What if its True?

_{Barry Arrington

August 6, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Warning: This post is intended for those who have an open mind regarding the design hypothesis. If your mind is clamped so tightly shut that you are unable to even consider alternatives to your received dogma, it is probably better for you to just move along to the echo chamber of your choice.

Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions:

1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose.

2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”

From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.

Now let us set all assumptions aside. Where does this leave us? No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. When the question is put this way, most people correctly conclude that we should not place ideological blinkers on when we set out to search for truth. Therefore, even if it is true that ID is not science (and I am not saying that it is), it follows that this is a problem not with ID, but with science. And if the problem is with science, this means that the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise should be changed. In other words, if our search for truth excludes a possibly true answer, then we should re-conceive our search for truth.

Comments

Eh? When did ‘purpose’ creep into ID ? The ‘design inference’ I understand, but a ‘purpose inference’ ? The term "design" can be synonymous with the term "purpose" depending on the definition one uses. When it is recognized that there is "design in nature" it's the same as saying "there is purpose" -- since a design is someting deliberate, as opposed to "purposeless, blind, unintelligent processes or chance". Something is done "by design" -- or "by plan" or "on purpose". So, anything that is designed, is designed with a purpose. Intelligence acts with a purpose -- that's how we are able to understand symbols, code or language. That's what is meant by "communication" -- an intelligent agent sends information for a purpose. Do I have a purpose ? How do I find out ? You might wonder why you're asking those questions. You could conclude that you are ultimately meaningless and without any ultimate value or purpose. But asking why is a philosophical exercise. You explore the limits of your knowledge and seek to go beyond that. So, to discover purpose you must necessarily consider matters that transcend empirical science. That's a start. You have to accept that science is incapable of providing answers to questions about meaning and purpose in the first place.Proponentist_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

I'd also note that a sufficiently advanced alien race would likely have little problems manufacturing evidence that make it appear they were our designers from the perspective of science. They could simply "scan" life forms on earth and post-hoc create fake design documents, recreate existing organisms, etc. Even if these aliens provide an overwhelming evidence that they can design organisms in the same class as human beings, which provides in inference of design, their advanced ability would make it difficult to know if they actually interceded to design the specific biological complexity we currently observe here on earth. Even if they design and create human equivalents, it doesn't mean they simply weren't so advanced that they can mimic the same process, and we'd be none the wiser. In other words Just because they demonstrate they could have done it, this doesn't mean that, in our case, the actual cause wasn't natural, or some other designer. As such, we'd likely ask questions such as, why did over 95% of all species you designed go extinct? Why does the features that perform essentially the same function exhibit such great variation? Why did you use the same four DNA molecules across all organisms? Why do organism gradually become more complex? And so on. Should the aliens fail to explain these things by replying, "Um… that's just he way we wanted things to turn out." or refuse to answer at all. we'd become rather suspicions, despite having evidence that allowed us to make a strong inference of design by example. However, if these aliens provide good expirations for these observations, we'd be more likely to accept them as the best explanation. For example, they may reveal that, while their technology allows them to design robust lifeforms that alway survive in isolation in the lab, they have yet to discover a way to account for the vast number of environmental factors and interactions with other organisms here on earth. Etc. However, even with these "good" explanations, we would tentatively accept the aliens claim as they could have simply provided explanations they though we wanted to hear. This is because, if they were sufficiently advanced, almost any "explanation" could be "credible", which essentially makes no explanation more credible than another. The point i'm making here is that having an inference for a specific class of design does always make for the best explanation as it only represents half the equation. The other half represents an expiation of the specific things that were supposedly deigned. To illustrate my point, put yourself in this hypothetical situation. Would anyone here accept that alien beings designed human beings merely because they demonstrated they were technical capable of doing do, which would represent a strong inference, but without having provided "good" explanations to these questions? (or even with good explanations) Or would you continue to promote a theory that suggests that science simply cannot know who the designer is, but that design occurred none the less?veilsofmaya_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

living things appear to be designed for a purpose Eh? When did 'purpose' creep into ID ? The 'design inference' I understand, but a 'purpose inference' ? Do I have a purpose ? How do I find out ?Graham_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

---Paul T: "As he is banned from commenting on UD, Bob O’H has responded here." I, for one, am not happy that Bob O'H was banned in an era that was less tolerant that the one in which you now speak freely. Of course, if I knew all the facts, I might change my mind. Having said that, Bob does not respond with any substance as he, and you, do not understand the meaning of that which you presume to comment about, which means that neither he nor you have bothered to read the "weak arguments" section of our blog. Inasmuch as I have no reason to believe that, at this late date, you or Bob will ever do that, it seeems rudent to provide the information for onlookers so they can discern for themselves the points at issue. For the sake of Darwinists, I should probably point out that the first sentence in #17 and @18 constitutes the weak objection and the information that follows is the answer. 17] "Methodological naturalism is the rule of science. Methodological naturalism is simply a quite recently imposed “rule” that (a) defines science as a search for natural causes of observed phenomena AND (b) forbids the researcher to consider any other explanation, regardless of what the evidence may indicate. In keeping with that principle, it begs the question and roundly declares that (c) any research that finds evidence of design in nature is invalid and that (d) any methods employed toward that end are non-scientific. For instance, in a pamphlet published in 2008, the US National Academy of Sciences declared: In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, p. 10. Emphases added.] The resort to loaded language should cue us that there is more than mere objective science going on here! A second clue is a basic fact: the very NAS scientists themselves provide instances of a different alternative to forces tracing to chance and/or blind mechanical necessity. For, they are intelligent, creative agents who act into the empirical world in ways that leave empirically detectable and testable traces. Moreover, the claim or assumption that all such intelligences “must” in the end trace to chance and/or necessity acting within a materialistic cosmos is a debatable philosophical view on the remote and unobserved past history of our cosmos. It is not at all an established scientific “fact” on the level of the direct, repeatable observations that have led us to the conclusion that Earth and the other planets orbit the Sun. In short, the NAS would have been better advised to study the contrast: natural vs artificial (or, intelligent) causes, than to issue loaded language over natural vs supernatural ones Notwithstanding, many Darwinist members of the guild of scholars have instituted or supported the question-begging rule of “methodological naturalism,” ever since the 1980’s. So, if an ID scientist finds and tries to explain functionally specified complex information in a DNA molecule in light of its only known cause: intelligence, supporters of methodological naturalism will throw the evidence out or insist that it be re-interpreted as the product of processes tracing to chance and/or necessity; regardless of how implausible or improbable the explanations may be. Further, if the ID scientist dares to challenge this politically correct rule, he will then be disfranchised from the scientific community and all his work will be discredited and dismissed. Obviously, this is grossly unfair censorship. Worse, it is massively destructive to the historic and proper role of science as an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world in light of the evidence of observation and experience. 18] Methodological naturalism is a centuries-old, traditional rule for science. In an attempt to rationalize the recently imposed “rule” of methodological naturalism, some Darwinist academics have resorted to rewriting history. As the ‘revised” story goes, Newton and other greats of the founding era of Modern Science subscribed to the arbitrary standard of ruling out design in principle. Thus, one gathers, ID cannot be science because it violates the “traditional” and “well-established” criteria for science. However, as anyone familiar with the real history of science knows – e.g. cf. Newton’s General Scholium to his great scientific work, Principia — this proposition is at best a gross and irresponsible error, or even an outright deception. For, most scientists of the founding era were arguing on behalf of the proposition that God, as a super-rational being, does not act frivolously, unpredictably, and without purpose. For such men, and for their time, searching for “natural causes” was a testimony to the belief that the Christian God, unlike anthropomorphized Greek gods, did not throw capricious temper tantrums and toss lightning bolts out of the sky. In other words, the issue was not natural causes vs. design; (they were all design thinkers) it was orderly and intelligible natural processes vs. chaos. That directly contradicts Lewontin’s dismissive assertion that “[t]o appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.” Indeed, the theologians and philosophers will remind us that for miracles to stand out as sign-posts of more than the ordinary being at work, they require that nature as a whole works in an orderly, intelligible and predictable way. So, for the founders of Modern Science, science (as a delimited field of study within a wider domain, i.e., “natural philosophy” and “natural history”) was primarily about discovering the underlying principles, forces and circumstances that drive observed natural phenomena. But, as Newton so aptly illustrates, it was simply not in their minds to insist dogmatically that only “natural” causes — i.e. blind mechanical necessity and even more blind chance – exist or may be resorted to in accounting for the nature and functions of our world. They made a provisional judgment based on the best information available, but they would never have dared to presume that they knew enough to close off all other options. Further, in their estimation, the foundational scientists were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” Obviously, they could hardly have believed in Methodological Naturalism while, at the same time, believing that God, as Creator, purposely left clues about his handiwork so that his creatures could interpret them as evidence of his existence and plan for the orderly conduct of the world that are also accessible to us to use for our betterment. Even apart from their religious inspiration, they understood that only the individual scientist knows what he is researching and why, so it is s/he who must in the first instance decide which methods are reasonable, responsible, and appropriate for the task Indeed, it was their love of truth and the disinterested search for it that made them great. They were always ready to challenge rigid conventions and seek new answers. More importantly, they were wise enough to know that someone new could come along and make their ideas seem old, just as they had made the ideas of their predecessors seem old. Now, in our day, a new idea has indeed come along, and it is embodied in the information found in a DNA molecule. It is beyond ridiculous, then, to suggest that men like Francis Bacon, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Faraday, Maxwell or Lord Kelvin — all of whom were in part motivated by religion and whose religion gave meaning to their science — would ignore or dismiss such evidence of design because of its possible religious implications." Obviously, then, ID methodology, far from appealing to methodological naturalism, is not even permitted under its arbitrary rule. The next time you ask a question about this, please make it an informed question.StephenB_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Can you say with absolute certainty that last thursdayism is not true? No, because by its very definition it is impossible to know this. But should we therefore change the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise and re-conceive our search for truth?zeroseven_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Note that the specific context of my remarks re VOM were on comment 61:
when I refer to “ID” in this sentence, I’m referring to the current theory of an abstract designer being discussed here. This is in contrast to a theory that posits a specific designer, such as an intelligent alien race.
1: Design theory studies objects that show signs of design, and patterns of causa4rionthat establish the credibility of those signs. 2: VOM knows or should know that designers are not a part of ID qua a scientific study. 3: In examining the original post again, I find two specifications as assumptions for discussion, and a conclusion that insofar as I can follow the logic, does follow from the assumptions:
1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose. 2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.” From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.
4: At no point in this argument is there a discussion of designers as such as main objects of scientific study. 5: What is on the table is the issue of the scientific value of truth, and by implication the issue that methodological naturalism -- the currently imposed "official" demarcation criterion -- runs into trouble with truth seeking as a key scientific value and aim. 6: Indeed, that is just what Mr Arrington goes on to discuss in his next paragraph, where he puts back down the assumptions just taken up for the sake of a reductio ad absurdum. 7: Therefore, what we are seeing , yet again, is a strawman. 8: In that context, the proposal on alien fleets is an irrelevancy, as the issue already on the table is that signs point to design, which per argument was ruled out as being scientific. (That per historical investigation or the like we may find evidence of aliens being here at some point in the past that may make their testimony that they engineered say life forms credible to many, is not a matter of the scientific study of signs of intelligence in objects we inspect. It would in fact only help underscore that something is very wrong with science as blinkered by methodological naturalism.) 9: Strawmen and red herrings, as usual, sadly. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

PT: I observe Bob O'H starts with this, and heads downhill from there:
. Now, ID is fundamentally of course an attempt to insert Creationism into science, without mentioning that the designer is the Christian god. One of the sub-plots in ID is the attack on materialism as a foundation for science . . . . Bear in mind that IDists will tell you that ID postits there is a designer, but says nothing about the nature of that designer. So it doesn’t insist on the designer being none-material . . .
Textbook Lewontinian ideological evolutionary materialist atheism that insists on erecting a strawman laced with ad hominems, and seeks to redefine science as applied materialism. (Cf. how this case fits like a hand to a glove with the remarks here. The Sci in Soc concerns here are also very relevant.) This sad textbook classic example follows all the way down to begrudging G_d a capital letter. (And I here deliberately revert to Hebraic practice on respect to the Divine.) In short, the direct evidence is that Bob O'H has not paid even basic attention to easily accessible corrections in even the first several of the UD Weak Argument Correctives, and has to prop up his rhetoric by playing at slander-laced strawman games. Shameless. And, ever so sad. Through such tactics, B O'H has already lost my respect,and any sympathy I may have had for him. Coming out the starting gates. He then goes on and on, distorting as he goes. For instance the notion that design thinkers resort to methodological naturalism to investigate patterns of causation and induce from them on signs of intelligent cause as opposed to those tracing to chance and/or necessity is yet another strawman. B O'H knows or should know that explanatory filter approach looks at the three major possible causes, and it notes that natural regularities is a signature of mechanical necessity, stochastic contingency of chance, and features like dFSCI etc point to design, on empirical evidence. Design theorists then infer from the relevant signs to the corresponding signifieds in cases of the deep past where we were not there to directly observe. All, as already long since discussed and publicly accessible -- including when B O'H was a fairly regular commenter here. Not impressed. But, saddened . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

@kairosfocus (#62) You wrote:
VOM persists in distorting what design theorists study:
Kairosfocus, Again, as Barry asked, I've assumed that a designer that satisfies the hypothesis in the three points your just listed, is true in reality. Then I assumed this hypothesis is not subject to methodical study of science, as Barry asked. I then evaluated the conclusion Barry reached and found it unwarranted based on just these two assumptions. Specifically..
...then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.
If I've presented a straw man here, then you should have no problem pointing it out, rather than just asserting it. For example, it might be that the designers are aliens. The reason we do not know they are our designers is because they only make "house calls" once every million years to implement new biological designs. And it might be that their next scheduled visit is next week. Should this be the case, Barry's conclusion that…
. [scientists] will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.
… would clearly be wrong, as failure to accept the inference of design as proposed by Marks, Dembsk, Behe, et all, would not prevent us from learning the fact that we had actually been designed. The designer would be right in front of us, for us to study. Again, you can only reach this conclusion if you assume this could never happen, which requires making specific assumptions about the designer, such as the designer has not, cannot or would not provide evidence of design that can be studied an a manner that *is* subject to the scientific method. However, as ID proponents constantly remind us, ID is supposedly agnostic about the identify of the designer. So, again, I'm asking Barry how he reached this specific conclusion since it appears to necessitate assumptions not mentioned in his OP.veilsofmaya_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

SO: First, "falsifiability" -- especially in the naive forms that are often popularised [including, sadly, in court decisions] has not fared well as a criterion of science in recent decades. As just a sampler, read Lakatos' 1974 Open University talk here. Second, I did not make up a definition, but gave a summary of the historic best practices of science. Insofar as generic definitions are possible, I suggest you look here at what you can see in high quality dictionaries:
Science The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. [[American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005] Scientific methods are the principles and processes of discovery and testing scientists use, “generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.” [[American Heritage Dictionary.]
Third, you will observe that in context above I spoke to inference to abductive best explanation. This rests on the issue that theories are subject to the problem of affirming the consequent and can only be provisionally supported by empirical evidence, subject to future evidence. (I suggest you take time to read Section a here before making further adverse but ill-informed comments. Fourth, your claims about predictions and by extension want of falsifiability are simply false to fact. One of the strongest points in 38 above is that if you can simply produce dFSCI that credibly comes from chance + necessity only, the principal empirical claim made by design thinkers would immediately collapse. That we see a ducking away into debates on definitions and demarcation of science on materialist a prioris is itself telling on just how strongly confirmed this point is. Similarly, jut to pull out of a hat, one of the most direct contrasts in recent years beteween darwinists and design thinkers on the genome was over so-called junk DNA. The darwinists are increasingly being shown wrong, and the risky design prediction that the rest of DNA would prove useful by and large, is being shown right. You need to read he relevant Weak argument Correctives, and you need to acknowledge how the anti-ID talking points you were fed have been misleading at best. Finally, as the original post highlights, the central issue is that science should seek the truth based on where the evidence leads -- whether or not it makes nice predictions or provides rationales for ever more taxpayer funded research projects. That is what is being sacrificed through ideological materialistic censorship on both science practice and science education -- and that is why that censorship is ultimately self-defeating, as when John Q Taxpayer realises what has been going on, he is going to be truly ticked off. My prediction: the gig's up, and the evolutionary materialistic hegemony will collapse well within 20 years. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 52:
—Drew Mazanec: “If for the sake of argument, metaphysical naturalism were disproven, would you be willing to rethink whether or not science should hold to methodological naturalism.” Were you under the mistaken impression that ID embraces methodological naturalism?
As he is banned from commenting on UD, Bob O'H has responded here.PaulT_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus I think your definition of science is not specific enough. At least in the empirical sciences falsifiability is crucial, meaning that you need to make testable predictions. People claim that ID does not yield such predictions and thus is not science. All I am saying is that this bias is inherent in empirical science so if you wanted to change that you wouldn't have empirical sciences anymore.second opinion_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: VOM persists in distorting what design theorists study: (i) patterns in the present that allow us to empirically ground inference from sign to signified design, (ii) cases where in origins-linked contexts, we see the similar signs that suggest intelligence as best explanation, (iii) actual dynamics and patterns such as Marks and Dembski's studies on active information and search, or Behe's study on the significance of chloroquinone resistance of malaria for proposed Darwinian mechanisms. But hen, strawmen are ever so easier to knock over. "Don't feed . . . " GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

I wrote:
Please note this would *not* require any changes to science. Nor would is require ID to become subject to the methodical study of science. Your conclusion simply does to follow.
Note: when I refer to "ID" in this sentence, I'm referring to the current theory of an abstract designer being discussed here. This is in contrast to a theory that posits a specific designer, such as an intelligent alien race.veilsofmaya_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Barry, Given the above possibilities open to an abstract designer, are ID proponents actively looking for messages encoded in the genome? If not, why? Could we not interpret a decision by ID proponents to not pursue this sort of research as unwarranted bias since it assumes an abstract designer would not or could not provide information that cannot be studied by the scientific method.veilsofmaya_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

@Barry (#48) You wrote:
veilsofmaya, read kairosfocus’ post above. He is correct. We can make a design inference while knowing nothing about the designer.
Barry, To repeat, I've done as you asked and assumed that design actually occurred in reality and that the form of ID theory falls outside of science. So, clearly, I've accepted this point, for the sake of argument. As such, your response appears to be directed at some argument I have not made. Instead, I'm suggesting that one of the specific conclusions you made in your original post is not evident based solely on the two assumptions you asked us to make. Specifically…
From these [two] assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.
Again, it is only via making additional assumptions about the designer that this conclusion could be reached. For example… For example, given only these assumptions, we might discover the remains of a 1 billon year old alien spacecraft which contains detailed design plans of human beings. Please note this would *not* require any changes to science. Nor would is require ID to become subject to the methodical study of science. Your conclusion simply does to follow. In other words, you're clearly making assumptions about the designer which are not evident in assumptions you asked us to make. Nor do they appear to be present in the theory of ID. Namely… - No physical evidence that clearly reveals the designers involvement exists that could be discovered in the future and would be subject to the scientific method. - If the designer still exits, it is either incapable of or intentionally decided not to reveal evidence that could be subject to the scientific method today. This is because, if we actually assume one or more abstract intelligent agents was or still is involved in designing for the biological complexity we observe, it's possible that this agent could choose to reveal said involvement to us in a manner that could be could studied via the scientific method. Clearly, if an agent is capable of making intelligent choices regarding which changes to make in the genome, then its capable of making a choice on whether to reveal these choices in a way that can be studied by science. And if an agent is capable of making changes to the, genome then it is must be capable of making changes in the physical world as the genome exists there. In other words, not knowing anything else about the designer does not provide a means to exclude this possibility which means your conclusion is unwarranted. Yet you apparently made it anyway. In fact, this course of action would essentially be an act of design, which could be "inferred" using the same inference used by ID. The designer could make a number of "design decisions" that ultimately causes their arrival in orbit around the earth and providing us with actual demonstrations which can be scientificly studied, etc. To illustrate this further we can reformulate your conclusion as follows …. From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, [and no undiscovered physical evidence exits or the designer no longer exists or is unable to or unwilling to reveal the that design occurred in a way that can be studied via the scientific method, then the nonexistence / inability / unwillingness of the designer] would forever prohibit science from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter. Of course, for the sake of argument, let's add a more assumption that is limited to the subject at hand. The designer can only make choices about the genome and, for some unknown reason, it's ability to make changes to the physical world is also limited to the genome. Is the conclusion in your OP still valid? No. This is because, despite the additional assumption, the designer could still chose to make changes to the genome that are subject to empirical observations of science and clearly reveal the act of design. Examples? If the designer specifically choses to use an "information bomb" to cause a species to go extinct, it could have "zeroed" out large area of that species genome, then used some obvious encoding method to encode a message that revealed design took place and even acted as a kind of signature. Specifically, it could have completely filled the genome with one sequence to represent zero, then consistently us different yet sequence for n times in a row to represent a one, separated by n of the zero sequence. And if the designer(s) that actual did makes changes to the genome in the past still exist(s), it would be logically possible for this deigned to do so again today. If might choose to "sign" every 50th genome studied by any researcher. Or it might choose to encode a means to decide a previously unknown signature clearly encoded in every single cell that exists. Again, as I've suggested elsewhere, it seems clear that many of the specific conclusions reached by ID proponents are based on presumptions about the designer that are not including the in theory of ID. This seems to be just one example. Notably, many of these assumptions coincide with assumptions made about the theistic God. Such as, God still exists and could reveal that he intelligently deigned everything, but dose not because it would violate our free will. Again, as far as I know this simply isn't part of the theory that ID presents. Note that I'm actually taking ID seriously in regards to it's claim regarding the existence of a abstract designer. After all, if an intelligent agent really was involved it could have left or may present evidence that clearly revel this fact in a way that could be studied by the scientific method. In fact, the designer may have known a failure to do so would cause this result and it was the designer's intended outcome. In this case, the true cause for our forever failing to find the truth about the matter would have been due to the designer's choice, not the "limitations" of the scientific method. So, the question remains. Is this specific assumption about what the designer would or would not do part of the theory of ID? If so, on what basis does reach this assumption?veilsofmaya_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

second opinion:
Now the question is: Would changing the scientific method solve the problem? And the answer is No. You would not even be able to hide the contradictions. The only thing you would accomplish is to hide the fact that these problems are due to different methodologies.
Respectfully, the problem at present is that science is *not* consistent in its methodologies where ID and Darwinism are concerned. The contradictions exist now. The scientific methodology that examines the veracity of inferences from "design" ought to be the same as the methodology that examines the veracity of inferences from "just so stories", and both ought to be the same as the methodology that examines the veracity of allegedly forged artifacts. Science willing investigates the veracity of artifact provenance in light of claims of hoax or forgery and science willing presumes the veracity of evolutionary claims in spite of fabricated "just so stories", but science argues it can't investigate the veracity of design inference precisely because of claims the designer is a hoax. Where is the methodological consistency of science as it stands now?Charles_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

SO: First, you have to realise that there is no one-size-fits-all general "Scientific method" that only and all scientists use when practising "Science." The utter breakdown of the demarcation approach to defining science put paid to that concept, decades ago. Second, In fact, science works by attempting an abductive inference to best explanation, on empirical evidence -- where the observations, measurements and experiments come in -- and reasoned analysis and discussion (where logic, mathematics and peer review etc come in), towards discovering the truth about our world. That approach is not unique, and it is closely parallel to many fields of serious praxis and reasoned decision-making. Now, as I discussed in 38 above, the problem with so-called methodological naturalism, is that it would impose a censoring constraint on the practice of science. Namely, in circumstances where the inference from reliable currently observed causal patterns on known signs to the signified causal factors, would possibly be unwelcome to materialists, we suddenly see an interruption of the inductive process. When we look at some of the proffered explanations by leading proponents of that (as in the US NAS and others) -- and never mind the declarations of those who claim to not be materialists but adhere to and even advocate for the rules now being set by the materialists -- we find worrying issues over back-door imposition of a priori materialism. Lewontin, in his NYRB review article, captures the problem very well: _________________ >> . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis added. (NB: The key part of this quote comes after some fairly unfortunate remarks where Mr Lewontin gives the "typical" example -- yes, we can spot a subtext -- of an ill-informed woman who dismissed the Moon landings on the grounds that she could not pick up Dallas on her TV, much less the Moon. This is little more than a subtle appeal to the ill-tempered sneer at those who dissent from the evolutionary materialist "consensus," that they are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Sadly, discreet forbearance on such is no longer an option: it has to be mentioned, as some seem to believe that such a disreputable "context" justifies the assertions and attitudes above!)] >> _________________ 1 --> In short, we see here the substitution of materialist ideology for the commitment to fearlessly pursuing the truth about our world based on evidence that won for science its reputation. 2 --> Indeed, it is noteworthy that in the same context Lewontin spoke of viewing science as "the only begetter of truth." But since the claim implied by this is a PHILOSOPHICAL claim about the source and possibility of knowledge, that is immediately self-contradictory and absurd. 3 --> So, the bland assurance that "scientific knowledge is limited" gives us very little assurance; as the advocates are viewing science as the dominant means to any knowledge worth the name. 4 --> Going further, as noted above at 38:
12 –> Now, one of the challenges on origin of life is that whenever and wherever it happened, it happened in a deep past we cannot observe, nor do we have generally accepted records. That is the source of the sting in Job when YHWH speaks out of the storm in ch 38:
1 . . . the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand . . .
13 –> Plainly, this is a very good and deep challenge to the project of origins science. 14 –> The best answer we can give is that once (i) we can establish an empirically reliable pattern in the present, (ii) we can observe traces of the past in the present, and (iii) we can see a credible set of initial circumstances that through those patterns would give rise to sufficiently similar traces, (iv) we may scientifically infer on best explanation, that the suggested circumstances and dynamics are a credible — albeit inevitably provisional — origins narrative. 15 –> Of course, one thing that we have no right to do, is to claim that such an inferential reconstruction is a fact beyond reasonable dispute or doubt. (Sadly, it is necessary to note this, as there is a tendency to over-claim the factual basis for evolutionary theories of origins.) 16 –> Coming back from epistemological underpinnings (and yes, science inescapably rests on philosophical foundations), we can note that there is a clear, empirically reliable pattern concerning dFSCI: it is a sign that — per a massive base of observations and without a credible counterexample that can stand basic scrutiny — reliably points to directed contingency as its origin.
5 --> So, the first real challenge is that in the shape of dFSCI, we have a reliable sign of design as relevant causal factor, based on observation. (Onlookers, observe how we just never see the solid observed counter-examples that should overturn this ever so easily if it were empirically false.) 6 --> We have every right to then infer that this is the factor at work in cases where we do not directly observe the cause, on the very grounds that are the basis for origins sciences. 7 --> What blocks this is not the basic epistemological principles on which the scientific study of the deep past rests, but ideology. 8 --> So,the proper counter to that is to identify what science -- on the strength of its history -- should be:
the unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world, based on observation, experiment, analysis and discussion among the informed.
9 --> Simply contrasting that with the way that, say the ideological materialists have sought to impose on schools in recent years, e.g. in Kansas in 2001, is utterly telling:
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural [i.e. = materialistic, tracing to chance and/or mechanical necessity only] explanations of the world around us.”
__________________ That is why Mr Arrington's original post stings so strongly:
No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. When the question is put this way, most people correctly conclude that we should not place ideological blinkers on when we set out to search for truth. Therefore, even if it is true that ID is not science (and I am not saying that it is), it follows that this is a problem not with ID, but with science. And if the problem is with science, this means that the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise should be changed.
GEM of TKI PS: I second the motion that this post should be recirculated on a regular basis. Some form of it deserves to be promoted to the right hand column articles, too.kairosfocus_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

I don't think the problem is with science. Science provides a particular type of knowledge by a particular method. Due to its methodology scientific knowledge is limited. How you interpret that knowledge, whether you like the produced knowledge or what you have to do if it conflicts with other types of knowledge is your personal or maybe a philosophical problem. Now the question is: Would changing the scientific method solve the problem? And the answer is No. You would not even be able to hide the contradictions. The only thing you would accomplish is to hide the fact that these problems are due to different methodologies.second opinion_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

—Drew Mazanec: “If for the sake of argument, metaphysical naturalism were disproven, would you be willing to rethink whether or not science should hold to methodological naturalism.” Most people practising methodological naturalism are not epistemological naturalists. They believe in the supernatural. So why should they rethink?second opinion_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, read kairosfocus’ post above. He is correct. We can make a design inference while knowing nothing about the designer.
But if we make an inference, then we do know something about the designer: we've limited the designer to the subset of designers who leave signs of their handiwork in Nature.Heinrich_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

F/N: I think onlookers may find the (still evolving . . . beta test) discussions here and here [as well as the UD weak argument correctives top this page, right] helpful as background to the exchanges above.kairosfocus_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

Quite the opposite. That was addressed to the opponents of ID.Drew Mazanec_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

---Drew Mazanec: "If for the sake of argument, metaphysical naturalism were disproven, would you be willing to rethink whether or not science should hold to methodological naturalism." Were you under the mistaken impression that ID embraces methodological naturalism?StephenB_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Science, as we now most commonly use the term, is simply seeking and understanding consistencies in nature that can then be put to use. Science should never be dogmatic because new observations will almost certainly be made and our best understandings will likely be passed by in a few generations. This means science can never be the arbiter of truth and those who think it as such are, very ironically, on the same plane as superstitious pagans. A great job as always, Barry.tribune7_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya: Indeed, you do not understand ID and the reasoning - if I may abuse the term - that you use here reveals a serious misunderstanding (or is it refusal to understand) of science itself. ---------- Concerning ID's refusal to stick an identity on the designer(s): 1. If we knew the designer we wouldn’t have a design inference or a design theory. ID would be a an irrefutably established historic fact. 2. If SETI searchers detect an intelligently designed signal (what they're looking for) will they then know who the designer is? Absolutely not. They will more information. Q: So where do Darwinists get this utter unscientific nonsense about having to identify the designer before making a design inference? A: The same place they found the inane "who designed the designer" infinite regression sophism - the void between their ears. "The fact that intelligent design doesn’t identify the source of design is not political calculation but precise thinking, refusing to go beyond what the scientific evidence tells us." The genetic code has crucial self-editing machinery that is itself encoded in the DNA. This means that the system had to be fully functional from the beginning - this fact creates yet another vicious circle in the long list of chicken/egg circles that Darwinists pretend don't exist.Borne_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Peepul, Excuse me for my oversight, but Dr. Ross has a book written specifically on the topic of comparing the various origin models that are available:
"Creation as Science" actually contains, in a 25-page side-by-side table, four models of creation: the Reasons to Believe (RTB - Old Earth) Model, Naturalism, Young-Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution, with a total of 89 predictive tests for each model.
Amazon here: Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars http://www.amazon.com/Creation-As-Science-Testable-evolution/dp/1576835782/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281221736&sr=8-1bornagain77_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, read kairosfocus' post above. He is correct. We can make a design inference while knowing nothing about the designer.Barry Arrington_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

Bilbo I, thanks for the heads up. As far as I can remember, I have not read Mr. Gene.Barry Arrington_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

After re-reading Barry's OP, whether I understand ID correctly or not is irrelevant as Barry explicitly asks us to only make two assumptions...
Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions: 1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose. 2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”
As such, it seems clear the specific conclusion Barry reaches is flawed as it makes unwarranted assumptions about the designer. Namely, Barry would need to add a third assumption similar to the following... 3. Third, let's assume the designer no longer exists, or is forever incapable or unwilling to present evidence that could be scientifically evaluated. However, as I mentioned earlier, it may be that I do not understand the theory of ID in that these assumptions are clearly present. So, to repeat my earlier question, Is assumption part of the theory of ID? If so, on what basis does reach this assumption?veilsofmaya_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Peepul, He has a book he recently wrote that he mentions here: Does the Probability for ETI = 1? Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054. http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1 amazon here: Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is http://www.amazon.com/Why-Universe-Way-Hugh-Ross/dp/0801013046/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top His biologist partner at Reasons wrote a book here: The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry - Fazale Rana: http://www.amazon.com/Cells-Design-Chemistry-Creators-Artistry/dp/0801068274/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281214002&sr=1-1 A video lecture of the book is here: The Cell's Design: How Biochemistry Reveals the Work of a Creator - video http://vimeo.com/8987671bornagain77_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply