inferences. If I had to retrench, I’d call them philosophical inferences, but strong philosophical inferences, and inferences based on the known facts of science and mathematics. Further, I’d say they were inferences fit not for fools or ignoramuses, but for very competent philosophers, mathematicians, computer programmers, biochemists, astrophysicists, engineers and other intelligent and well-trained people. Finally, I’d say that they are inferences which ought to be discussed openly (not endorsed, but discussed openly) whenever they naturally surface in relation to a the subject at hand, whether in science class or other classes, and which ought not to be forbidden in public institutions by atheist-dominated lobby organizations or by scientifically, historically and philosophically incompetent judges.Thomas Cudworth_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Fair enough. Personally, I'm still amazed at the whole issue of purposelessness in 'Darwinism'. As in, I am shocked that a judgment of 'purposeless' has been able to be passed off AS science. Much less scientists themselves. But, ah well. That ground's been covered before.nullasalus_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

-----nullasalus: "How would you react to: Evolution is purposeful from a theological perspective, but science is incapable of deciding whether or not it’s purposeful from a scientific perspective?" I think I could live with that formulation so long as the words "so far" preceded the word science and if we acknowledge that the Darwinist framework is not neutral on the subject, as it injects purposelessness in the evolutionary process.StephenB_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

For Ted Davis (#130): Thanks to Ted Davis for joining us. His replies, as in a previous recent discussion, are probing and challenging without being rancorous or scrappy. I think his challenges here can advance everybody’s mutual understanding. Ted wrote: “Doesn’t ID put God right into the process of natural causation, insofar as “Design” becomes a cause on the same level as scientific mechanisms?” For some ID proponents, it does, but not for all. Dembski has said, in more than one place, that ID can be compatible with wholly naturalistic explanations. This means that the design, which proceeds from the mind of the designer, can be instantiated or actualized via naturalistic means. And Behe has been willing to entertain, at least for the sake of discussion, a “front-loading” possibility, by which the design could have been inserted indirectly, at the beginning, inside the natural properties of matter, so that God wouldn’t have to intrude afterwards. ID as such, therefore, does not require a break in the chain of natural causation. So yes, for some ID people, God can be the cause of the causes, rather than the direct cause, and that would agree with your author Russell. But note that on this understanding, it is "chance", not design, which is ultimately illusory -- the exact opposite of the picture painted by Dawkins. I think what confuses people here is that many ID proponents have assimilated ID to a conventional understanding of Genesis, and, while that is permitted by ID, it isn’t required by it. All that is required is that design can be shown to be a better explanation than the materialistic hypothesis (which rules out design a priori and therefore has to rely inordinately upon genuinely fortuitous events).Thomas Cudworth_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

StephenB, "That is why it is so misguided to suggest as Russell and others do that evolution is purposeless from a scientific perspective but purposeful from a theological perspective." How would you react to: Evolution is purposeful from a theological perspective, but science is incapable of deciding whether or not it's purposeful from a scientific perspective?nullasalus_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

----Ted: "Stephen, I am fully aware of Barbara Forrest’s religious views, but they do not invalidate what she discovered about the history of the Pandas book, any more than your religious views invalidate any facts you may state." You seem to have missed my point that the substance of the book, Of Pandas and Peoople, was not changed from a creation science textbook to an intelligent design textbook as she alleged. It was an intelligent design textbook all along. This is not a question of interpretation, but a simple point of fact as is evident from the opening paragraphs. So, it seems fair to suggest that her ideology clouded her judgment inasmuch as she dishonestly asserted that the authors intended to morph a CS textbook into a ID textbook. Did you also miss my point about the publisher's reason for making the changes? I will repeat. Their purpose was to clarify, not to obfuscate, so Barbara Forrest's fantasies about their intentions to sell Creation science as ID is easily refuted by reading the book and not by simply looking at the changed headlines. What is it about what I have just said that you find less than credible?StephenB_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

-----Ted: "The design inference IMO is ultimately metaphysical, not scientific–even if science helps us to reach that metaphysical conclusion. Without a prior idea of who the designer is, I would say, it’s not really possible to say that the universe is purposeful–whether or not any of it appears to be “designed.” Let's explore that. Why is the concept of functionally specified complex information metaphysical? rather than scientific? How can it be that recognizing the "design" in an ancient hunter's spear is anything other than an empirically anchored inference. If a DNA molecule looks like a "factory," or a "machine," why would one suggest that the patterns that prompted those descriptions were metaphysical in nature? How is it that random variation and natural selection can be thought of as scientific formulations but "irreducible complexity" and cosmological or biological "fine tuning" can only be thought of as philosophical constructs.StephenB_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

-----Ted Davis: “I confess, Stephen, to holding a “voluntarist” view of God, in terms of our knowledge relative to God’s. I don’t think that ours really embraces God’s, very much. “ Yes, that is precisely what I am getting at. When the great scientists of the past commented on this subject they insisted that they were in tune with a rational universe created by a ratioinal being and that further investigation would confirm the point. Indeed, it was their perception that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him” That is what provided the impetus for the whole scientific enterprise. That is not to say that we know everything that God knows. Obviously, such a notion would be ridiculous. What these great scientists believed is that God left clues for discovery, and that those clues represented in some way the mind of God. There was no talk of science having one idea of contingency and God having another idea of contingency. Such a notion challenges the whole notion of a rational universe. What is to prevent us from also saying that God’s notion of laws are radically different from our laws or from saying that God’s notion of reason or logic is different than ours. It would be an intellectual madhouse. -----“God, IMO (and also that of Boyle, Newton, and many other classical thinkers), was not obliged to create us at all–not at all. We exist contingently, not of necessity, and God can freely do what God wants to do, whether or not we can predict it or see it as part of a grand design. Indeed, God’s ways are often mysterious.” Of course we live contingently and not out of necessity. Yes, God’s ways are mysterious, but they do not violate the principles of right reason. They may be, indeed they are above reason, but not contrary to it. That is why it is so misguided to suggest as Russell and others do that evolution is purposeless from a scientific perspective but purposeful from a theological perspective. If God's creation is indeed, purposeful, then science should not be constructing arbitrary rules for subverting that fact. Methodological naturalism, however, the TE methodology, does that very thing. Along with Darwinism, TEs standards are inflexible---No hint of teleology allowed---period.StephenB_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

Steve Matheson (#124): You’ve asked us to treat you as an individual, and not as some faceless representative of TE. Fine; but I’ll ask you to treat me in the same way. And that means that I can’t answer your final question, because I can’t speak for all ID proponents. Regarding Psalm 139, you’re asking the wrong guy. As I tried to make clear in a paragraph on which you didn’t comment, I owe no allegiance to any narrow or literalist or doctrinaire reading of the Bible. My view of the Bible creates no problem here. I see no contradiction – at any level that matters -- between developmental biology and what the Psalmist writes. The Psalmist is writing poetry, and poetry expresses a subjective or affective perception of the world. Poetry is not intrinsically irrational or anti-scientific, but it isn’t meant to duplicate what science does. The Psalmist no doubt misconceives how development happens, just as other Biblical writers thought the earth was flat, but that makes no difference. The Psalmist is expressing debt to God for his existence, and that’s a valid religious response no matter what science tells us about the details of the developmental process. Whether God stitched me up personally, or set up an automated stitching plant with the goal of producing me 3 billion years later, I still owe my existence to him. In this light, focusing on any “errors” in the Psalmist’s science is silly, and I deplore the years of pointless battles between atheists and fundamentalists over passages like that. I’ve already stated that I, and many other ID supporters of a theistic bent, have no argument in principle against the notion that even human bodies were created by naturalistic processes – provided that it’s understood that those naturalistic processes were established by God with the long-term goal of the emergence of man specifically in mind. (Of course, whether said naturalistic processes are capable of producing human bodies can be questioned, but that’s a scientific argument, not a theological one, and my original posting was not about the scientific credibility of neo-Darwinism, but about the logical consistency of it with certain theistic teachings, such as the doctrine of providence.) There may be others here (perhaps the majority; I have no way of knowing) who disagree with me here, and interpret the Bible differently, or insist that ID is compatible only with one-time miraculous events. To them I would say: ID is indeed compatible with one-time miraculous events, but it is also compatible with other scenarios, including fully naturalistic scenarios. And I refuse to fight with YECs or anyone else over the means by which the design in nature was realized, when the larger battle – i.e., over whether the design in nature is real, or only an illusion accepted by ignoramuses who don’t understand Darwin – is still undecided.Thomas Cudworth_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

I need to go to bed, and then I'll be away for a few days. Once more, Stephen, I'll reply to your terminology and the bifurcation behind it that I do not accept. Here we go. "According to the natural sciences and Darwin’s theory of evolution, it was by chance. That means that the results would be unpredictable. According to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it was by divine design. That means that the result would be predictable. " Wrong, Stephen. IMO. God already knows many things that we cannot predict. Does this mean that none of those things that God knows and that we can't predict, are part of God's intentions? That none of them are "designed"? Surely, the first century Jews did not see the possibility of a "crucified Messiah" as part of God's intentions--indeed, a crucified Messiah was for them an oxymoron. I would say, however, that there was more going on than they could ever see. I confess, Stephen, to holding a "voluntarist" view of God, in terms of our knowledge relative to God's. I don't think that ours really embraces God's, very much. God, IMO (and also that of Boyle, Newton, and many other classical thinkers), was not obliged to create us at all--not at all. We exist contingently, not of necessity, and God can freely do what God wants to do, whether or not we can predict it or see it as part of a grand design. Indeed, God's ways are often mysterious. To sum up: my theological attitude seems to be quite different from yours. This may well affect how we view ID and TE, although I don't think it necessarily determines where one might come out on that.Ted Davis_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Ted, why not just treat ID as pure science? Why not just say here's a methodology, it makes empirical claims, attention must be paid? No theology is needed.tribune7_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

(2) "The difference that remains between TE and ID is not over metaphysics but over epistemology, i.e., over the question: How do we KNOW that the flagellum or the wing of a bird or the circulatory system is a consequence of design rather than chance? And here is where TE takes its final stand: it is only by faith, not by the scientific study of nature, that we can know this." I also differ with this. I agree with this much: (a) ID affirms that science, not faith, makes the design inference; and (b) quite a few TEs might say that it is "only by faith" that we can infer design. My own view is intermediate to this, and so is that of Polkinghorne and some others. I say that science can help us make some design arguments, but that any inference to purpose in the universe (which is the bottom line for a design inference, IMO) involves more than science. It is not "only by faith," but "partly by faith" and "partly by reason, informed partly by science." The design inference IMO is ultimately metaphysical, not scientific--even if science helps us to reach that metaphysical conclusion. Without a prior idea of who the designer is, I would say, it's not really possible to say that the universe is purposeful--whether or not any of it appears to be "designed." And, metaphysical arguments are not hard and fast "proofs," hence not as useful as some in the culture wars would like them to be. This is, in part, what is meant when some folks will say that they affirm "id" but not "ID." It reflects a different overall attitude toward design arguments and their efficacy. And, a different view of how "design" relates to mechanisms, which science can study directly. Again, the nuances here are important--they are important in how views are being pigeonholed and characterized. It's important to do that as fairly and accurately as possible; I think we all agree on that.Ted Davis_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

Finally (for now), I respond to the original essay in this thread, which is very thoughtful. Here are a few of the parts where I differ with Mr Cudworth (whose surname, incidentally, is identical to that of a Cambridge neoplatonist whose views on the creation he might not share, and who wrote a lengthy treatise on this). (1) "This view, which we might call “apparent Darwinism,” fails to get God out of the process of natural causation, which was (as Cornelius Hunter has argued) Darwinism’s historical raison d’être." It is not clear to me that ID escapes this charge, either. Doesn't ID put God right into the process of natural causation, insofar as "Design" becomes a cause on the same level as scientific mechanisms? Whereas, for Russell and many other TEs, God is not seen as a cause like other causes, but rather as the cause of those causes. I think George Hunter was confused about this.Ted Davis_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Thomas @123 First of all, if you are as flexible as you sound on the tone around here, I expect I will never again see the kind of lecture you dispensed in comment 89. George Murphy was right: the environment here is plainly dysfunctional. That is not an intended insult to your person. It is an observation, made by many others, about the immature and unhealthy ethos of UD. Take the hint, guys: this place is a mess. But now I think I'll make you happy. Here are answers to your questions. 1. Do you believe that God programmed the process of random variation and natural selection to unfold according to a plan? I'm not sure how it works, and I don't like your terms, but I've rejected the extreme (as I see it) of open theism, and that leaves me with a goal-directed creation. "Programming"? I dunno. A plan, a will? Yes, absolutely. 1. If so, how is this plan intellectually distinguishable from what ID proponents mean by “design”? It's not. I would think that's obvious. I was talking about my openness to design talk and to "common ground" from the very beginning. And you think you're frustrated? 3. If the two things are not distinguishable, then what is your objection to ID (or at least to that wing of ID theory which accepts an old earth, aspects of Darwinian mechanisms, and common descent)? For a short starter list of my problems with your movement, see comment #40. I've referred to it repeatedly. I thought it was very clear when I posted it, and I think it's quite clear now. I could add to it, but I'm exhausted by the effort of communicating here, and I'm also out of time. Are you confused by the difference between design, intelligent design, and the ID movement? That's where you want to look for the reasons why people like me, who ought to be your friends and allies, see your movement as destructive and unworthy of support. Look again at what I've written, and at what Ted Davis wrote, recently and especially last week. Lay aside your grievances (against -- and on behalf of -- people who aren't even in the conversation) and try to deal with me, just as a guy who confesses Jesus as Lord, who works full-time as a research biologist and professor at a Christian college, who knows more about genetics and developmental biology than (perhaps) everyone you know (and certainly more than Mike Behe), and who took the time to come into your private and privileged conversation to explore common ground.Steve Matheson_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

-----Ted, You could have pretty much picked any prominent Christian Darwinist, so Russell will serve to make my point as well as anyone. Let's analyze his incoherent position by repeating the quote which you provided: “God can be understood theologically as acting purposefully within the ongoing processes of biological evolution without disrupting them or violating the laws of nature. Indeed, as its transcendent Creator, God has made a world that is open to divine action, and as its immanent and ongoing Creator, God acts in nature! God’s special action results in specific, objective consequences in nature, consequences that would *not* have resulted without God’s special action. Yet, b/c of the irreductibly statistical character of quantum physics, these results are entirely consistent with the laws of science, and b/c of the (ex hypothesi) indeterminism of these processes, God’s special action does not entail a disruption of these processes. Essentially what science describes as variation at the genetic level without reference to God is precisely what God is purposefully accomplishing, working invisibly in, with, and through the processes of nature.” Russell conceives science in this context as (Darwinism), which, by definition, is a purposeless, mindless process. As George Gaylord Simpson put it, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” When confronted with that very quote and asked if it was true, Russell responded, "for science yes, for theology, no." In effect, he splits truth in two, one truth for God, another for us. Like most TEs, Russell uses the language of teleology while arguing on behalf of non-teleology as is evident from his quote and from his response to the question about purpose. In effect, Russell is saying that a purposeful God used a purposeless process. He is solely vested in the Darwinian concept of contingency. So, according to him, contingency is real for us, but it is not real for God. Did life on earth unfold by chance or by design? According to the natural sciences and Darwin's theory of evolution, it was by chance. That means that the results would be unpredictable. According to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it was by divine design. That means that the result would be predictable. That is why I asked the earlier question that everyone evades. So here it is again: Do you believe that God programmed evolution to unfold predictably according to plan? If so, then how do you reconcile that with the Darwinian paradigm that evolution proceeded unpredictably and without purpose? Russell, whom you characterized as “one of the most thoughtful,” wants to have it both ways. I have higher hopes for you.StephenB_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

PART TWO: The chapter isn't on the web, so anyone who wants to take up that challenge will need to go to a library and order a copy by inter-library loan. Most regular libraries won't have it. Of course, you could buy a copy of the book... A few years ago, I was involved in a really heavy discussion of this issue--divine sovereignty over nature, and whether or not God's sovereignty extends to causing "random" events--on a private ID list. I was almost the only one there defending a TE position, but it was a very interesting exchange from my perspective. Ultimately, I keep coming back to the book of Job. I haven't a clue how God sustains the bands of Orion -- well, OK, it apparently involves gravitation, but that's simply our word for what God is doing, not how God does it. Large parts of nature appear to operate on the basis of "random" events, leaving ID and evolution completely out of this and sticking only with the physical universe. Do I know how God governs those events? Not a clue. Do I believe that God governs those events? Yes. Can I prove scientifically that God designed the events that emerge from the apparently "random" substratum? Not on your life. This isn’t a trivial response, although it may appear to some that it is. These are very deep waters, and we navigate them only in the fog.Ted Davis_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply