ID and Catholic theology

_{Lord Ickenham

April 2, 2008

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

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

Father Michal Heller, 72, a Polish priest-cosmologist and a onetime associate of Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, the future pope, was named March 12 as the winner of the Templeton Prize.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801398.htm

In this recent interview came a critique of the intelligent design position as bad theology, akin to the Manichean heresy. Fr. Heller puts forth this rather strange argument as follows:

“They implicitly revive the old manicheistic error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design.”

Coming from a theologian, this is an astonishing summary of the Manichean heresy. Historically Manichæism is a form of dualism: that good and evil were equal and opposite forces, locked in an eternal struggle. In this distortion, the role of the all-powerful evil is replaced by chance? It is traditional Christian teaching that God forms (i.e. designs) creation. Does this make God the arch-rival of chanciness? It is difficult to see how the intelligent design perspective could possibly be contrary to Catholic teaching. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas speaks in his Summa of God explicitly as the great designer of the creation:

“… the “Spirit of God” Scripture usually means the Holy Ghost, Who is said to “move over the waters,” not, indeed, in bodily shape, but as the craftsman’s will may be said to move over the material to which he intends to give a form.”

The ID point of view is such a minimalist position it is amazing to see the charge of heresy– it simply does not have the philosophical meat necessary to begin to make this kind of theological accusation.

There are some points that Fr. Heller raises that are entirely consistent with an ID point of view:

“There is no opposition here. Within the all-comprising Mind of God what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation.” But “God is also the God of chance events,” he said. “From what our point of view is, chance — from God’s point of view, is … his structuring of the universe.”

In this quote, he is basically saying the there is no such thing as fundamental chance, only apparent chance. The apparent noise is really a beautiful tapestry viewed from the wrong side. Of course if there were discernable structure, then we could … well … discern it (this is the whole point of ID). The problem here is that Fr. Heller does not have a self-consistent position that one can argue or agree with, as his next quote shows:

“As an example, Father Heller said, “birth is a chance event, but people ascribe that to God. People have much better theology than adherents of intelligent design. The chance event is just a part of God’s plan.”

Now if I were picking from a list of random events to use as my illustration of chance acting in the world, childbirth would not be one of them. Does he mean the timing of birth, or the act of conception, or the forming of the child? If anything this is an extremely well-choreographed event that has very little to do with chanciness of any flavor. Here he seems to be going back, and saying that chance is real (not just apparent) – but God intends to have it that way. Once again, the ID position can also be reconciled with the existence of fundamental chance, but not fundamental chance as the only thing that exists in the universe.

In this interview, Fr. Heller does not seem to have a sophisticated view of how randomness can work together with intelligence, he also does not seem to have read any books by design advocates – the arguments he makes are directed to nonexistent opponents. For a physicist/theologian that is giving an interview upon the reception of his Templeton award, the only physics/theology that is offered is internally confused, and based on caricatures of the ID argument. My feeling is that if he actually read and considered the ID arguments we might find a kindred spirit.

Comments

garygagliardi: You say that what we perceive as law, chance, and intelligence are all the result of divine agency. Fine. But it seems to me that your treatment of chance, law, and intelligence denies the words of any meaning. ID takes chance, laws, and intelligence at face value. We know the mathematical characteristics of randomness, and so can identify elements of the painting that don't require reference to anything more than random chance. Likewise, we know the mathematical characteristics of things produced by mechanical laws, and so can identify elements of the painting that can be explained as due to mechanical law(s). If the painting is like the universe at large, then most of it (geometrically speaking) would be explicable by reference to these two causes, but there would remain small pockets that remain unexplainable by random chance, law, or a combination of the two -- pockets that contain complex specified information. We know of only one other true cause in the universe: intelligent agency. And we know that it can produce complex specified information, whereas chance and law cannot. By process of elimination, unless there is a fourth, unknown cause, intelligent agency of some kind must be the explanation of those pockets. But it should be noted that there can be no as-yet-undiscovered laws that will, after all, explain the remaining pockets, without reference to intelligence. Laws are simple. If there were laws (or sets of laws) which could explain the remaining pockets, then they would be so unlikely as to require reference to intelligence to explain the specific complexity or coordination. Consider: There is no empirical demonstration that the combination of only random chance and mechanical law can evolve "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful". All attempts to demonstrate this in a computer have failed. Non-trivial results are obtained only when computer programs are carefully designed, both in their overall structure and in their particular rules of evolution. (I.e., the input of "active information" is necessary.)j_{April 5, 2008
April
04
Apr
5
05
2008
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

-----gary: “Our disagreement comes down to my suggestion that the “law, chance, intelligence” syllogism doesn’t work because there is a fourth option, unknown principles that remain to be discovered.” All the evidence is against you on this one. I will not belabor the point that 2500 years of experience that refutes your claim, because that doesn’t impress you. Nor will I remind you that we have tested this hypothesis and found it to be sound. Against that, I have only your speculations about an unknown fourth principle and the salient fact that you have no reason to believe that any such thing exists. -- ---“Jargon aside, this seems to mean that ID accepts the idea that future discoveries could explain coded information.” Since all science is provisional, it is always possible that the explanatory filter could be wrong. It is also possible that the General theory of relativity could be wrong. It is also possible that young earth creationists are right. So, the responsible thing is to always point out that nothing in science is absolutely certain. -----“But have we really “tested” the idea that these syllogism actually works in determining a cause?” Yes, we have tested it. Each time we find human agency we find functionally complex specified information and each time we find functionally complex specified information. In philosophy we call that a bi-conditional. In science, it simple means that there is an extremely high probability that the explanatory filter works. There is nothing remarkable about this. Many sciences draw inferences to design. No one has ever proposed that they should abandon or compromise their methodology in anticipation of an “unknown principle.” -----“In the case of any other phenomena, has the “remainder” explanation using this syllogism has ever proven to be true (except artificial, man-made creations, which we will deal with in a moment)? Isn’t this exactly the type of thinking that we abhor in Darwinists?” No, it isn’t. But why would it bother you if it did. As a TE, you accept Darwinist ideology. That is what a TE is, a Christian Darwinist. I know that is a contradiction in terms, but there it is. You believe that God “designed” a non-designed Darwinian process. Also, you need to be advised that ID does not presume to detect “God’s intelligence.” It merely detects the presence of intelligence. It does not assume that God created the universe. That point alone refutes half of your argument. I indulge you in that part of the discussion only because you seem to have an interest in some of ID’s theological implications. Clearly, you have not addressed the scientific element at all. -----As I have said in every post and no one addresses, random chance and (non-human) intelligent cause explanations are simply different ways of saying, “We don’t know right now.” To say that either of these two categories MUST be true because we lack evidence for other explanatory principles right now seems to ignore scientific progress throughout history. That is your characterization of what ID is saying, and it happens to be wrong. We are saying, provisionally, that all the evidence points to three possible causes. So far, no one has discovered or even CONCEIVED of this fourth “unknown principle.” Apparently, your only reason for believing so strongly in the existence of something so unlikely is because you want to believe it. -----“IDs methods can detect (human) intelligence ONLY because human action is separate from natural forces…How do those methods work if the intelligent cause is also the cause of the laws of nature?” -----“HUMAN intelligence (which is the only real example we have) always leave the same clues, but why? Because humans do not have direct control of nature.” No, human intelligence leaves clues because, in every case, the EFFECTS of intelligence manifest themselves in the form functionally specified complex information. You are confusing the reason it is true with the method for discerning the fact. -----“However, the key different, the difference between controlling nature law as God does and using natural law, as man does, is not yet addresses.” We are made in the image and likeness of God. His superior intelligence corresponds to our inferior intelligence. God exhibits Functionally Specified Complex Information in is creation and human agents exhibit it in their creations. Remember, every time we find FSCI, intelligence is present. If, the relationship between God and nature were as you described, then God would not leave FSCI. Perhaps a comparison contrast between ID and TE will be helpful. According to ID, design is “perceivable” and can be “apprehended;” according to TE (your paradigm) design is merely “conceivable” and can only be “comprehended.” ID assumes that design can be taken in through the senses, or that it is “real” TE, like Darwinism, insists that design is illusory, except that it is “inherent in the evolutionary process.” The official TE position is this: God designed a non-design universe. Only those who are willing to twist logic and theology into a pretzel can accept such a proposition. -----“If there is no separation between the creating intelligence and natural forces, logically one cannot be identified as separate from the other, certainly not be the same methods that separate human intelligent action from natural action. There is no reason to believe that God is identical to, unified with, or bound by his laws in any way. On the contrary, it would seem that there is a separation between God and his laws. You have been trying to get a lot of mileage out of an erroneous assumption. Before I spend any more time chasing down this rabbit trail, you will have to convince me that God is “inseparable from his laws.” -----“Notice that I am not saying that God is limited to working through nature, but that any actions within or without of nature’s laws have the same exact source and we have no basis for telling them apart.” Again, the evidence is against you. If your assumptions were true, God’s intelligence would not manifest itself in the form of 500 bits of FSCI. God’s physical laws do not exhibit that quality. It’s as simple as that. What can I tell you? Science, common sense, and sound theology all testify to the fact that your assumptions about God and nature are unreasonable. -----“To say that God’s conceptions of physical laws are parallel to ours is the same as saying an inch is parallel to a million miles. They may be parallel, but they are not the same and rules what you can do with an inch of knowledge is not the same as what you can do with a million miles of knowledge. This is like saying that a flea’s knowledge of the world is parallel to ours and therefore saying that we are bound by a flea’s capabilities because we are in parallel. Please admit the flaw in this thinking.” Absolutely not. Our intelligence participates in God’s intelligence. That is the point that you do not understand or refuse to accept. He set things up so that we could detect the presence of his intelligence. You don’t realize it, I’m sure, but you are arguing for an irrational universe in which God’s handiwork is totally imperceptible. If your assumptions were true, then God could not reveal himself in nature, through 500 bits of FSCI, or in Scripture, through his word. More important, both revelations would be totally incomprehensible to us.StephenB_{April 5, 2008
April
04
Apr
5
05
2008
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

garygagliardi: Thank you for your detailed response. My main impression, from your comments, is that you are mainly interested in the philosophical-religious implications of the question, and just avoid the scientific aspect. That's OK with me, if we agree that your objections have really no scientific basis (if we had to accept your reasoning about possible new laws, all modern science should be discarded, and we would still be expecting to find necessary laws to explain random events; the whole quantum mechanics, and most biological and medical sciences would be superstitions). If we agree on that, I'll try to reply to your philosophical and religious arguments (I am stating that explicitly, because here at UD I always try to stick to the purely scientific approach). So, where is the philosophical problem with your statements? In my opinion, the main erros is in the use of the words "nature" and "natural". It is interesting that the same error, although in a different form, is at the root of many irrational arguments by darwinists. Personally, I would, and will, try to completely avoid those terms, because they have no specific meaning, unless we first agree on a very detailed general view of reality (does God exist or not? what kind of Gos is He? How does He interact with His creation? and so on). So, maybe you are speaking as you speak because of your religious assumptions, but in that case I cannot reason furtherly with you: I always respect religious asuumptions of people, but I can't and won't discuss them here. If, instead, you are making general, non faith based, philosophical points, then I must disagree with your religious philosohy. In your arguments, you make assumptions which are not only unwarranted, but in contrast with most reasonable approachs to the problems you discuss. The single most important point, for me, is that you assume that God expresses Himself "only" through what you call "natural laws". For instance, you say: "If, as you say, nature IS a manifestation of God’s thoughts and acts, how can we hope to perceive any difference between any “supernatural” acts of intelligence and natural actions?" And you repeat that point in many forms. Now, where is the problem? Let's just avoid the dangerous word "nature". In the context of our discussion, you are really saying: "If, as you say, "scientific deterministic laws" ARE a manifestation of God’s thoughts and acts, how can we hope to perceive any difference between any “non purely deterministic” acts of intelligence and natural actions?" THat way, the falsity of your statement becomes more obvious. Your statement would be true only if we accept the assumption that the "only" manifestation of God in reality (let's avoid the term "nature") are deterministic laws, in other words necessity. Personally, I can't see any reason to believe that, and I think that I probably am not the only one in that position. Because, you see, that assumption is not even true of human beings, who, according to the more general assumption that a God exists, are God's creation. In most religious paradigms, and in mine, human beings do not act "only" according to deterministic laws. They have intelligence. They have free will. Those two aspects of human consciousness (the transcendental aspect of their input/output system) are exactly what obviously defines them as different from material objects. One of the consequences of that transcendental aspect is that they produce huge quantities of information (CSI) which has the same characteristics of that which can be observed in the biological world. I think that the error in your reasoning is the same we can observe in all reasonings of the "theistic evolutionists". You seem to affirm: 1) That God acted out of the time-space frame when He created reality (and that's true, for me: the time-space frame is part of His creation). 2) That God doesn't act anymore "in" the time-space frame (not necessarily true, and certainly not true for me). 3) That anything, in the time-space frame, happens according to deterministic, necessary laws (not necessarily true, almost certainly not true at all. That would not explain human behaviour, if not in a completely reductionist, and fundamentally atheist, perspective. That would not explain quantum mechanics, and probably many other things). In other word, just to be clear, I believe that God acted and acts in structuring his creation at many levels. Deterministic laws are certainly a big part of His manifestation, but they are not all. Biological information cannot be explained in a deterministic (or random-deterministic) model, and we have very good theoretical reasons to believe that any unknown future model "of that form" will similarly be unable to explain it (although, obviously, as any other scientific theory, that is open to possible falsification: that's because it is a scientific theory, and it is not based on faith). So, are we left with just a cognitive failure, must we admit that we cannot say anything about biological information, and just accept it as a mystery, both at the scientific and at the philosophical level? Certainly not. That's where the existence of human-created information is fundamental. The existence of a similar kind of information, constantly created by a perfectly observable entity (humans), by means of a principle which, although unexplained, has, like all observable things, received a name (intelligence), allows are a very simple scientific and philosophical inference, absolutely warranted, that some principle "of the same kind" can be a very good explanation for what we observe in the biological world. A last note: you, like most theistic evolutionists, seem to constantly dismiss the main ID point, that what we observe in the biological world is in essence different from what we observe at the purely deterministic level of the material not living world. Biological information cannot be explained by necessity, or by randomness plus necessity. That's the point. We are not saying that it cannot be explained by "known" necessary laws. We are making the point (certainly falsifiable in principle, but not less valid for that, just the contrary!) that no explanation of a deterministic, or random-deterministic, form is possible for biological information. That's the point which has to be reasonably rejected, either at a scientific or phiolosophical level. That's not a sillogism, but a sound scientific and philosophical model, absolutely independent from any specific religious belief, although compatible with most of them.gpuccio_{April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

gary at 61
Since the divine is not subject to evidence, ID focuses on finding evidence for “intelligence.”
While that appears to be popularly repeated, it appears to be just an assertion. If we identify features we understand are caused by intelligence rather than by law or chance, then we can identify them, whether by human, alien, divine etc. e.g., by applying reverse engineering principles. You and Heller may dream up endless combinations wherein all is the mind or action of the Divine. That in no way limits the efforts of ID to develop methods that the common man can understand as distinguishing between what we commonly understand as "natural law", vs "chance" or "luck", versus recognizing evidence of intelligence that is complex and specified. e.g., by reverse engineering to recognize design principles and specifications not attributable to law or chance. The rest of your effort may satisfy you, but it appears sophistry for common communications where we seek to distinguish between atelic or materialistic neo-Darwinian evolution vs Intelligent Design. How can we apply this the way 95% plus of people will understand it? (compared to Heller not understanding ID and/or trying to confuse the issue to where his "theism" is indistinguishable from atelic materialism in terms of practical evaluation of nature.)DLH_{April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Your responses convince me that I must continue to explain this again and again until you either come to grips with my arguments or give up. All your responses take us away from simple language in which I tried to make my points, so I apologize if, in not understanding the jargon of ID, I have missed a salient point. I am a simple person, if you can 't explain without jargon, just say so. I will understand. Our disagreement comes down to my suggestion that the "law, chance, intelligence" syllogism doesn't work because there is a fourth option, unknown principles that remain to be discovered. In response to this, Peter says:
ID does NOT “assume that there is no fourth option of unknown principles available” and that’s why ID is open to being falsified by an unknown law or positive evidence showing that uniformly-working mechanisms can produce CSI via Indirect Pathways.
From StephenB:
If there is a fourth element, then so be it; the methodology will be changed to accommodate it.
And from gpuccio:
3) No known law can explain CSI (biological information) on a basis of necessity, and probably no law will ever can. If and when somebody tries to do that, we will evaluate his results.
Jargon aside, this seems to mean that ID accepts the idea that future discoveries could explain coded information. StepheB then goes on to say:
We are basing our methodology on empirical facts SO FAR DISCOVERED AND CONFIRMED OVER TIME, (2500 years) that only these three elements are in play. We haven’t just assumed it; we have tested it and found it to be true in every case.
But have we really "tested" the idea that these syllogism actually works in determining a cause? This syllogism is set up so that, as we learn more natural laws, known sources of phenomena are moved from the "random" and "intelligent" cause columns to the "law" column. Though we are talking here about complex information, at some point in time, every phenomena--gravity, light, electricity--has been put into one of these three columns. Every unexplained phenomena has been put in the "intelligent" cause category because people didn't didn't know the principles or laws behind it and they didn't think it happened by chance. This isn't only true of divine intelligent causes. The cows in the village gets sick with no apparent reason, is this chance or was a curse put on the cow by a witch? I do not offer this example to disparage ID, but simply to illustrate that, just because alternative explanations were not known, this does not mean that the "remainder" explanation of cause (if not this or this, it must be this) was correct. In the case of any other phenomena, has the "remainder" explanation using this syllogism has ever proven to be true (except artificial, man-made creations, which we will deal with in a moment)? Isn't this exactly the type of thinking that we abhor in Darwinists? They say that the cause MUST be random chance because there is no other explanation. Using this syllogism to identify causes is not the same as having new principles and laws outdated old principles and laws (Newton by Einstein for example). The "remainder" logic of this syllogism is not falsifiable in the same sense that laws and principles are. Explanations are put into the "chance" or "intelligence" categories based upon what we don't know, not on what we do know. I know that as I say this, your minds are running through all the "proofs" in ID, but for just a second and ask yourself: would we be using this syllogism as often as we do if our other proofs for ID were robust and persuasive? And, turning the idea around, would Darwinians rely on the same syllogism for their "proofs" if they have more robust evidence. I am tempted bring in something completely out of left field, such as global warming as another illustration: we don't know its cause so it must be man-made! As I have said in every post and no one addresses, random chance and (non-human) intelligent cause explanations are simply different ways of saying, "We don't know right now." To say that either of these two categories MUST be true because we lack evidence for other explanatory principles right now seems to ignore scientific progress throughout history. Now, let us deal with the conflating of divine causes with human causes and the methods by which they can be identified, which is the second point I am trying to make. Again, no one wants to address the arguments that I use. I will simply repeat them:
IDs methods can detect (human) intelligence ONLY because human action is separate from natural forces...How do those methods work if the intelligent cause is also the cause of the laws of nature?
Kudos for StephenB for having the courage recognized this argument and try to address it, but does his answer come close?
Because intelligence always leaves the same kinds of clues, regardless of who leaves them or regardless of the circumstances in which they were left.
HUMAN intelligence (which is the only real example we have) always leave the same clues, but why? Because humans do not have direct control of nature. I am assuming that we can all agree that there is a fundamental difference that is easily recognizable between the "artificial" (man-made) and "natural." It is artificial action that always leaves the same kind of clues, because they are fundamentally different than natural processes. Do you really think we can therefore make the leap to say that divine intelligent can be just as easily separated from the natural. Is it to, in your estimation, artificial in the same sense that human creations are? If that is the claim please say so directly instead of using the term "intelligence" to conflate to very different orders of "mind."
God created [A] a rational universe, [B] rational minds, and [C] a correspondence between the two. This proposition is NOT empirically verifiable; it is the starting point for all rationality. That means God’s rationality is infinitely superior to, but nevertheless proportional to ours.
My problem is the last part of this statement. Something that is infinitely superior is NOT proportional by definition. Especially when we don't mean just infinitely greater, but infinitely different. I will readily admit that I have no idea how a mind or intelligence that is outside of time works and cannot even imagine it. However, the key different, the difference between controlling nature law as God does and using natural law, as man does, is not yet addresses.
Therefore, intelligence, the logic of the mind, and the logic of the universe have been set up by God to work as a unit, and as a reflection of his intent for the way we should perceive rationality. That means that the “signs” of our intelligence mirror the signs of God’s intelligence.
This is a matter of belief, but I agree. Our intelligence mirror God's if by "mirror" we mean a dim, shallow, limited reflection. My problem is with reversing this proposition. This mistake is also made by gpuccio in his explanation of "proof" that CSI must be from intelligent causes that are not natural. God's intelligence had an infinite number of characteristics that we lack. ONE of those characteristics the complete control what we perceive as natures laws and chance.
If you don’t accept that as a given, you are not just rejecting some humble ID paradigm, you are rejecting rationality itself. Even atheists accept this point, albeit unconsciously, otherwise, they would not try to reason their way out of a paper bag, which as it turns out, they cannot do anyway.
Hey, I accept it. You are preaching to the choir. Do you see how it doesn't come within a mile of my very specific point: God's intelligence has control of natural law. It one sense, his will IS nature's law. Our intelligence does not define natures laws. We can identify human action because it works "against" nature, at least in the sense that our actions have a separate cause that God's actions. Notice that I am not saying that God is limited to working through nature, but that any actions within or without of nature's laws have the same exact source and we have no basis for telling them apart.
That is exactly what the great scientists of the past meant when they said that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” If God didn’t reveal himself in nature—if his signs in nature are not manifestations of his intelligence
Hold it! You are agreeing to me and Heller! Completely. READ YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT AGAIN!
—if we can’t distinguish between God’s thoughts and his actions
And then, after that long climb, you jump off a cliff! Why should there be any separation between God's actions and his thoughts? The separation in our thoughts and actions arises because we can only express our thoughts through a physical body which works through rules we do not control. Do you REALLY think the same is true of God?
—if God’s idea of randomness is not similar to our own—if God’s conceptions about physical laws are not parallel to ours—
I know you meant this seriously, but please think about the implications of these statements. First, does anything seem random to God? Isn't apparent randomness a function of our limited knowledge and temporal existence? To say that God's conceptions of physical laws are parallel to ours is the same as saying an inch is parallel to a million miles. They may be parallel, but they are not the same and rules what you can do with an inch of knowledge is not the same as what you can do with a million miles of knowledge. This is like saying that a flea's knowledge of the world is parallel to ours and therefore saying that we are bound by a flea's capabilities because we are in parallel. Please admit the flaw in this thinking.
if nature is not a manifestation of the way God thinks and acts—-then the universe is not rational and we can all go home.
Ah, we end where we can agree with a statement that explains the exact basis of the problem with using the examples of human intelligence to identify divine intelligence. Yes, nature IS a manifestation of the way God thinks and acts. As such, how do you expect to tell the difference between natural acts and divinely intelligent acts? Again, we can tell the difference between human and natural acts because nature is NOT a manifestation of our thoughts and actions. It is something separate and different so we can discern a difference. Is, as you say, nature IS a manifestation of God's thoughts and acts, how can we hope to perceive any difference between any "supernatural" acts of intelligence and natural actions?
“How do ID’s methods work if they do not try to detect the difference between an intelligent cause and a natural causes?”
garygagliardi_{April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

garygagliardi: Very briefly: 1) Unknown laws and unknown principles are not the same thing. 2) Laws are organized mathematical and logical relationships bewteen observable events. They are based on necessity. 3) No known law can explain CSI (biological information) on a basis of necessity, and probably no law will ever can. If and when somebody tries to do that, we will evaluate his results. 4) Abel and Trevors have very effectively argued in their papers that necessity (and therefore law) is in itself incapable to explain information. 5) About principles: I am not really sure what a principle could be (energy? matter? consciousness?), but I am pretty sure that, however you define it, intelligence could qualify. Intelligence is a principle which is both known and unknown: it is known in the sense of "observed", and it is unknown in the sense of "unexplained". 6) The observed and unexplained principle of intelligence does create CSI all the time. That is a daily observation which everybody can do. Therefore, being a principle which: a) exists b) generates CSI it is a very good explanation for CSI. 7) If you think that favouring hypothetical "unknown" principles, which are both non observed and unexplained, over the observed and unexplained principle of consciousness, is a good scientific, or even philosphical, position, then please yourself. I don't, and I hope that most reasonable persons don't.gpuccio_{April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

-----gary: “There is a flaw in the central syllogism offered by ID (which I have cited over and over in various forms from your posts). This logic goes, “If the cause is not a known law, nor random chance, then it must be intelligence.” -----“I humbly suggest that there is a fourth alternative: undiscovered principles.” You are suggesting that ID has not taken this into account. We are basing our methodology on empirical facts SO FAR DISCOVERED AND CONFIRMED OVER TIME, (2500 years) that only these three elements are in play. We haven't just assumed it; we have tested it and found it to be true in every case. If there is a fourth element, then so be it; the methodology will be changed to accommodate it. That is what high probability means; we are probably right, but we may not be. You don't get apodictic certainly in science. We understand its provision nature. Now let’s deal with your problem about the manifestations of Divine and human intelligence, namely the point that God’s intelligence may reveal itself in a radically different way. -----“IDs methods detect (human) intelligence but ONLY because human action is separate from natural forces. How can we think those same detection methods work to separate divine intelligence from natural forces if both have the SAME cause?” ----- “How do ID’s methods work if they do not try to detect the difference between an intelligent cause and a natural causes?” -----“How do those methods continue to work if the intelligent cause and the the cause of the laws of nature are one and the same?” Because intelligence always leaves the same kinds of clues, regardless of who leaves them or regardless of the circumstances in which they were left. God created [A] a rational universe, [B] rational minds, and [C] a correspondence between the two. This proposition is NOT empirically verifiable; it is the starting point for all rationality. That means God’s rationality is infinitely superior to, but nevertheless proportional to ours. Therefore, intelligence, the logic of the mind, and the logic of the universe have been set up by God to work as a unit, and as a reflection of his intent for the way we should perceive rationality. That means that the “signs” of our intelligence mirror the signs of God’s intelligence. If you don’t accept that as a given, you are not just rejecting some humble ID paradigm, you are rejecting rationality itself. Even atheists accept this point, albeit unconsciously, otherwise, they would not try to reason their way out of a paper bag, which as it turns out, they cannot do anyway. That is exactly what the great scientists of the past meant when they said that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” If God didn’t reveal himself in nature---if his signs in nature are not manifestations of his intelligence---if we can’t distinguish between God’s thoughts and his actions---if God’s idea of randomness is not similar to our own---if God’s conceptions about physical laws are not parallel to ours--- if nature is not a manifestation of the way God thinks and acts----then the universe is not rational and we can all go home.StephenB_{April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

There is a flaw in the central syllogism offered by ID (which I have cited over and over in various forms from your posts). This logic goes, “If the cause is not a known law, nor random chance, then it must be intelligence.” I humbly suggest that there is a fourth alternative: undiscovered principles.
Actually, "undiscovered principles" are more commonly known in ID circles as the "unknown law". Mike Gene discusses this indirectly. Atom, kairosfocus, jack krebs, some others and myself discussed it as well on UD. ID does NOT "assume that there is no fourth option of unknown principles available" and that's why ID is open to being falsified by an unknown law or positive evidence showing that uniformly-working mechanisms can produce CSI via Indirect Pathways. But Darwinists lack that evidence, or at least are not willing to point it out, and thus we refer to known causes. And while this is getting into philosophy, I don't see how an "unknown principle" can be considered a "cause". I would think it's only a cause once it's known, and thus becomes a law, one of the 3 already listed? I'll copy my final thoughts on the unknown law topic:
Jack did not seem to understand our reference to the “unknown law”. He dodged the issue by referring to an “interplay of many laws”. Well, of course. For example, snowflakes are crystals. Crystals are just the same simple pattern repeated. Simple, repeated patterns are not complex. Repetitive structures, with all the info already in H2O, whose hexagonal structure/symmetry is determined by the directional forces - ie wind, gravity- are by no means complex. However, repetitive structures, such as crystals, do constitute specificity. Snowflakes, although specified, are also low in information, because their specification is in the laws, which of course means that node 1 in the Explanatory Filter (Does a law explain it?) would reject snowflakes as being designed. Contingency/laws can explain complexity but not specification. For instance, the exact time sequence of radioactive emissions from a chunk of uranium will be contingent, complex, but not specified. On the other hand, laws can explain specification but not complexity. The formation of a salt crystal follows well-defined laws, produces an independently known repetitive pattern, and is therefore specified; but like the snowflake that pattern will also be simple, not complex. The problem is to explain something like the genetic code, which is both complex and specified. The point that Jack misses is that Node 1 need not only refer to just ONE law. It can be an interplay of laws, as in this snowflake example. Let me give a further example of an unknown law. Let’s say we found a 2001-style monolith on the moon and all the planets. Design would likely be inferred. But suppose later on we discover unknown processes (a Law) that is observed to create these monoliths in space as an emergent property of an interplay of processes. ID theory would be revised to take this Law into account. Similarly, formalized design detection in regards to biology is open to falsification based upon new observations. It’s possible there is an unknown Law operating upon biology. If evidence of this unknown Law were found, ID theory would need to be revised. The limits of this Law would be analyzed. For example, this Law may only operate under limited circumstances and be capable of producing limited forms of complex specified information. Now this is only in regards to self-replicating life; obviously a separate unknown Law or event would need to be found for OOL. But if positive evidence is uncovered that these Laws are capable of operating uniformly then the entire ID scientific program in regards to biology is kaput.
Patrick_{April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

I want to thank you, StephenB and EricB, for helping me clarify more precisely my problems with ID. The context here my defense of Heller's statement regarding the Manichean heresy. I am making two simple points. You keep conflating and mixing them up in interesting ways, but the points are simple and I think you realize that you haven't come to grips with them. First Point: There is a flaw in the central syllogism offered by ID (which I have cited over and over in various forms from your posts). This logic goes, "If the cause is not a known law, nor random chance, then it must be intelligence." I humbly suggest that there is a fourth alternative: undiscovered principles. What has been your response to this argument? I really don't see one, but when I say:
—”I am saying that we don’t know the processes by which this information arose [referring to the code in DNA].”
StephenB snipes:
How the process arose is irrelevant. Where are you getting this stuff?
But I never said those processes were irrelevant. I said we don't know them. Isn't this a simple truth? Does the fact that we don't know a principle mean that we can only explain it by intelligent action? Can you address my suggestion that the ID syllogism of "either known law or random chance or intelligence" doesn't work because it assumes that there is no fourth option of unknown principles available? Now let us try to keep that "faulty syllogism" problem separate from what follows. These points are related, but they are distinct. Conflating them will not help you understand what I am saying or me understand your responses. The Second Point: IDs methods detect (human) intelligence but ONLY because human action is separate from natural forces. How can we think those same detection methods work to separate divine intelligence from natural forces if both have the SAME cause? How do ID's methods work if they do not try to detect the difference between an intelligent cause and a natural causes? How do those methods continue to work if the intelligent cause and the the cause of the laws of nature are one and the same? This is where the Manichean heresy comes in because you are trying to distinguish a separation between divine intelligent action and nature's laws that cannot exist if God controls nature. This is not a matter of God "hiding," nor is it an argument about theology. If there is no separation between nature and God in the same way that there is a separation between man and nature, how do methodologies that detect a separation work? Do you really not understand this point? I have said this a dozen different ways, and all you seem to think is that I am saying that God can choose to "hide" his action, but my point and Heller's is much more substantial and central than that. If there is no separation between the creating intelligence and natural forces, logically one cannot be identified as separate from the other, certainly not be the same methods that separate human intelligent action from natural action. Both of these points connect to a third observation. This is only an observation and not a critique of ID. I believe that what we call "known law," "random chance," and "intelligence" are ONLY labels for our current state of our understanding of the events we observe. The distinctions among these three categories are artifacts the limitations of our knowledge of the universe. As we learn more about nature, more and more evidence moves from the "explained by chance and/or intelligence" category into the "explained by laws and principles" category. Of course, you can dismiss both of these points and my observation by saying that I don't understand ID. And, if you cannot discuss these points specitically or come to grips with the problems they pose, you are absolutely right.garygagliardi_{April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

ericB Very true. ID fully recognizes the possibility of providing for a false negative.tribune7_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

To garygagliardi, I understand that you recognize you may be missing something and I accept that you sincerely would like to come to a better understanding. Please allow me to try to clarify. 1) There is one misunderstanding that seems to me to run through many of your posts. You point out (correctly) that God has the option to work through laws and chance. Consequently, you are quite correct that such actions would be undetectable and indestinguishable from law+chance from the standpoint of science (and therefore of ID as well). [Side question: At times you seem to make the stronger claim that God can only do this and that his actions are necessarily always indirect and hidden and never distinguishable from undirected natural processes. I assume that is unintended. If intended, it appears to be an assertion without support. What is the basis for saying He cannot choose otherwise?] You keep asking how it would be possible for the methods of ID to distinguish divine intelligence from natural processes when God acts via these hidden means. You apparently don't realize yet that ID never claims or attempts to do so. Nor is God unique in being able to act in ways that make design undetectable. Consider the crime boss: "I want him eliminated. But make it look like an accident." ID advocates have always fully realized that intelligent agency may not be detectable, and they say so explicitly. Notice in my response above that I specifically distinguished "detectable" intelligent agency. Not all intelligent agency is detectable. ID never claims to prove the absence of intelligent agency. What ID advocates do claim is that intelligence can act in ways that produce effects outside the reach of undirected natural processes. When that happens, an inference to intelligent agency is justified. ID is not "arguing that the discovery of laws eliminates intelligence as a cause". It is saying that it eliminates the ability of science to justifiably (i.e. with supporting evidence accessible to science) infer intelligent agency. 2) ID never claims that it is impossible that science will someday discover something that will change our understanding. All science is tentative. All science is subject to being changed by future evidence, ID inferences included. What ID does claim is that, given the evidence available to science, there are specific cases of effects where the best inference available to science is the cause of intelligent agency. 3) You write "The right direction for anti-meaningless-chance movement, rather than attempting to prove design, is uncovering more and more of nature’s laws." The purpose of ID is not to decide whether chance is meaningless, or whether God can or cannot, is or is not, working through chance. This is Heller's fundamental misunderstanding. ID does not know or care whether what appears to science as chance has hidden intelligence behind it. That is completely irrelevant to what ID is doing. Take any position on the interpretation of chance that you want. It does not matter at all to ID -- really. Please believe me that the two are disconnected concerns. When you understand ID, you will see that is so. The ID inference only has application to those cases outside the reach of law+chance. 4) Finally, you write "As far as your response about my statement about the distinctions in ID between intelligent causes and divine causes, I understand why ID makes the argument and why the enemies of ID deny it. My point is simply, from the viewpoint of a scientist who is also a believer, those arguments don’t really matter at all because I believe that the intelligent cause is divine, which opens up other posibilities, such as the idea that we might not be able to detect that intelligence." When you fully understand why the distinction is made, you will see that it does matter -- even to the scientist who is a believer. It matters because the intelligence being inferred is many times not divine. Again, the point is not to reach a theological conclusion about chance or whether intelligence can operate through it. That is irrelevant.ericB_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Whether you approve of it or not, the specified patterns in a DNA molecule exhibit more than 500 bits of coded information. It doesn’t matter who coded it; what matters is that it is coded. -----gary; "Yes, again we agree. Now, what does that prove exactly?" For crying out loud, it indicates the presence of an intelligent agency. ---"I am saying that we don’t know the processes by which this information arose." How the process arose is irrelevant. Where are you getting this stuff? -----"I am saying that ID has done a good job proving that random chance is an unlikely explanation. I suggest that there may be a more useful scientific principle that we don’t yet know that does explain how information can get coded in nature and that finding those principles is the work of science and that finding them doesn’t disprove God in any way." Who is trying to do that? ----"I am also stating that merely citing “intelligence” doesn’t get us any closer to useful scientific principles than citing “mindlessness.” The problem is not getting closer to scientific principles. The problem is dismissive attitudes about science indicating the presence of intelligence. One step at a time please. --"-I also accept that we may never find a principle that explains it. This possibility says nothing about the utility of science or the existence of God." You still have not addressed the point that you support TE's who in turn accept the Darwinist explanation. why do you not dismiss TE for the same reason you dismiss ID, namely the fact that they accept an explanation that you consider inadequate.StephenB_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Sorry, missed and end blockquote before the "on this we totally agree" above. Maybe someone can fix it.garygagliardi_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

I have to go and may not come back to this thread again because, unfortunately, I don't really have the time and am letting my other obligations slip by indulging my enjoyment of civil discourse. (Plus I am embarrassed by all my typos since I cannot correct them.) So let me just answer StephenB at 61:
What you don’t seem to understand is that TE’s ASSUME that Darwinian processes are responsible.
Though I cannot speak for every believer, I can only say that most people who believe in God simply don't see chance in the same way that you and Darwinian atheists do. They don't believe that it is random and occurs outside of God's plan. Since Darwinian processes, by definition, are purposeless and directionless, they don't believe in evolution in the sense that you mean it. They simply mean that it can appear that way to us but only because God created the possible evolutionary pathways AND the environmental conditions.
Beyond that, your theological points are all speculative.
You are right in that I use a specific definition of God as the controlling source of the universe and its laws. Other beliefs about the relationship between God and the universe are possible. However, people from Aristotle to Einstein would have understood my definition because it is a pretty standard one.
We can’t know the mind of God; we can only try to make sense out of his handiwork.That is what science is supposed to do. On this we totally agree. Whether you approve of it or not, the specified patterns in a DNA molecule exhibit more than 500 bits of coded information. It doesn’t matter who coded it; what matters is that it is coded. Yes, again we agree. Now, what does that prove exactly? I am saying that we don't know the processes by which this information arose. I am saying that ID has done a good job proving that random chance is an unlikely explanation. I suggest that there may be a more useful scientific principle that we don't yet know that does explain how information can get coded in nature and that finding those principles is the work of science and that finding them doesn't disprove God in any way. I am also stating that merely citing "intelligence" doesn't get us any closer to useful scientific principles than citing "mindlessness." I also accept that we may never find a principle that explains it. This possibility says nothing about the utility of science or the existence of God. That is a scientific fact totally unrelated to all of your theological speculations. You keep citing my "speculations" as if I haven't said something fairly simple and specific. You use the word "speculations" to avoid dealing with the heart of the logical (not theological) problem that I have posed over and over again. Let me pose it once more and, if you want to ignore it again, fine, but please note the problem with addressing it instead of simply dismissing it as speculation. That problem is that we cannot distinguish between divine design and natural processes in the same was as we can human design and natural processes because natural processes are under the control of the divine. If your argument is that this statement is flawed because we do not know if natural processes are controlled by the divine, or that the divine might have intentionally left signs of his intelligence, please make those arguments. Simply saying that we don't know the mind of the designer doesn't address this statement at all. We don't have to know the mind of the designer to see that detecting divine design is a very different problem that detecting non-divine design. Until you address that issue, you are evading ID’s main argument. What issue? That DNA is code? That we do not know how that code arose? Are you really saying that ID's main argument is that 1) (human) intelligence is the only known source of code and 2) DNA is code, and therefore 3) intelligence (not human, I assume?) created DNA? Apparently, I have a much higher opinion of ID's main arguments than you do. Because I see them as arguments against chance not this particularly faulty syllogism. For one last time, the problem with ID is the central idea that everything must be explained EITHER by a) known principles, chance (in the meaningless Darwinian sense), or intelligence (in a vague meaningless sense).
garygagliardi_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

My point is that if the intelligent cause is divine, it cannot be identified by the techniques of ID. Of course. That's one of the fundamental -- and famously held -- points of ID. That the object is designed, however, can be reasonably determined. There are laws about which we are current ignorant. But you cannot postpone drawing conclusions based on the possibility of unknown information since advancement in knowledge is based on starting with the known, and regardless of what is learned in the future the present model could very well be the right one and, in the case, is certainly better than the one it seeks to replace. Note that the established model (Darwinism) is being propped up via anti-intellectual means. The simple truth is that ID is the best existing model for understanding life. But I agree ID should not become a dogma. No scientific theory should.tribune7_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

----"When you say, “There are only two explanations” and ask me to choose between them, you are saying that both intelligence and randomness explains DNA. I am saying that NEITHER explains DNA. They are both different labels of the same thing: ignorance." Well, of course, no one knows for sure. Do you not understand what is at stake here. We have two competing theories. Either the 500 bits of funtionally complex specified information found in a DNA molecule were designed or else an evolutionary pathway let up to it. That is what is on the table and that is what everyone is fighting about. If you want to declare both sides wrong, fine. I don't know anyone else who takes that position, but to each his own. Meanwhile, by siding with the TE's you are implictly arguing on behalf of an evolutionary pathway, because that is what they are assuming.StephenB_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

-----gary: "Let us put it simply: No known principles of science explain the emergence of DNA. It is an area of our ignorance. It may always be. Waving the magic wand of “random evolution” at it, doesn’t make us any more knowledgeable. Waving the magic wand of “intelligence” at it doesn’t tell us anything either. The random evolution people and intelligence people can argue all day long about how to explain our ignorance. Both can use their arguments to stop real science, which asks a totally different question, “What can we learn about it that is useful?” What you don't seem to understand is that TE's ASSUME that Darwinian processes are responsible. Beyond that, your theological points are all speculative. We can’t know the mind of God; we can only try to make sense out of his handiwork. That is what science is supposed to do. Whether you approve of it or not, the specified patterns in a DNA molecule exhibit more than 500 bits of coded information. It doesn’t matter who coded it; what matters is that it is coded. That is a scientific fact totally unrelated to all of your theological speculations. Until you address that issue, you are evading ID’s main argument.StephenB_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

tribune at 56:
I agree that this claim should not be made but — and this is where we get to criticize the critics — who is making it? I cannot think of any prominent ID representative who has come anywhere near close to saying this.
Again, you miss my point. You are right, ID does not distinguish between divine and other types of intelligence. My point is that if the intelligent cause is divine, it cannot be identified by the techniques of ID. As I have said before, I understand that great pride that ID takes in being based on the evidence rather than belief. Since the divine is not subject to evidence, ID focuses on finding evidence for "intelligence." The problem is that if the intelligence just happens to be divine, that form of intelligence is not subject to the type of evidence that ID claims to appreciate. ID contains a number of very good, solid points of evidence and argument against chance. The problem put when you put that evidence and argument into the equation (repeated many time above): "If you remove law and chance, the only explanation is intelligence." The syllogism leaves out the explanation that has proven explain unexplained evidence again and again throughout scientific history. There are laws about which we are current ignorant. Apply the your general rule of "the explanation of the evidence must be a known law, chance, or an intelligence agent" to trying to unravel any piece of ill-fating evidence in scientific history. Does it ever work? Wasn't the real answer always option number four: an unknown principles of science?garygagliardi_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

StephenB at 57:
—–gary: There are only two explanations for the coded information in a DNA molecule: [A} it was designed or {B} it formed by way of a Darwinian evolutionary pathway. If {A} is proven, “{B} is falsified, and vice versa. Therefore, you must choose between them. You cannot logically declare both to be false in the name of open-mindedness.
This is a very useful illustration of my point about the line being between the principles of science we understand and those we do not. When you say, "There are only two explanations" and ask me to choose between them, you are saying that both intelligence and randomness explains DNA. I am saying that NEITHER explains DNA. They are both different labels of the same thing: ignorance. Let us put it simply: No known principles of science explain the emergence of DNA. It is an area of our ignorance. It may always be. Waving the magic wand of "random evolution" at it, doesn't make us any more knowledgeable. Waving the magic wand of "intelligence" at it doesn't tell us anything either. The random evolution people and intelligence people can argue all day long about how to explain our ignorance. Both can use their arguments to stop real science, which asks a totally different question, "What can we learn about it that is useful?"garygagliardi_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

StephenB at 53: --gary, Nothing personal, but your post is far too long to respond to every point. I agree completely, and, the choice is between long posts where I get a lot done in between or keeping on-line answering people remarks like this all day. ---TE’s want to have it both ways. They want to incorporate irrational Darwinism into rational Christianity. That is why the composite is irrational. It can speak for "TE's" (and don't even know if I fit the definition), but the points is that from a believers point of view only the plan exists. The "Darwinist randomness" is simply an illusion of our limited knowledge. I am sorry if you don't understand that. You say that I am trying to disprove the design inference by resorting to theology when I say, "for the believer, there is no difference between natural laws and God’s will any more than there is a difference between chance and God.” I am not trying to disprove it, I am only saying why it is irrelevant to a believer. If your argument is that ID is only for non-believers, I can understand you point. You go onto say that, "To eliminate law and chance as a cause is to turn to intelligence as the best explanation. You make this kind of design inference every day. You made it when you attributed agency to the paragraph I just wrote." I agree, this is my point about there being a fundamental difference between human, if you will, artificial causes, and divine causes. We can separate artificial causes from natural one because man is clearly not the cause of nature. But on what basis can we separate divine causes from natural one IF God is the cause of nature? You say that, "The point is, every time we have found intelligent agency at work, we also found specifically complex patterns. Therefore, we see these same specifically complex patterns in a DNA molecule, we recognize it as an effect of intelligence." Correct, prior to the discovery of DNA, we knew of only one source of coded information, that is, human intelligence. ID can go fairly far in proving that coded information cannot arise from random processes. The specific question is: can unknown laws of chemistry and physical create coded information? Or, do we assume that because we don't know of such principles, that they do not exists and that an intelligent (divine or not) necessary? When I compare ID to trying to decipher the different intentions behind brush strokes on a painting, you say, "That is precisely what ID does not do. It does not pretend to know the mind of the painter. It only detects the presence of the painters mind." You miss the point. If ALL the brush strokes come for the painter, how can you distinguish among them? Your methods only work if there are separate causes. You say you don't pretend to know the mind of the painter, but you pretend to know what is and isn't his work while denying that you are assuming that there are two different hands at work. If it is all (what we call law, chance, and intelligence) the work of the same hand, how can you distinguish between them? You say, "Intelligence is not ruled out to discern law and chance; law and chance are ruled out to discern intelligence." My point is if what we call law, chance, and intelligence our merely description in our understanding and do not aspect of the source, you are saying nothing useful here about a cause.garygagliardi_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

-----gary: There are only two explanations for the coded information in a DNA molecule: [A} it was designed or {B} it formed by way of a Darwinian evolutionary pathway. If {A} is proven, "{B} is falsified, and vice versa. Therefore, you must choose between them. You cannot logically declare both to be false in the name of open-mindedness.StephenB_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

However, you leave your good work open to attack by claiming that you can prove design. Good work is always open to attack :-) And I agree that those who claim it can "prove design" are using a very unwise (and inaccurate) choice of words. "Indicate", "show", "demonstrate" would be fair, though. The problems arise when you claim that your methodology can distinguish between the actions of ONE intelligent when that source acts through the natural world and outside of it. I agree that this claim should not be made but -- and this is where we get to criticize the critics -- who is making it? I cannot think of any prominent ID representative who has come anywhere near close to saying this.tribune7_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

-----"DLH at 50: Perhaps a change of perspective will help. Do you agree that, if the laws, chance, and intelligence all have the same source behind them, then we may not be able to discern among them and that the distinctions that we draw among them may say more about the state of our knowledge than it does the cause?" I don't know about DLH, but I would disagree with that statement. When I detect design from an ancient cave man's dwelling, I can distinguish between the design and the materials/ physical efforts needed to pull it off. Only if I can make the distinctions between law, chance, and agency, (including natural forces unrelated to the cave man's creative efforts) can I draw the inference about intelligent agency. The same inference, by the way, that you would draw. {DLH I endorse StehenB's comments}StephenB_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Tribune at 51: I agree with you completely on the good that ID is doing in terms of pushing back against Darwinian paradigm because ID has demonstrated scientifically the limits of chance. However, you leave your good work open to attack by claiming that you can prove design. You are attacked by the atheists as using "intelligence" as a Trojan horse for God and by the religious, like Heller for creating a false separation between the actions of God and the purpose of natural law. Your claim for your methodology only applies to identifying two DIFFERENT sources of information, an intelligent agent and the natural world. The problems arise when you claim that your methodology can distinguish between the actions of ONE intelligent when that source acts through the natural world and outside of it. As I said, this problem doesn't arise for those who believe that the intelligence is alien rather than divine, in which, I readily agree your methods could, at least theoretically, work.garygagliardi_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

gary, Nothing personal, but your post is far too long to respond to every point. Here are a few highlights: -----“Ideas matter. The reason that the Darwinist ideas are so destructive is that they seek to deny purpose and meaning to the universe. Since the laws of nature keep indicating that the universe makes sense and that we have a special role in the universe, the Darwinist’s real battle ends up trying to maintain the veil of ignorance so that they can ascribe divine power to random, meaningless, chance. TE’s want to have it both ways. They want to incorporate irrational Darwinism into rational Christianity. That is why the composite is irrational. It posits both an “internal principle” unfolding according to a plan, and an anti-internal principle, Darwinist randomness. It is a contradiction in terms. If baffles me that more folks don’t understand that. -----“Finally, StephenB seems to think that when I describe the laws of science as the mind of God I “attempt to refute intelligent design by ignoring the science and appealing to theology.” I am not. I am just saying that, for the believer, there is no difference between natural laws and God’s will any more than there is a difference between chance and God.” With all due respect, you promptly did the one thing that you said you would not do---you appealed to theology. Address the methodology of a design inference without resorting to theology. -----“Stephen says, “What our unqualified experience tells us is that once law and chance has been eliminated, intelligent agency is the best explanation.” This statement is as anti-science as Darwinian chance. Once you start arguing that the discovery of laws eliminates intelligence as a cause, you are going in the wrong direction. Discovering laws is NOT disproving intelligence.” To eliminate law and chance as a cause is to turn to intelligence as the best explanation. You make this kind of design inference every day. You made it when you attributed agency to the paragraph I just wrote. -----There is a distinction here between the acts of intelligence that we make in a universe outside of our control, and the acts of an intelligent God in a universe of his own creation and control. Yes, we can delineate between our intelligent acts and those of the natural processes of the universe because there are two separate sources of causation at work: ourseves and the universe. Does this mean that we can delineate between intelligent acts of God as separate from the processes of the universe that are totally within his control? If the processes of the universe are not his intelligent acts as well, what are they? The point is, every time we have found intelligent agency at work, we also found specifically complex patterns. Therefore, we see these same specifically complex patterns in a DNA molecule, we recognize it as an effect of intelligence. -----The argument for ID is a little like saying that we can look at a painting and identify which brush strokes the artist was really thinking about when he made them and which he didn’t put a lot of thought into. We accept that everything on the canvas was put there by the painter, don’t we? If all the brush strokes arose from intelligence, we should talk about the ones we understand and the ones we do not, but our criticism says more about us than it does the painter. Our arrogance can pretend to know the mind of the painter, but aren’t we just fooling ourselves? That is precisely what ID does not do. It does not pretend to know the mind of the painter. It only detects the presence of the painters mind. It is the TE’s who arrogantly tell us that we cannot make any such inference. -----“I realize that people that support ID have a lot emotionally invested in its importance, especially the importance of dividing “intelligence” from God. EricB says, “It would be a mistake (one Heller appears to make) to think ID is delineating between God and nature. ID delineates between the undirected causation (i.e. law and chance) and directed causation (i.e. choice) that is empirically detectable.” This argument has two holes. First, it sets up the claim that if causation cannot be proven to be intelligently directed that it is, in fact, undirected. Second, it assumes that directed causation can be empirically detectable in some form other than what becomes known as scientific law. Again, if we assume that the existence of scientific laws disproves intelligent causes, we are going down the wrong path.” It isn’t that complicated. Once again, you are doing the process backwards. Intelligence is not ruled out to discern law and chance; law and chance are ruled out to discern intelligence. The process by which we detect intelligence in a cave dwellers drawing is the same process by which we detect intelligence in a DNA molecule. Using your standard, we could do neither.StephenB_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

DLH at 50: Perhaps a change of perspective will help. Do you agree that, if the laws, chance, and intelligence all have the same source behind them, then we may not be able to discern among them and that the distinctions that we draw among them may say more about the state of our knowledge than it does the cause?garygagliardi_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

which opens up other posibilities, such as the idea that we might not be able to detect that intelligence. Which would be the case if we couldn't but what if we could? :-) I can distinguish between the intelligent acts of people and acts of the natural world because there are two, separate sources of information. But that is an artificial, and non-applicable, distinction. You have a methodology. You claim it can find design. You test it on objects of known designed and undesigned origin. It seems to work. You apply it to something of unknown origin. It indicates it to be designed. Why should one be discouraged from pointing this out? Now, it could be -- since we are talking about science -- that the methodology might be one day falsified, so if your concern is that one should not base one's religious convictions on this methodology I agree with you completely. That does not mean, however, the methodology is something that should be ignored, hidden, shouted down, nor does it mean it is irrelevant. Further, you can't ignore that neoDarwinian paradigm has transcended the boundaries of science and has caused much ill in the world. It seems if one wants to object to ID on grounds of religious dogma one should be shouting much louder at neoDarwinism. If ID pushes Darwinism back to the narrow realm of science it will be useful for that alone.tribune7_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

gary ast 46
If the intelligence is divine, there is not way to separate it from nature since nature also has a divine cause.
ID is only seeking to distinguish between the portions that are expressed as "law" vs as "chance" vs as (human recognizable) "intelligence" whatever the source. ID says nothing about whether "law" or "chance" or materialistic or not. By the anthropological principle or fine tuning, some like Gonzalez do seek to identify aspects of the Universe that do appear to reflect intelligent causation. DLH_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

andrew re: "is that they are quislings" Stick to objective logical arguments and avoid the ad hominem attacks.DLH_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Andrew, a reading of posts from 30 to 46 may explain the problems that believers have with ID. It has nothing do to with ID not being scientific. It has to do with distinguishing between intelligent DIVINE causes from natural causes that comes from the same source.garygagliardi_{April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply