Convergence is a hot topic these days because several theistic evolutionists are using it as scientific evidence for the existence of God.1 The most prominent scientists to fall into this trap are Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris. Both of them are impressed by certain similarities between Australian marsupials and mammals in the rest of the world. Nobody seems to have noticed that there are no antelope-like or elephant-like species in Australia and no kangaroo-like species in Africa. And what about primates? If primates are so important then how come there are no intelligent primate-like marsupials?
I was going to write a lengthy article about the teleological fallacy behind these attempt to prove intelligent design but, as usual, PZ Myers beat me to it. (Does he ever sleep? Is there more than one of him?) Check out We don't need teleology — so why bother?.
The bigger question is whether scientists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris (and Francis Collins) are (mis)using science to try and prove the existence of God. I think they are.
1. Strictly speaking, they are using it as evidence that there's a plan or purpose that's built into the laws of chemistry and physics. They may not specifically mention that the "grand design" is the work of God but nobody is fooled.
[Image Credit: BACKGROUNDERS]
There are also no marsupial bats or whales.
ReplyDeleteHow long before Ken Miller shows up to claim you are misrepresenting him?
Since there are over 20,000 species of land vertebrates, one can always find uncanny similarities between some of them.
ReplyDeleteBesides, teleology is not the only potential explanation - natural selection and structural/developmental constraints are far better candidates. I remember Dawkins using the Wolf/Tasmanian wolf similarity as a striking demonstration of natural selection in his Royal Institute Christmas Lectures series.
I believe that evolution has a general direction, (eg. increasing genome size) but it is entirely something else to hint at an intelligent grand design.
As your hero Gould once stated, the simple fact that we have always been in the Age of Bacteria demolishes the relevance of teleology.
One can argue that the ultimate purpose of evolution is the creation of human beings as convincingly as she can argue that the ultimate purpose of human beings is bacteria food.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD says,
ReplyDeleteHow long before Ken Miller shows up to claim you are misrepresenting him?
Don't hold your breath. He usually doesn't respond to his critics, especially if they're on the side of evolution.
I see that I was mistaken that the Dust-Up in Dover was over. Well, to pick up there as well as here, the question of whether there is such a thing as "fine tuning" is (or at least may be -- neither of us are cosmologists) a scientific question but the issue of whether it means there is an unquatifiable "purpose" or lack thereof to the universe is not. The same goes with convergence and facilitated variation. There's no doubt that they are science but the conclusions that both Miller and you want to draw from that science are philosophy.
ReplyDeleteMiller is as free to try to incorporate science into his personal philosophy as you are -- which you frequently attempt to do. Sure he is trying to use scientific arguments to bolster his case for the existence of God just the same way you and Dawkins and PZ and the rest try to use science to bolster your arguments for atheism. That's not the error. The error is confusing the two.
You claim that Miller confuses them but you produce one of the lamest "examples" I've seen this side of the Quote Mine Project:
Evolution really does tell us something deep and profound about the world in which we live—something that Darwin glimpsed but that is much more obvious today. As it turns out, there really is a design to life, but it's not the clumsy, interventionist one in which life is an artificial injection into nature, a contradiction of it's physical laws. Rather, it is a design in which life emerges from the laws of the universe around us. The conclusion is unavoidable, robust, and scientific. The elegant universe is a universe of life. And the name of the grand design of life is evolution.
Ummm, Larry, he's talking about evolution! Hello! He says nothing about purpose there and never claims that evolution needs purpose. I'm sorry, but the person who is reading Miller's work with biased glasses is you if you think that is anything but a straightforward, if poetic, statement of science. Doesn't life emerge from the laws of the universe? And saying that evolution "designs" life is nothing more than what Dawkins says. Maybe they are both wrong about that but neither of them are straying outside science.
The rest of your "examples" are ripped out of context from a chapter where Miller is clearly (to anyone not wearing blinders) discussing his philosophy.
What would you have said to me if I had written something like that and claimed the "the conclusion is unavoidable, robust, and scientific?"
I would have said your writing had got a lot better. ;-)
I'm willing to debate these issues with you but only if you stop being a hypocrite.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't understand my point. But I'll try again: you, Larry Moran, are perfectly free to try to use science to support your philosophy of atheism, just as Miller is free to try to use it to support his theism and even Dembski and Behe are free to use it to try to support their more restricted theism. What neither you, nor Dembski, nor Behe are free to do is to label your philosophy as "science." That is an error I've yet to see Miller commit.
john pieret says,
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't understand my point. But I'll try again: you, Larry Moran, are perfectly free to try to use science to support your philosophy of atheism, just as Miller is free to try to use it to support his theism and even Dembski and Behe are free to use it to try to support their more restricted theism. What neither you, nor Dembski, nor Behe are free to do is to label your philosophy as "science." That is an error I've yet to see Miller commit.
My position is that religious scientists should not try to use science to support their claim that God exists.
There are several prominent examples of scientists who have published books recently where there's a lot of science interspersed with theology. Why is that? Is it just a coincidence that they decided to write a book about two completely unrelated topics? Isn't it strange that in attempting to describe their religious beliefs they throw in a lot of science and sciency-sounding terms?
Almost everyone with a brain recognizes that these scientists are not only claiming that science is compatible with religion but that science actually supports religious claims. Claims such as the fact that the universe is designed by God for a purpose. Scientific "evidence" such as fine-tuning and convergence. A science-based "philosophy" such as Ken Millers "evolutionary cosmology" or Francis Collins version of theistic evolution [Theistic Evolution According to Francis Collins].
John, I don't understand why you bend over backwards in defending these religious scientists but go ballistic whenever I say that science provides no evidence for the existence of God.
My position is that religious scientists should not try to use science to support their claim that God exists.
ReplyDeleteThen, by the same token, atheistic scientists shouldn't try to use science to support their philosophical claims about God or the absence thereof.
There are several prominent examples of scientists who have published books recently where there's a lot of science interspersed with theology.
Sorta like how Dawkins and Dennett interspersed science with their philosophies in their recent books?
Is it just a coincidence that they decided to write a book about two completely unrelated topics? Isn't it strange that in attempting to describe their religious beliefs they throw in a lot of science and sciency-sounding terms?
Hell, it's no coincidence. They're plunking for their philosophies the same way that atheists have been for theirs and the way IDeologists have been for theirs ... all of them using sciency-sounding terms. The thing I'm commenting on is that, of all of the ones I've read, Miller has done the best job of clearly delineating when he is talking science and when he is talking philosophy.
Almost everyone with a brain recognizes that these scientists are not only claiming that science is compatible with religion but that science actually supports religious claims.
Let's try a little substitution:
"Almost everyone with a brain recognizes that these scientists are not only claiming that science is incompatible with religion but that science actually supports atheism's claims."
Yup. That works too.
John, I don't understand why you bend over backwards in defending these religious scientists but go ballistic whenever I say that science provides no evidence for the existence of God.
Larry, if all you said was that science provides no evidence for the existence of God, there would be no complaint from me (on this front -- I might still disagree with the particulars, and say so, on other grounds). But you frequently go further (perhaps only to stir me up, I realize), as in saying that a lack of purpose to the universe is a "scientific observation."
If I am "bending over backwards," it's just because that's the only way I can show the gander that there's sauce on his tail too.
john pieret says,
ReplyDeleteLarry, if all you said was that science provides no evidence for the existence of God, there would be no complaint from me (on this front -- I might still disagree with the particulars, and say so, on other grounds). But you frequently go further (perhaps only to stir me up, I realize), as in saying that a lack of purpose to the universe is a "scientific observation."
I maintain that this is true. There's no scientific evidence of purpose or direction in the universe. Do you think otherwise?
Stephen Jay Gould lays out the evidence that rewinding the tape of life would probably not lead to humans or even intelligent primates. I think he's doing science when he makes that point.
Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris disagree with Gould. They claim that the evidence suggests purpose. and direction. I think they're using science to bolster a theological belief.
If I am "bending over backwards," it's just because that's the only way I can show the gander that there's sauce on his tail too.
John, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that I'm wrong because I mix science and philosophy. Then you turn around and say that Miller doesn't do that. For example, you say ...
The thing I'm commenting on is that, of all of the ones I've read, Miller has done the best job of clearly delineating when he is talking science and when he is talking philosophy.
You are the one who needs a lesson on sauces and ganders.
I maintain that this is true. There's no scientific evidence of purpose or direction in the universe. Do you think otherwise?
ReplyDeleteNope. But I think there are philosophical/theological arguments for purpose and those can include arguments based on how the world is and what phenomena are real within the world.
Stephen Jay Gould lays out the evidence that rewinding the tape of life would probably not lead to humans or even intelligent primates.
I'll accept that, though I think it is only on the edge of science since, as far as I know, no one has proposed a way to test it at this time. Of course, Miller's and Conway Morris' arguments for convergence, including the emergence of some sort of intelligent life (Miller, at least, doesn't claim it would be human or necessarily primate) are equally science by your own standard then.
The point at issue here is the philosophical conclusion they want to draw from that sort of convergence, if it is, in fact, a real phenomena and that you want to make from the absence of such convergence if that is, in fact, the case. The absence of such convergence would not, of course, demonstrate the absence of purpose.
You're saying that I'm wrong because I mix science and philosophy.
Not quite. Of course science and philosophy cannot be kept hermetically sealed away from each other. I'm saying you're wrong because you call your philosophy science. Look, it is always possible I'm not explaining it right, so let me try again:
Miller and you are equally free to make arguments from the nature of the world to support your philosophical beliefs. Naturally, that includes the results of science, which are the best (you'd say only) source of information about how the world is and how it works. When you make these meta-scientific, philosophical arguments it is incumbent on both of you, as scientists, to make it clear that such arguments are not themselves scientific, given that one of the core values of science is clarity of expression about science. I think Miller is better at doing that than, say, Richard Dawkins or PZ or you. You often fail to distinguish between the scientific facts about the world and philosophical conclusions you draw from those facts.
On the other hand, if you want to claim that Miller is completely debarred from pointing to any scientific fact about the world in support of his philosophy, then so are you and any argument that you make in favor of atheism based on the scientific facts of the world is also an abuse of science. Anything less than equal parity is simply special pleading on your part.
Of course, if you really want to seal off the scientific facts of the world from philosophy, then I think atheists come out with the short end of the stick, given that those facts are much more central to your beliefs than they are to theists'.
John Pieret says,
ReplyDeleteI'll accept that, though I think it is only on the edge of science since, as far as I know, no one has proposed a way to test it at this time. Of course, Miller's and Conway Morris' arguments for convergence, including the emergence of some sort of intelligent life (Miller, at least, doesn't claim it would be human or necessarily primate) are equally science by your own standard then.
Bingo! I think that the proper interpretation of scientific evidence supports the idea that there's no purpose or direction in evolution. As you admit, grudgingly, this is science, albeit on the "edge." (By the way, something doesn't have to be "testable" in order to be investigated using the scientific way of knowing. If that were true then much of astronomy, paleontology, and history isn't accessible to scientific investigation. You don't really mean to imply that, do you?)
Miller and Conway Morris disagree. They think the science indicates that there is purpose and direction in evolution. So far, there's only one way that this purpose and direction could be explained and that's by saying God did it.
Now you and I both recognize that Miller and Conway Morris have stepped over the boundary into what you call "philosophy"—and I call superstition. But that's not the point. The point is that both Miller and Conawy Morris think they are using science to support their theistic point of view. That's why they are abusing science.
john pieret says,
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if you want to claim that Miller is completely debarred from pointing to any scientific fact about the world in support of his philosophy, then so are you and any argument that you make in favor of atheism based on the scientific facts of the world is also an abuse of science. Anything less than equal parity is simply special pleading on your part.
Atheism is the absence of belief in God (superstition). I maintain that science is perfectly consistent with a universe that does not contain supernatural beings. I maintain that if you apply the methods of science (rationalism, evidence) then very few religious beliefs pass muster.
I certainly do not claim that science can prove the non-existence of anything, including God.
When scientists use evidence from the natural world to support their theism, I think they are misusing the approach of rationalism and evidence. Their evidence is open to challenge and many scientists dispute it.
What troubles me about your criticisms is the special pleading you advocate to protect theistic arguments from criticism. You have no problem pouncing on me (or PZ or Dawkins) every time we mention science and religion in the same breath but you give free passes to Miller et al. because—for some mysterious reason visible only to you—they make a clear distinction between their science and their superstitious beliefs. They don't. Open your eyes.
Are you fooled by the fact that they say that science and religion are separate ways of knowing?
Then, by the same token, atheistic scientists shouldn't try to use science to support their philosophical claims about God or the absence thereof.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the single most effective counter-argument to the argument from design? So effective that even philosophers must acknowledge it? Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Which is a scientific theory.
I maintain that science is perfectly consistent with a universe that does not contain supernatural beings. I maintain that if you apply the methods of science (rationalism, evidence) then very few religious beliefs pass muster.
ReplyDeleteYes. You maintain it ... as a philosophy.
When scientists use evidence from the natural world to support their theism, I think they are misusing the approach of rationalism and evidence.
I am fully aware that is your philosophical position. As an empiric fact of the world, many good scientists manage to do just that and do good science. It certainly doesn't appear that your philosophy is essential to good science.
Their evidence is open to challenge and many scientists dispute it.
Well, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. All evidence is open to dispute. Are you saying mere dispute is good enough to render something nonscientific? That would have made Gould a nonscientist.
Have you seen instances where Miller has refused to yield to evidence?
You have no problem pouncing on me (or PZ or Dawkins) every time we mention science and religion in the same breath
No I don't. I pounce on you when you try to claim exclusive control of science for atheists. I have no problem with bashing religion or making arguments in favor of atheism. Just identify what you are doing as carefully as you would label any experiment.
... but you give free passes to Miller et al. because—for some mysterious reason visible only to you—they make a clear distinction between their science and their superstitious beliefs.
[Shrug] Strangely, all those other Chamberlain types seem to understand the distinction as well. Maybe you can't see what we all do simply because you are (willfully?) blind. If you cannot or will not understand philosophy, there's not much I can do ... except keep pouncing! ;-)
Are you fooled by the fact that they say that science and religion are separate ways of knowing?
Nope. I'm just not fooled by the dubious philosophy that science is the only worthwhile intellectual pursuit.
Bayesian:
What is the single most effective counter-argument to the argument from design? So effective that even philosophers must acknowledge it?
Yes, it turned out that the world showed that argument to be much less powerful than it originally seemed (though showing that adaptation can occur naturally is not the same as showing there is no design). If it was only a philosophical argument by Darwin, it wouldn't have had nearly as great a power. Which goes to show my point ... the world has and always will affect philosophy and any attempt to deny science to those who have a different philosophy than yours is simply trying to win the argument by definition.
Oh, and forget this stuff ...
ReplyDeleteDid you know the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a big Turner show?
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/jmw_turner/images.asp
Unfortunately it doesn't look like The Fighting Temeraire is included, though some of my favorites seem to be, including Regulus and Snow Storm, among others.
john pieret asks,
ReplyDeleteDid you know the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a big Turner show?
No, I did not know that ... and I would have been better off remaining ignorant since I can't get to New York any time soon.
Are you going to see it?
I'm sorry you can't get there.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping to see it but I've got this big trial coming up in September in Albany, of all places, and my weekends might be a bit crowded. Heaven and Earth might not move despite my best efforts. ;-)